John Chane charges the traditionalists with the crime of certainty. This is a commonplace. It is a corollary of the reigning intellectual culture among the intellectual elites of the West. It is a consequence of the dogmas of post-modernism. It is based on the conviction that there is very little that can be known with certainty, perhaps just a very few “facts” of science, perhaps not even them. The dogma at work here is the ironic post-modern dogma of the certainty of uncertainty. Consequently according to this post-modern dogma, to claim certainty in the area of beliefs and values is immoral and especially so given the huge variety of religious and philosophical options. The high dudgeon of the well educated university grad schooled in the dogmas of post-modernism is reserved for anyone who has the audacity to claim certainty in the area of religion, morals and beliefs. This is seen by people such as John Chane as an example of immorality and trying to force your beliefs on others. People who are morally and religiously certain create alarm. They are in Bishop Chane’s words, dangerous.
This protest against certainty claims the moral high ground and sounds on the surface as though it is based on a generous tolerance. This supposed moral protest in the name of tolerance needs to be unmasked as exactly the opposite, the dismissive and marginalizing rhetoric of the powerful who seek to protect their own agenda from critique on the grounds of any transcendent authority. It is precisely an attempt to force your beliefs on others before any argument is engaged by virtue of the way in which the rules of discussion are established. It is saying, in effect, ” before we talk you must agree that your beliefs and values are the sort of thing that I say they are and I say they can never be more than one opinion among others. If we are to talk, you must give up all your truth claims before you come to the table. With regard to the rules of the table, I will be the final referee.”
And this is precisely what I meant when I wrote about the liberal belief in infallibility and their role as the Chosen. L
I would not choose Chane as Deacon, Priest or Bishop. I disagree with his view of the Gospel. I do give him credit for allowing joint oversight of All Saints Chevy Chase with the Bishop of South Carolina, and for having allowed Paul Zahl and Marcia Wilkinson to serve on the clergy staff there.
A very insightful and accurate article, thanks for posting.
How can Bishop Chane be so certain that those whom he chooses to criticize are wrong? How does he justify overthrowing 3,000 years of theological work and deny the faith of millions of believers?
What, precisely, does he use as Urim and Thummin in making his pronouncements? Does his authority come from his three ordinations, as Deacon, Priest, and Bishop? Does his authority reside in the ancient instruments of the faith (the Creeds and the XXXIX Articles)?
Does his authority depend on his recent award of an honorary Doctorate?
Does he pass the Francis Schaeffer test? Much confusion could be eliminated if we could determine what Chane relies on. What is his means of transportation? What is his level of faith in his housing and his office? For what would Chane be willing to die?
And the central issue: as a Bishop of the Church, what faith does he defend and promote?
As he mouths the words of the Ancient Creeds (when he can be troubled to use them), what internal censor kicks in to allow him to justify to himself his re-reading of the words with some private, secret translation in effect?
This man is the prisoner of his own insincerity.
Whew. Nice work, Dr. Harding.
What strikes me most about Chane and TEC is that their theological and philosophical groundings are so outdated. It’s as if their views were frozen in 1968. Even Harvey Cox has moved on. When Chane speaks I think I’m hearing the clerical equivalent of Austin Powers.
The conclusion,
[blockquote]Bishop Chane’s protest sounds high minded and tolerant but it is in reality the rhetoric of the despot who is beyond rebuke[/blockquote]
Is well supported by Dr. Harding’s argument, although the term “despot” will inflame the “the dismissive and marginalizing rhetoric of the powerful.”
There is no absolute truth in this “new” way of thinking. Everything is relative.
To quote Dr. Harding, “This protest against certainty….” There is a dogmatic insistence that there is no knowable certainty. In fact, the only thing we’re certain of is that there is no certainty.
Oops…. (*POP* goes the balloon!)
Thank you for Dr. Harding’s article. Although the Church is embroiled over homsexuality, there still remains the Church’s history of public advocacy for abortion-on-demand, even in defense of the partial-birth abortion procedure. This was reported in The Living Church, 2-16-97 and if not in their archives should be available through Executive Council records.
Needless to say, if the Church can manage to outmaneuver the scrutiny of the American public, it will not be difficult to do so beyond its borders.
I hope the Archbishop of Canterbury – who wrote so elequently about abortion in his Tsunami Statement – will find a way to confront the Episcopal Church with its abandonment of the unboron