Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Thursday was, as expected, a very long day (and a significant “break” in our routine). I think it was quite a good day, the highlight (for me, at least) being the “rally” on the front lawn of Lambeth Palace. Archbishop Williams was at his most eloquent, but the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was even more so, in his passionate call for the governments of the world – but even more so for the Christians of the world to pressure their governments – to recommit to the Millennium Development Goals, and make them a reality.
If you have seen pictures of that event you may have noticed an oddity: hanging on the twin pillars outside the entrance to the Palace were banners enunciating two of the three phrases from the day’s text, Micah 6:8. One read “Do Justice,” the other “Love Mercy.” Missing altogether was third piece of the command: “Walk Humbly With Your God.”
Fortunately, however, that third (and arguably most important) piece was not at all neglected by any of the day’s speakers.
Frankly, I cannot recall hearing an elected official, serving in anywhere the capacity of a Prime Minister of England; speak so openly about his/her personal faith in Christ and its implications for service.
The rest of the day was lovely, and it unfolded as was planned and expected.
Today the “revolt” I have been predicting began to surface. It is a very mild one, indeed, but a growing frustration is being expressed in many of the “Indaba” groups about what one senior Bishop called the “jejune” conversations taking place, to the neglect of the truly deep concerns that most people want to talk about. It is also a concern about “process” – breaking into small groups to discuss every specific may provide for “every voice being heard,” but the fact is, not every one wishes to speak to every specific issue.
Our group, and several others, did away with the small group structure altogether today, and we had a discussion of the whole: in 90 minutes 16 out of 36 people spoke, and the others were glad to listen. The subject today was “The Bishop and Other Churches” (read: ecumenical cooperation).
There is a growing “push” to get to the issues that remain of greatest concern at this moment in our history: Human Sexuality and the Anglican Covenant. We have only seven working days left, ten hours of “Indaba” discussion: We shall see what the next week brings.
The Bible Study today was on John 8:31-59, and the two statements of Jesus that our commentary/study guide termed the “high point” and the “low point” of John’s Gospel. “High point”: Jesus’ unqualified assertion, “Before Abraham was, I am.” (verse 58) And the “Low point”: his accusation that “the Jews” were “from your father, the devil…” (verse 44)
The commentary acknowledged that this verse has been cited by many throughout Christian history as a basis for anti-Semitism, and it asked us to consider carefully that “the Jews” in question were among those “who had believed in [Jesus].” (8:30, 31) This was not a condemnation of all Jews everywhere; this was a condemnation by a Jew (Jesus) of other Jews, who had – on some level, at least, and in some fashion, at least – believed in him. (Could there be implications for any of us, today? Is it possible that we might “believe” inadequately enough that he would have harsh words for us, as well?)
Our group got into a very interesting discussion at that point, and we reached no consensus. The question was: is it possible for someone who says, “Jesus is ‘my way’ [or, perhaps, ‘our way’],” but who cannot say, “Jesus is ‘the way'” – to be a real Christian?
(We were in full agreement that such a limited confession is “sub-Christian,” but some thought that a person able to make even that much of a confession might be trusting Christ sufficiently for his/her salvation that when the time comes Jesus will not say to that person, “Depart from me, I never knew you.” Others were convinced that putting such qualifications on one’s confession effectively puts him/her outside the Family.)
I will be interested to see whether this begins a thread on the list serve!
It reminds me of the Final Exam Jaroslav Pelikan asked at the end of his “History of Christian Theology” course at Yale: “Must Theology be Trinitarian to be Christian?” A one word answer was not sufficient!
(BTW, I got an “A.”)
If our Conference unfolds as currently planned, the topics remaining are:
July 26 – The Bishop and the Environment
July 27 – Sunday Worship
July 28 – The Bishop, Christian Witness and Other Faiths
July 29 – A Plenary Session, no topic announced
July 30 – The Bishop and the Bible in Mission
July 31 – The Bishop and Human Sexuality
Aug 1 – The Bishop, the Anglican Covenant and the Windsor Process (1)
Aug 2 – The Bishop, the Anglican Covenant and the Windsor Process (2)
Aug 3 – The Bishop as a Leader in God’s Mission
August 4 – my bus leaves for Heathrow at 4 AM.
Thanks for your prayers and words of encouragement.
Warmest regards in our Lord to all of you,
–(The Right Rev. ) John W. Howe is Bishop of Central Florida
Thank you for your regular reports. These are welcomed back home in Central Fla. I have a question/concern regarding your entry: “my way”, “one way”, “Jesus is the only way”, etc..
In one of your parishes, I was once told I could not participate in any leadership capacity unless I signed a form. This form stated that I would agree (believe?) and support YOUR positions and teaching within the Diocese. (Please Note: This particular parish is one that recently left our Diocece and TEC.) If this is still, in fact, a Dio. Policy, then it seems I need to know how YOU would answer this question, as your position would take precedence over mine.
It was made clear to me that while “my opinion” may remain as “mine”, I would never serve in any leadership capacity (including the Choir!) unless I agreed and abided by YOUR positions. More specifically, if you and I disagree, am I still allowed to participate fully in my Parish’s duties/activities? Obviously, other questions may arise that are similar. I suppose the important underlying question is: How much may I “differ” from you (and/or TEC, The Anglican Communion, etc.) and still remain a full and active member in one of your Parishes? I know you are dealing with much larger issues and questions and that this is only one question from one person. (BTW, I find great spiritual comfort in the Parish I attend.)
Please take this as an honest question. No satire, baiting, or critical comment is intended!!! This is a true, personal, religious and moral dilemma for me. While I was initially appalled at this “litmus test”, I have continued to attend at Cen. Fla. Dio. Church, (including donating money and time) but have not served in any leadership way. Will what happens at Lambeth be of any help in guiding people like me?
Thank you, in advance, for your time and consideration.
I’ve been appreciating Bishop John Howe’s regular postings.
About the low point in the Bible study, the Bishop of Durham in his group might have provided some helpful comments in his group. In his excellent little commentary on John (John for Everyone, Part 1) Bishop Wright doesn’t employ the word ‘Jews’. He uses ‘Judaeans’. On page 127 he says, “It should hardly need saying that the ‘Judaeans’ here are not intended to represent ‘Jews’ in general, then or now. Jesus and his followers were after all Jewish as well, and so were people like Nicodemus who had already begun to follow him (7:50). The ‘Judaeans’ are the first century Jerusalemites, to whom Jesus came as ‘his own’, and who did not receive him(1.11).” On that basis, any further accusations of anti-semitism levelled against the Gospel of John ought to be dropped.
Fla Oblate is mistaken. There is no Diocesan policy that lay leaders must agree to and abide by Bishop Howe’s opinions. The only possible thing he/she may be thinking of is the Bishop’s requirement that Lay Eucharistic Ministers (over whom bishops have the power of licensure) must certify that their manner of life reflects Christian standards. It may be that a Rector misused the Bishop, in effect, projecting his or her standards on the Bishop rather than taking responsibility for setting them him/herself. If so, that is unfortunate. Or it may be that Fla Oblate is simply mistaken.
John Liebler
I’d like to thank Bishop Howe for his reports; I’ve come to look forward to reading them, since they seem to me the most straightforward, authentic, and readable of the bishops’ blogs. I appreciate the time and energy it must take to compose and send them in such a setting as Lambeth, where time and energy must be valuable commodities indeed.
Some thoughts on the question raised in the Bible study: in verse 44 Jesus is addressing a group of Jews (or Judeans) who had believed in Him and who are evidently now rejecting Him — presumably insulted by Jesus’ implying that they are not free, and refusing to believe that they are enslaved to sin — a slavery from which being descended from Abraham will not free them.
The lesson I take from this is that only Jesus can free us from the sin to which we are enslaved, whether we know it or not. The Judeans in the story had believed Him, so must have known something of Him, and yet out of pride they rejected Him, hence His harsh words. I’m not sure that this is a case of inadequate belief as we would understand it or apply it to ourselves — maybe something more in the line of apostasy.
Scripture is clear here that Jesus is the way; I firmly believe it to be true, but get very uncomfortable about making pronouncements about the salvation of others, especially those of other faiths. My feeling is that any who truly seek God will ultimately find Jesus and be saved (I’m reminded of the lovely story at the end of C.S. Lews’ book [i] The Last Battle, [/i] where the Calormene Emeth learns that he has really been seeking Aslan all along). One thing I am sure of is that Christian leaders have no business spouting the “Jesus is one way [or ‘vehicle’] to the divine” nonsense.
The “Depart from me, I never knew you” — the most frightening words I can imagine — are in Matt. 7:23 and are directed at the many who prophesied, cast out demons and worked miracles in the Lord’s name, perhaps assuming that they automatically had a place in Heaven, but weren’t really doing the will of the Father. This condemnation wouldn’t seem to me to apply to those who sincerely seek the Lord with as much faith as they can manage.
Laura R wrote:
[blockquote] One thing I am sure of is that Christian leaders have no business spouting the “Jesus is one way [or ‘vehicle’] to the divine†nonsense. [/blockquote]
Laura, you make a good point illustrated by the story of Emeth in The Last Battle. We need to remember, though, that it was still Aslan who saved the Calormene, that it was really Aslan whom Emeth was seeking all the time he thought he was serving Tash. So I don’t think we can use this to support any ideas about there being more than one way to the divine. Lewis would not have gone along with that in any way. For as he says in Mere Christianity ‘God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form.’ Quite simply, Jesus is the way to the divine because he is the divine. In Jesus we see God’s hand extended to our beleaguered race. So Christian leaders must point to Jesus as the way because there is no other extended hand. I would so far as to say, however, along with Lewis I believe, that there will be people who find salvation in and through Jesus even though they may not (yet) know his name.
Agreed, Ross. It’s also worth pointing out from the story that the harshest judgment (and worst fate) is reserved for the treacherous leaders who try to convince the Narnians that Aslan and Tash are the same being.
An interesting tidbit: not long ago I came across the following in Lewis’ [i] Reflections on the Psalms:[/i] “…He is good. Hence His laws have [i] emeth, [/i] ‘truth’ …”