Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Oh dear

Hello Anonymous
That's Anonymous who has a bit of a go at me for criticizing Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori.
Well, I am wondering what you think about her latest public address - her opening address to the General Convention of TEC in Anaheim.
I have had a look at it. Readers may read it here.
I notice this description of the reason for the great crisis the Anglican Communion is in:

"The crisis of this moment has several parts, and like Episcopalians, particularly ones in Mississippi, they’re all related. The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of use alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of all being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention."

I leave readers to make their judgement. Mississippi readers, please take that little joke in good part.

But I wonder, Anonymous, are you completely satisfied with the depth of theological insight on display here from the Presiding Bishop of TEC? Insight, that is, into 'the crisis', and insight into salvation? ... I would not like to be a penitential thief hanging on a cross beside this bishop. No hope for me!

I grant that much in the speech is superbly attuned to the nitty gritty of some tough issues, especially financial ones which TEC faces, and offers good practical Bible based wisdom towards a new way for the future.

But then towards the end I came across this:

"We Christians often think the only important part of the Jerusalem story is Calvary, and, yes, suffering and killing in that place still seem to be the loudest news. But Calvary was a waypoint in the larger arc of God’s dream – it’s on the way to Jerusalem, it is not in Jerusalem. Jesus’ passion was and is for God’s dream of a reconciled creation."

Oh, dear.

Calvary a 'waypoint'?

God has a 'dream'?

Hmm.

24 comments:

Janice said...

the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of use alone can be in right relationship with God.

What on earth is she talking about?

Jesus’ passion was and is for God’s dream of a reconciled creation. We’re meant to be partners in building that reality, throughout all of creation.

Is she one of those who think we can build heaven on earth before Christ's return?

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Janice
(i) I do not know
(ii) It certainly looks that way

Howard Pilgrim said...

Peter, the way you quoted these extracts from Bp Jefferts Schori's address implies that you consider them to be incontrovertible evidence of her theological dizziness; and your responses to Janice's two questions reinforces this impression.
So let me play angels' advocate for a minute with my reading of what she may have meant.

Janice:-"the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of use alone can be in right relationship with God."What on earth is she talking about?
Howard:- Firstly, correct the typo: "use" should be "us". Then take a deep breath here, all varieties of evangelicals: someone is speaking to us in a paradox, deliberately contradicting a belief they know we consider to be sacrosanct, at the very heart of orthodoxy... in fact, branding that belief as "the great Western heresy" and "a form of idolatry". This rhetorical ploy invites us to remember at least two things.
1. Our belief that salvation is primarily an individual, rather than communal, matter has not been so obvious to all Christians across time and space ... and if we think otherwise we could benefit from a wider reading of church history.
2. The New Testament contains a number of texts correcting individualistic tendencies to separate our relationship from God from that with our fellow humans. Is the bishop challenging us to give those texts more prominence in our thinking?

Janice:- "Jesus’ passion was and is for God’s dream of a reconciled creation. We’re meant to be partners in building that reality, throughout all of creation." Is she one of those who think we can build heaven on earth before Christ's return?
Howard:- Yes, and so am I, along with millions of other Christians through the ages who have prayed "Your kingdom come on earth, as it is in heaven" in the confidence that God is already building his kingdom on earth and that we are his working partners, in the Spirit. What do you mean when you pray this prayer? Is it simply equivalent to "Come, Lord Jesus"? If so, you might be surprised how many Christians have disagreed with you.

I will not attempt a defence of what the good bishop says about Calvary. Pauline scholars must draw a line somewhere!

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Howard
Yes, I think ++KJS to be theologically 'lightweight'. 'Dizzy'? No. I think she knows what she is doing, saying, and why. In the first example I am fascinated that (i) she is prepared to name something as heretical (so, presumably, she has some clear ideas about what constitutes orthodoxy - conservatives might like to pondr that!); (ii) she lays pretty much all blame for the current crisis on one theological idea; and (iii) she offers not a scintilla of acknowledgement that any other theological idea, theme, or proposition emanating from TEC might be at all responsible in any way shape or form for the crisis.

So, as a matter of fact, I do not disagree with the general critique of much Western Christianity implicit in the statement I cite, that is, that it is over-individualised. But it amazes me that she should go so far as to declare this a 'heresy' (without qualification, hence my jibe about the penitential thief), and make it bear so much responsibility.

As for our working together with God in bringing about the kingdom: I agree that we do work with God in this way, for he has called us to do this. My concern re the address (but not only the address), not adequately explained in my quick response to Janice, is that such emphasis is given to the role we play that the power of God is underplayed!

Anonymous said...

You clearly, as Howard Pilgrim highlights, have little understanding of context or genre. This is not a theology paper on soteriology. You probably condemn Jesus for declaring that we should hate our parents, spouse, and children. Your implication that the Presiding Bishop would say there is no hope for the penitential thief clearly shows how little grasp you have of her thought. It is not that one needs to agree with everything the Presiding Bishop says but at least have the courtesy to listen to someone leading many many times the numbers in your own province. I have yet to be convinced that your own primates (you have three don’t you) are dominating the theological landscape internationally – or are you suggesting all three of them are theological “heavyweights” in comparison. Didn’t one of them introduce the revisionist ecclesiology of a group of bishops together equally overseeing one diocese? Which way did you vote on that? TEC has so far been compliant to the demands of the instruments of communion in the face of people like you supporting their breach. In the face of your own province’s breach of an instrument of communion’s motion you suggested they should meet and vote again. Janice still has not responded how she can turn her back on the clear teaching of scripture on women and its consistent interpretation throughout Christian history and yet be unwilling to look at a new understanding of which scripture and Christian tradition has until recently been unaware. Your own province has departed from scripture and tradition again and again and again. Most other Anglican provinces have made similar departures to yours. Your inability to give TEC and its Presiding Bishop any respect as it struggles through debate and discernment on yet another contemporary issue has a term: prejudice.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Anonymous
I am certainly prepared to give the PB respect; and indeed it is precisely because I see her as having a role of influence beyond TEC, even down to these fair shores, that I look closely at what she says.
I am also prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt. For instance I recognise that a sentence here or there made in a media interview is not necessarily sufficient basis for condemning her as a heretic (as so have done).
But here we have a prepared address to a significant, triennial occasion in the life of TEC, and we have her published speech text to look at, not media reported remarks which might be misreported.
Are they an adequate statement in respect of soteriology? I do not think so.
I notice much better qualified theologians than myself have weighed in. It was not really necessary for me to say anything after all:

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/23946/

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/23929/

Anonymous said...

Oh puhleeez! Recognising the Presiding Bishop has influence beyond TEC and giving her respect are NOT the same, as you suggest. Please give the URL of ANY SINGLE New Zealand Anglican website that has even noticed her speech, let alone commented on it to justify your claim. As for these theologians more highly qualified than you “weighing in” (just notice the thrilled tone of the adversarial language you use), next you’ll be denying the whole tradition going back through St Cyprian of Carthage to our biblical heritage, and saying that the Roman Catholic Church is “lightweight” in its soteriology: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a2.htm
The constant lack of responses to my questions and comments do not go unnoticed.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Anonymous
Our church's main website for news and views, Anglican Taonga, has noticed the Convention, including the Presiding Bishop's speech, http://anglicantaonga.org.nz/News/The-Communion/opening-worship

You notice things I do not intend (thrilled tone, adversarial language) - it does seem slightly difficult to 'p-lease' you!

What I have not heard from you (and the Vatican link you provide does not do it) is supporting reason and explanation for the proposition that 'we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God' is 'heresy'. Jesus saves individuals, period. That he saves us and binds us together in his body, that he saves families and communities does, that it is important to affirm what 'we' believe, does not make the idea that individuals are saved a heresy. I think it right and proper to raise a question or two when a significant leader of a significant Anglican church makes a formal address to a great occasion and in that address includes, in an adversarial manner, one might note, a quite fallacious statement.

I make no claim that all our archbishops are of equal heavyweightedness when it comes to theology, they bring different gifts to their roles. But I am pretty confident that none would say what ++KJS said.

Nor do I deny that our province has many things to attend to, one of which is the problematic decision we have made re episcopal ecclesiology in the Diocese of Waikato. But nor am I aware that our province has the size, and mana to move and shape the Communion like TEC has!

As for Janice, I hope she speaks for herself.

Anonymous said...

If Anglicanism means anything, it must be 'Reformed Catholicism', i.e., Reformed theology within the inherited (and biblically reformed) structures of Western Catholicism. So the Bible is primary, the Catholic Creeds are affirmed, and church structures are preserved insofar as they embody wisdom and good purpose (which is a big 'insofar'). That's why I can have ready fellowship with other reformed Christians, as well as agreement with Catholics on the creedal core.
I suspect I wouldn't agree on much else with 'Anonymous', but he/she makes some fair points about NZ Anglicanism.
1. The 'three tikanga' might be advocated on historic and missional grounds, but it sounds uncomfortably like the South African Sendengskerk! As I read Ephesians ('one people'), I don't like the idea of ethnic churches for anything other than provisional purposes. Race, ethnicity, culture is not a gospel principle. But pragmatism (sometimes born of isolation) has long been a guiding star in Kiwi life.
2. Many 'local priests' with minimal training appear to have been ordained, esp. for rural areas, e.g. in Otago/Southland (the policy of Penny Jamieson, along with gay appointments 'under the radar'). The result has been an increase in the number of liberal women and gays in priest's orders, but no discernible church growth (even the reverse), as NZ sinks deeper into Scandinavian-type secularism. What it does mean is that liberal clericalism gets more entrenched in the (failing) diocesan structures. In some places, more robust evangelical and charistmatic churches are rising and drawing off the more committed laity.
3. Anglican unity used to be based on subscription to the 39 Articles and the worship standard of the BCP. The NZ liturgical smorgasbord is, at its worst, carte blanche for ecofeminist heresy, right-on posturing, or bloodless 'praying' that moves nobody.

That said, there are many gravamina that can be levied at TEC:
1. Haberdashery doth not a catholic make.
2. Reciting the Creed then denying it is sermon and practice is more than cognitive dissonance.
3. Schori is definitely a 'lightweight' in the theological scales (as are most leaders in TEC), but, as has been clear from her 'Mother Jesus' inaugural sermon, her interest is political and legal, not 'the faith once delivered'.
4. The appointment of Robinson was also very much against the will of the Primates.
5. TEC has influence in Planet Anglican simply because of its money, not its numbers (uSa: 700k) or its theological depth (most Nigerians bishops are better educated that their all-too-numerous TEC equivalents) or its sanctity and prayer life.

To end on a positive note: for a small place, Nelson Diocese has a lot of experienced and highly educated leaders (yourself included), and I hope you will pursue the vision of training the best preachers and leaders of the Church with the firmest grounding in the Scriptures (including biblical languages) and historical theology.

And on that note, I raise a glass to toast John Calvin on his 500th Birthday! Cheers!

Anon1

Peter Carrell said...

Not all Anonymouses (or Anonymi) are the same. Diversity of viewpoint reigns in the House of Anonymity ...

Anonymous said...

Peter, the plural is 'Anonymice', because we are 'wee sleekit, cowering, timorous beasties'.

But maybe we can aspire to the example of our patron saint Reepacheep.

Anon1

Peter Carrell said...

I stand corrected!

Janice said...

Janice still has not responded how she can turn her back on the clear teaching of scripture on women and its consistent interpretation throughout Christian history and yet be unwilling to look at a new understanding of which scripture and Christian tradition has until recently been unaware.

Anonymous,

I've learned that it is usually futile to try to engage with some people, particularly people who make sweeping, hostile judgements about the motivations of others on the basis of scant to no evidence. Furthermore, I invited you to present evidence to show that homosexuals really have no choice about their sexual preference. You did not. Instead you took that as an opportunity to accuse me of wanting to eradicate homosexuals from the human race.

But since you have referred to me yet again:

the clear teaching of scripture on women
The fact that there is a disagreement about the correct meaning and application of certain Scriptures relating to the role of women (in the church and/or in the world) means that the teaching of Scripture not clear. This disagreement is about the meaning of words (e.g., kephale and authenteo) and about whether the issues being addressed in, say 1 Timothy 2, were particular to the situation of the 1st century Ephesian church or whether the advice given to that church at that time and in that situation can reasonably be applied to all churches at every time, everywhere, and whatever their situation. That is, the disagreements are about what the texts actually mean and how they should be translated.

In relation to homosexuality no similar disagreement has arisen. What has arisen is not the idea that the relevant texts have been poorly translated but the idea that homosexual acts are not intrinsically wrong. That is, the disagreement is extra-Biblical and political (and see the comment by "EricfromNewYork" immediately below).

consistent interpretation throughout Christian history
Only if you dismiss the first three centuries or so. As far as I can see women got sidelined once the church was 'established' and the priesthood became an institutionalised 'career path'. But I'm not an expert on church history so feel free to provide evidence that there were no women church leaders in the early years of the church.

a new understanding [of homosexuality] of which scripture and Christian tradition has until recently been unaware

What is the new understanding of which you're now aware? I'd like to know and I'd like you to be specific. I am aware that homosexuality is no longer considered a paraphilia, but that was a political coup rather than a clinical decision.

You wrote that, "anyone who has spent five minutes on identical twin studies knows that [the 'gay gene'] another heterosexist myth." I've no idea what point you were trying to make. I know that there is no evidence for a 'gay gene' which is why I mentioned it. How do you help your argument by agreeing that there is no evidence for a 'gay gene'? Are you saying that individuals choose their sexual preference, that there is no biological imperative about their choice but, nevertheless, whatever choice they make should be approved by everyone else simply because the chooser has chosen it?

Anonymous said...

I agree with Anonymous that neither the NT nor Christian tradition envisions women in 'ruling' authority over men in local churches. So I don't understand how Victoria Matthews can see herself as an 'Anglo-Catholic', if that means 'belonging to the English branch of catholicism' (in the Tractarian branch theory). An abbess 'ruling' nuns is a different matter, that an Anglo-Catholic should support. (/crickets)
But Anonymous exaggerates, because the NT has a great deal to say about women's teaching and pastoral ministry in their families and among women, and Priscilla and Aquila seemed to teach together, so the idea of married couples in pastoral leadership appears biblical enough. And in churches, it is usually better that women pastor and counsel other women, esp. where personal matters are concerned.
But the uncomfortable truth is that religious observance is voluntary and men are never gonna join churches in any number that are led by women.
Anon1

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Anon1
Will women of younger generations join churches which will deny them opportunity to serve in the higher levels of leadership?

Anonymous said...

Peter, I can't think of many women leaders in churches who are notable preachers, though some are excellent family teachers and counselors/prayer ministers. Others are in shared ministry with their husbands (in the Priscilla & Aquila model), which I'm more comfortable with.
Most churchgoers are women, incl. in the new charismatic churches. Womne ministers seem more common in the Anglican & Methodist churches. I read somewhere that oen third of NZ Anglican clergy is female - is this correct?
Anon1

Anonymous said...

Janice my original surprise with you was that I totally agreed with your passionate tirade against the traditional oppression of women going right back into biblical times, but then, having vented vehemently about that you introduced a paragraph which had no relationship to the context just to tell Peter’s readers that you were still against homosexual activity. Totally out of the blue. It seems to be the only unifying glue that holds you all together. You can disagree about the place of women, or vestments, or even baptism but there’s one thing you all agree on and it runs so deeply, more than disagreements on ecclesiology, episcopacy, soteriology, or sacramental theology – your central unifying message is: homosexual activity is wrong, and that is the united message you together declare to the world. Do a search for “abortion” for example, on this site and you will notice the lack of critique by Peter on his church’s position on that. Compare that with the incessant obsession with this issue and concomitantly with TEC.

Identical twins have identical genetic makeup. Some identical twins have the same sexual orientation. Some identical twins differ in their sexual orientation. It’s one of the first thing one encounters in looking at sexual orientation without prejudice. There is no genetic basis for homosexuality so thankfully those of the Religious Right won’t become divided in a debate: which is worse abortion or homosexuality? Homosexuality is a choice for a few just as heterosexuality is a choice for a few. For the majority of homosexuals and heterosexuals it is how they are and Science has not yet determined the cause. Science, in fact, is not the answer to everything.

Only slightly adapted once again: The fact that there is a disagreement about the correct meaning and application of certain Scriptures relating to sexual activity (in the church and/or in the world) means that the teaching of Scripture not clear. This disagreement is about the meaning of words (e.g., arsenokoitēs) and about whether the issues being addressed in about six disputed verses were particular to the situation or whether the advice given at that time and in that situation can reasonably be applied to all churches at every time, everywhere, and whatever their situation. That is, the disagreements are about what the texts actually mean and how they should be translated.

The word “homosexual” was not even around until the late nineteenth century and with it the concept of sexual orientation and a committed same-sex relationship. The Bible does not address these things just as it does not address cloning, IVF, or genetic modification.

Peter, I apologise I should have been more specific – when I sought a NZ Anglican website discussing the Presiding Bishop’s comment I was assuming a web 2.0 site like your own actually providing a NZ Anglican perspective and some robust Kiwi interest (as in the passionate interest here of up to 3 kiwis) – I had not thought that a mention on a web 1.0 site replicating an article directly from a USA website Episcopal life online and focusing on 'Mission' energizes TEC convention would show Kiwi Anglican interest in your particular comment.

Might not also TEC’s Presiding Bishop bring different gifts than what you look to her for? And if her statement is as dangerous as you contend and as influential within your church as you suggest and contrary to what your Primates would teach please point to the declaration against it from one of your Primates as soon as this is out on their website.

I, on the other hand, continue to think that you do protest too much. I would suggest that you could not find a congregation of significant size in your church today where the majority of those present could name two out of your own three primates, let alone have any interest in the comment that so upset you.

Howard Pilgrim said...

A Nonny Mouse said:- "The constant lack of responses to my questions and comments do not go unnoticed."

Wow, does that huffy comment make him/her important, and portend some punitive action to come? Is this some mighty prelate, or learned scholar? If their opinion should carry so much weight, perhaps it is time for your readers to learn their name ...

I for one do not appreciate having my name invoked in support of a position advocated by someone too fearful to reveal their own identity, even when I agree with much that they have to say.

Why do you accept anonymous comments on your blog, Peter? While it may produce more responses, does it promote integrity of discussion?

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Howard
"My" policy on accepting anonymous comments is under continuous review.
I am edging closer to ending it!

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Anon1
I have no idea what proportion of our ordained Anglican ministers are women, but it could be as high as a third, especially because we have a large number of 'local shared ministry' deacons and priests, and, anecdotally, a high number of these are women.
I would be surprised, however, if one third of all stipendiary vicars here were women.
In the Diocese of Nelson in which I minister, we have 25 parishes with vicars or priests-in-charge, 4 of whom are women.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Anonymous
I do not know of many 'Anglican' web 2.0 sites in our fair islands, so what is published (or republished) on Anglican Taonga's 1.0 website may be more influential than its equivalent in other provinces.

This point of yours: "Might not also TEC’s Presiding Bishop bring different gifts than what you look to her for? And if her statement is as dangerous as you contend and as influential within your church as you suggest and contrary to what your Primates would teach please point to the declaration against it from one of your Primates as soon as this is out on their website."

PRC: Our Primates do not have a website; I have no idea if they read my blog; I have no idea if they are following Anaheim. But some movers and shakers in our church do read my blog and I am hopeful that they might consider my critique of some of the PB's statements alongside her statements. But if they do not, I can always hope that they will not take her dubious statements to heart. Meanwhile in my latest post I note Mark Harris' testimony to one of our movers and shakers, Jenny Te Paa being right in the thick of things at Anaheim. I presume the PB has some influence on Jenny!

Then you claim that I am 'upset' by what the PB has said. Far from it. I am not upset. Just amazed that someone can get so far in the church and apparently know so little.

I do not disagree with you that she brings other gifts to the role, gifts which are appreciated widely in TEC, and even more widely proportionately speaking since the ACNA crowd left!

Anonymous said...

I don’t follow the logic that Anglicans in your fair islands don’t use or don’t know how to use the web in the way most others use it makes Anglican Taonga's website more influential than its equivalent in other provinces. But let’s leave that to one side as well as your admission that it’s not possible to see what your three primates are currently thinking about contemporary issues on the internet. I’m also surprised the gender proportions of your clergy are not readily to hand in your General Synod documents. Don’t tell me: they are also not online.

Please correct me, but Howard Pilgrim has, as far as I know only recently joined discussions on this site, bringing a slightly different, evangelical perspective – much needed and appreciated thank you. Prior to Howard’s arrival, all named individuals pretty much reinforced each other’s anti-TEC, anti-homosexual position.

If the internet is still relatively new in your islands, here’s the thing: everybody is in some sense anonymous on the internet – for all I know Janice is the same person as Anonymous 1 and Howard Pilgrim is a teenage girl living in Kazakhstan. All Peter let’s us know about himself is “I am not important” and Howard states he is a male living in Napier and runs a zen website called Hermeneutics Workshop. If it is the ideas that are important – what does it matter who says them?

Howard completely misrepresents my comment on what is not replied to (internet courtesy as elsewhere is to ask if something is unclear). An example to illustrate: Peter does not respond to my suggestion that it would be hard to find “a congregation of significant size in your church today where the majority of those present could name two out of your own three primates”. That there is no denial of this makes me suspect he sees there is some truth in what I wrote. Go back prior to joining this discussion, Howard – you will be amazed at what you can read between the blank lines. So no need for the ad hominems – opinions only carry weight, might I suggest, not because they come from “prelates, or learned scholars” but if they are true.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Anonymous
Some responses ...
- As a general policy I will make no pretence to reply to every point which a commenter raises. Sometimes there is not time; sometimes I judge that one point raised might be more fruitful to respond to than others. A non-response from me does not mean that the point is not important.
- In the end I am unclear what internet resources are influential on Anglicans in these islands. Even the readership of Taonga is unclear to me in terms of its quantity, and it's 'quality' in the sense of (say) do our archbishops and bishops check it out daily? I do know that my blog is read by some people I account as influential, though more in the sense of 'behind the scenes' than 'front of house'.
- I think you might be surprised if you did survey our congregations re their knowledge of our primates, as we do pray in our services, and the resource information available for those intercessions normally includes the names of our primates, plus they feature in the print version of Taonga, and, from time to time, in diocesan magazines.
- It could be that our GS office has the stats re clergy gender numbers. I suspect not, we are not great on counting up because that is not necessarily at the forefront of the culture of Polynesia and Maoridom (thus we do not collect congregational attendance stats across the whole of our church). I could go through our clerical directory ...!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:

FTR - I am NOT Janice. I am, however, a teenage girl living in Kazakhstan. 'Anon1' is actually favorite name for nice Kazakh girls, like 'Borat' is name for nice boys. 'Janice' is NOT nice name in my country!
Please inform how I get nice job, house, husband etc in USA. Thanks.

------------
I don't want to invoke the nuclear - sorry, nu-cu-lar - option, but we have read Robert Gagnon, & have never thought it was just about 'six verses in the NT'. It's about the entire biblical testimony, the consentient Christian witness, and basic biolgy (AKA 'Scripture, Tradition, Reason').
Have I ever had pastoral involvement with Christian families and marriages divided by homosexuality? Yes.
Is abortion usually sinful? Yes. It is NOT a 'holy' or 'good' thing, as a seminary (EDS?) shockingly claimed, or a subject of joy and celebration, as Louie Crewe thinks.
Why are Anglican bishops silent about it?
Dunno - maybe not to add to the pain of distressed women.
-----------------
Now is time to milk goats, then do pogrom on shtetl with my clan. Nice!
Anon1