by Bryan Owen
I posted this over at Creedal Christian, but thought I'd share it here, too.
I see that The Episcopal Church has a new website. It certainly looks better than the older version, and it’s easier to navigate.
One of the things I find interesting about this new website (and perhaps this was already there before the makeover – I don’t know) are some of the things you can read in the Visitor’s Center section about Jesus. That part of the website is entitled "A Basic Introduction to Christianity." What we find there about Jesus is all the more striking in light of charges that the Episcopal Church is heretical and/or apostate. I’m thinking in particular of the charge that the Episcopal Church rejects the uniqueness and the divinity of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Here is what our Church’s official website says about Jesus in a section entitled "The Story of Jesus, In Brief" (I’ve highlighted the parts that stand out for me):
… three days after he had died and been buried, he came back to his disciples, resurrected—fully and physically alive. For another forty days, Scripture says, he spent time with his disciples and commissioned them to continue in his teaching and miracles, and spreading the good news of his life, work, and resurrection to others. Finally, according to the Bible, he returned to Heaven—body and all—to be with God, where, Christians believe, he lives on and continues to be present with us forever.
That's a strong affirmation of the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
Then there’s this from a section entitled "What Makes Us Christian":
Christians believe that Jesus Christ was, at the same time, completely human and completely God, all in one person. This idea was articulated and adopted to address variants to Christian theology (known as “heresies”), which arise from time to time throughout history. One heresy has claimed that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross because he wasn’t really human. An opposing heresy claims that he was really just an important guy with some great ideas, and that he wasn’t really God.
Here we have an affirmation of the 4th Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon's definition of the union of the divine and human natures in the Person of Christ (one of the classical affirmations of Jesus' uniqueness as Lord and Savior), as well as rejection of heresies such as Arianism, Docetism, and Gnosticism.
And there's more:
Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth died completely on the cross, that he was buried in a tomb, and that on the third day, he was raised physically again to life to return to his disciples.
Again, here's an affirmation that Jesus really and truly died on the cross (it wasn't just some sort of Gnostic make-believe), and that he really and truly was physically (i.e., bodily) raised from the dead.
The official website of The Episcopal Church affirms the uniqueness and divinity of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. It also affirms the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead. It characterizes these beliefs as "hallmarks that distinguish Christianity from all other, similar or not-so-similar, religious sects." And it even uses the word “heresy” to talk about beliefs that are not acceptable in light of these hallmarks of the Church’s faith.
Sounds like orthodox, creedal Christianity to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
"Sounds like orthodox, creedal Christianity to me."
Except that in practice they look the other way when obvious heretics
like Spong rise in their midst. They haven't the cajones to deal with herectics by teaching them the truth or as St. Paul said in 1 Cor., turn them over to Satan.
O dear, we have been sponged again. How long, O Lord, how long?
Kevin, your last sentence leaves me puzzled. Many orthodox Episcopalians have been "teaching Bp. Spong the truth." I don't know if any have "turned him over to Satan." What do you know for a fact?
"Yes, but" really does nothing for our conversation. Why don't you address the issue instead of sidetracking? Your meta-message seems to be, "TEC can do no right, no matter what."
I believe that the statement about Jesus Christ is also in accord with what is written in the 39 Articles of Religion.
Their is a huge irony at work in what Kevin Morgan writes. When the Episcopal Church disciplines its clergy for violating the canons (i.e. Schofield and Cox) people cry foul. When it then fails to discipline others for "heresy" some of the same people cry foul.
Make up your mind, folks--to you want an activist and litigious Episcopal Church that is doctrinally pure and enforces doctrinal conformity or do you want one that allows a wide variety of opinions to exist without invoking canonical discipline?
Two points. First, the statements are wonderful but they aren't binding. To be an Episcopalian in good conscience one doesn't have to believe a word of it. So, it is an optional statement of faith only. A good one, a true one, a beautiful one. But an optional one nonetheless.
Second, the christological orthodoxy of the statement may be an attempt to compensate for other arguably less orthodox positions held by the Episcopal church, particularly in regards to sexuality issues (and I'm not primarily referring to the question of same-sex relationships but other far more troubling statements that the Episcopal church has made in favor of abortion rights, etc.).
The high christology is essentially a non-binding statement meant to distract the uniformed about the troubling moral theology present within the ECUSA. Presenting (not requiring but simply presenting) a high christology in this instance is easy -- it doesn't have any real impact on the morality.
Funny TEC should make all these claims on their new site. We've been busy proving that talk is cheap.
Mark, do you regard the Baptismal Covenant as non-binding, too? I note that the first half of it is the Apostles' Creed - one of the classic statements of orthodox Christian doctrine.
Greg, I don't see anything "funny" or "cheap" about this at all. While there are very real problems in TEC (as you and I have discussed before), it is important for us to affirm and celebrate when she gets it right.
Rev. Owen,
I would have to say yes, the way TEC currently understands the nature of assent to the creed means that all affirmations are optional. Some may be high recommended (like belief in Jesus as true God and true human being), some may be tolerated (like some Anglo-Catholic devotions), some may be socially enforced (like frowning on someone who fails to use the proper fork when eating escargot), but none of it is binding. Nobody is required to believe it in order to be in good standing.
One point of clarification -- I like the christological statement on the website. I think that in many ways it is a wonderful statement of christology belief. I would have no problem assenting to its teachings regarding Jesus.
But it still is only an optional teaching.
Mark - Of course it's true that no one in TEC points a gun at our heads to try and force us to believe in anything. And, canonically speaking, membership in good standing has nothing to do with believing anything.
I'm curious, though, as to what you mean by "the way TEC currently understands the nature of assent to the creed means that all affirmations are optional." All affirmations? Really? Who said that? And by what authority? And whatever happened to the patristic principle (so central to the Prayer Book tradition) of lex orandi et lex credendi?
If it's all "optional," then it seems to me that we are more Emersonian than Episcopalian.
Nicea, Chalcedon, Apostles' Creed, among other things, to say the least are simply not optional. There, I said it.
Thank you, Melanie!!
Rev. Owen,
First, on a personal level, I certainly don't think that the great creedal statements of faith are optional. And of of the very attractive things about historic Anglicanism is that the creeds have been taken so seriously.
Second, the principle of lex orandi, lex credeni is an ancient and noble one, and certainly expresses to a large extent the reality that the doctrinal core of a tradition can be ascertained by its worship, at least in a Christian context.
Third, that said, the historical core of Christian faith and my own conviction about the necessity of affirming the creeds isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about whether the historical core of Christian faith and the content of the creeds are necessary components of TEC. As a simple matter of fact I do not see how one could argue that they are considered necessary. That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it is a thing in existence.
Ought it to be? I would say no. But my contention here is simply to state what exists, not what should exist. I'm not confusing "is" with "ought."
Mark, I appreciate your taking the time to clarify. But with all due respect, I think you are confusing "is" with "ought." For in the various editions of the American Prayer Book, the historic creeds have always been a part of The Episcopal Church. And their theology has always informed the liturgies of the Prayer Book going back to the beginnings of the English Prayer Book tradition. It's who and what we are as Anglicans. To suggest that it isn't necessary or that it's optional is to suggest that we can or should revise something core about who and what we are as a Church.
I would go a step further, then, and say that the historic creeds are necessary for any Church which sees itself as genuinely catholic.
Along those lines, The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral - which has been reaffirmed by successive Lambeth Conferences and by numerous General Conventions - is a pretty clear statement about what is necessary for the fullness and catholicity of the Church from an Anglican perspective. And that statement includes the Apostles' Creed as "the Baptismal Symbol" and the Nicene Creed as "the sufficient statement of the Christian faith."
Tom, actually you've pointed out the biggest problem I see in TEC today. What is more important, the canons or the faith that makes Christianity different from other religions? Or maybe which canons are more important as discipline on breaking them is inconsistent.
I don't think I've heard any point of doctrine in the church that some bishop or other(including my own)doesn't believe and they are never called on that lack of belief.
As I understand them, the canons include the business plan(property issues),rules of order and authority,rules/statements of the faith(baptism before communion,etc.) and rules of polite society but a priest or bishop who says Jesus wasn't divine or didn't rise from the dead literally, or gives communion without baptism is much more troubling to me than crossing lines on a map.
I only wish TEC were as good at disciplining clerics who don't affirm the basic tenets of the faith or follow rules like CWOB as they are at disciplining those who cross geographic lines.
Chris H.
Rev. Owen,
I appreciate your point, but in light of the overt heresy embraced by many of the bishops of TEC (and not just Spong), I cannot see how one can maintain that orthodoxy -- Christological or otherwise -- isn't optional within TEC. I in no way seek to denegrate or minimize the vitality of the orthodox within TEC, or to besmerch the historic creedal orientation of Anglicanism. Anglicanism has a rich tradition of creedal orthodoxy, in its evangelical, Anglo-Catholic, and broad-church manifestations. I think that history is very much worth acknowledging, honoring, and learning from. It is in fact inspiring. But it is history, not current reality.
Now, that doens't mean that it cannot be a future reality. God can accomplish remarkable resurrections, even of ecclesiastical institutions! But is it the current state of TEC. Regretably, no.
Mark - I would be careful about using illustrations like Spong to demonstrate that creedal orthodoxy is now a matter of history in TEC. It's true that folks like Spong are a problem - they represent a deviation from the norm that upholds the norm, IMO. And it's true that the Episcopal Right loves to point to those problems to argue or suggest that the entire Episcopal Church is now heretical or apostate.
However, unless we can point to irrefutable empirical evidence to show that such examples are representative of the majority if not the whole of the Episcopal Church, then we run the run the risk of falling into the fallacy of converse accident.
Bryan, thanks for taking up the conversation here - I only add, "Ditto" to what you are saying. I actually agree that the theological, creedal, Nicene formulations are not optional, and are what I teach and uphold as a priest. I believe it becomes important to show why these are essential to those who have found it compelling to denigrate, explain away, or ignore them.
Rev. Owen,
I think that you are mischaracterizing my point. I never said that creedal orthodoxy was history within TEC. I know several Episcopalians who are very solid creedal Christians. Nor did I state that TEC was apostate or any such term. What I said was that creedal orthodoxy was optional within it. It may be that creedal orthodoxy is held by the vast majority of TEC members as a personal preference. It may be that only a tiny minority of post-modern clerics, wacked out theologians, closet unitarians and hippie-gnostic types within TEC don't affirm an orthodox Christology. Be that as it may, the fact that such a given minority is thriving within TEC indicates that creedal orthodoxy, while a permissible option -- perhaps even the preferred option -- is still just an option.
The question in my mind is what role do the creeds play in TEC? Do the creeds define the center? Or do they define the boundary? It seems to me that within TEC the creeds define the center, not the boundary. That doesn't mean the creeds aren't important. Just that disagreement with the creeds doesn't get you thrown out or your ecclesiastical career thwarted.
Rev. Owens,
I just realized that I didn't address your argument regarding the fallicy of the converse accident. The common definitation of a converse accident holds that it only applies when dealing with exceptional deviations as a norm. I don't think the lack of necessity regarding creedal orthodocy within TEC is all that exceptional. It goes far beyond Spong in the House of Bishops, for example. The weirdness tolerated since the Pike situation back in the 1960's is plain enough. The current presiding bishops, for example, has stated that she does not hold to a traditional understanding of the Chrsitian afterlife as stated in the creeds. I don't see how one can have less institutional credibility than the presiding bishop. Again, a minority view such opinions may be, but simply because they are a minority view doesn't make such a view "exceptional." It is, for example, a minority view within TEC that women should not be ordained to the presbyterate and episcopate, but does that render such a view "exceptional"? I think not.
Cheers.
Rev. Owens,
Ah, I see where we are talking past each other, and it is based on my own clumsy wording in one of my earlier posts. My apologies.
To clarify -- I stated earlier that:
"I think that history is very much worth acknowledging, honoring, and learning from. It is in fact inspiring. But it is history, not current reality."
My intent was not to state that there was no orthodox creedal affirmation within TEC. I think that there is -- obviously there is, the website statement is Christologically, creedally orthodox. What I meant to say is that the idea that the creeds aren't option is history within TEC given current practice.
My apologies for any confusion caused by my less than artful wording.
Cheers.
Thanks for the further clarifications Mark. That's helpful.
I think we may be more on the same page than not, although I disagree that the Creeds don't define the boundaries. In his book The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why It Matters, Luke Timothy Johnson has a wonderful discussion of the ways in which the Nicene Creed does, indeed, define the boundaries of the Christian faith.
I've touched on some of this on my blog as well.
Rev. Owen,
I'm glad to hear we aren't that far apart. I am not arguing that the creeds should not be normative for all Christians. I think they should be. I agree with you that the creeds should be boundary-creating.
But that idea is not the normative idea with TEC right now. That's my point. Affirmation of the creeds is optional. Should it be? No. Is it? Yes. That's my point.
Cheers.
Mark - in light of your last comment, I think we're definitely on the same page! Although I tend to phrase it differently. Rather than saying that the creeds "should be boundary-creating but that's not normative in TEC nowadays," I prefer instead to call this sort of thing Anomic Anglicanism.
Here's a small section from my blog piece on the subject:
Anomie.
A + nomos: literally, “against rule" or "against law.”
Normlessness.
Anomie is a situation in which the norms that define and make the shared life of community possible are (a) forgotten, (b) known, but rejected, or (c) never known to begin with.
Read it all.
Rev. Owen,
Now for the second part of my original comment: is this statement part of a bait-and-switch strategy on the part of the centralized leadership of TEC to distract from aspects of Episcopal theology and praxis that deviate from traditional Christian orthodoxy?
Mark,
Perhaps the answer to your question depends upon whether or not one approaches the "centralized leadership of TEC" through the lens of a hermeneutics of suspicion or a hermeneutics of grace. Pretty much everything else will follow.
Having said that, I don't like everything I hear from our PB and other "centralized leadership of TEC." Yes, our PB and others have said/done things that fall within the parameters of what we learned were heresies while in seminary. Perhaps all the more for that reason, I am inclined to celebrate the orthodox theology on our Church's official website.
Maybe it's just because I Love the Episcopal Church.
I've only been an Episcopalian for 17 years, and a lot of this discussion is like walking into a Woody Allen movie in the third reel -- it's just hard to figure out what it's all about.
I'm pretty orthodox, and when I hear critics say that the Episcopal Church tolerates those who deviate from orthodoxy I get concerned. The critics always seem to refer to "Spong and others", but they never identify the "others". (Pike doesn't count -- too long ago) Could someone please identify some of the "others", people who espouse wacky theology from within the hierarchy of the Epsicopal Church?
Also, Mark, I'd appreciate a citation or a link or at least a pointer to where our PB said she didn't believe the creeds regarding the afterlife. I'd like to check that out.
Thanks all for an interesting (and mutually respectful) comment string.
I certainly think that it is valid to distinguish between the theology found in the Prayer Book and the theology found in the works of theologians and clerics. So, Rev. Owen, I would certainly agree that the creedal orthodoxy found in the BCP is for the most part very solid and worthy of admiration. How well that theology plays out within the "pray trade" (the professional church-people) is a another issue...
As for "naming names" -- google the name of any prominent name in the liberal end of TEC's leadership. You should find ample evidence...
Mark, I quite agree with you that it is valid to distinguish between the Prayer Book's theology and the theology of individual persons (lay and clergy).
IMO, part of the problem is that too many of us clergy see ourselves as free theological agents. But in fact, in our ordinations, we've made a solemn vow to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church. We've promised to be conformists, not innovators.
In practical terms, this means that I've promised before God, the bishop, my clergy colleagues, and the gathered assembly of the laity that my personal theological views will take a back-seat to the Prayer Book's theology. The theology of the Prayer Book (which includes the theology of the historic creeds) is the norm against which my personal opinions are measured and perhaps found wanting.
So part of the issue is this: in a culture that privileges individualism and innovation, how do we hold our clergy accountable to their solemn, counter-cultural vow to be conformists?
Post a Comment