But retired Bishop of Eastern Oregon Rustin Kimsey says the church is diminished if it rejects nonconformist thinkers, including Thew Forrester, the late-Bishop of California James A. Pike and retired Bishop of Newark John Shelby Spong.
Spong is known for denying the divinity, virgin birth, bodily resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ.
“I mean there are a lot of things that Jack Spong has said that I don’t agree with. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be a bishop, for heaven’s sake,” Kimsey said.
“I’m very dismayed by this [opposition] because I think it undercuts the basic genius of the Episcopal Church: to be bigger than we’re behaving right now, to be more buoyant and more understanding of other viewpoints and welcome them,” Kimsey said.
By referring to the genius of the Episcopal Church as having to do with an essentially borderless belief-system, Bishop Kinsey errs in at least two ways.
First, from my perspective, he speaks of the Episcopal Church as having its own form of genius - which I'm not sure as an Anglo-Catholic I recognize. At most I would prefer to identify the genius of the New Testament, the Scriptures in general, the creeds or catholic Christianity as read through the lense of Anglicanism - which yet remains but is hardly restricted to the Episcopal Church. I indeed am a dyed in the wool loyalist and servant of Christ in the Episcopal Church, warts and all, but I'm not sure I recognize a particular genius to my beloved American branch of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - other than that which we share with other Anglican churches -- and many non-Anglican churches -- around the globe. Certainly, beyond the particular genius of Anglican comprehensiveness which we generally attribute to the Prayer Book's history largely in England, but then in the U.S. also - I'm not sure I see much else. Our extreme similarity to the constitutional organization of the United States is frequently lauded, but I'm not sure we should totally buy into that. First of all, the United States is a nation not a church. Secondly, the United States actually has more clarity in its tripartite governance then the Episcopal Church. Moreover, our church's polity (and I do not buy into the diocesan argument put forward by the ACI) is nonetheless as likely to be perceived as a defect as a form of genius. Indeed, as I point out in my article in the current Anglican Theological Review, the deep political embrace in our church's constitution and canon of Western enlightenment/republican/democratic ideals and forms is one which faithful Anglicans have wondered about for sometime. As folks ranging from Newman to Stringfellow have noted - we may well be as beholden to powers and principalities in our very polity as the Church of England and Rome. We just give those powers different names, and check and balance them in different ways, some not successful.
The second, and more serious error in my view is to continue perpetuating the sophomoric notion that we should glory in an ideal of a borderless set of doctrine and discipline -- as if a body need not skeleton, cell wall, nervous system, or the salutatory differentiation of internal organs and systems.
In both instances, the glorification of the autonomy and particular genius of the Episcopal Church over against any apparent concern for ecumenism or communion with fellow Anglican churches, and the apparent disdain for clarity and obedience regarding doctrine and discipline, while bizarre, are not new. In fact, this attitude seems to be the defining one for many observers of the Episcopal Church - internally and outside -- for over a generation. Since, at least, well, the time of Bishop Pike.
It seems to be fading, if the number of non-consents to Thew Forrester is any measure, and hopefully giving way to a new-old attitude which seeks to uphold the genius of the catholic faith, while also exploring certain expansions of the boundaries of church order and discipline which God is understood to be calling for - in a discernment which roots this apprehension in the framework of the essentials of the faith itself.
In other words, if we expand the boundaries of church order and discipline (primarily for the purpose of including persons heretofore left out), it needs to be done because we believe the God of Scripture and Tradition, in discernment performed with the gifts of memory, reason and skill, is calling for it. And, importantly, others outside our own church should likewise be capable of affirming that. (Not of course everyone, but some.) Such expansions must not be made simply because "they feel right" or because Hollywood, Harvard or contemporary norms of happiness commend them. Notably, we would be looking at questions of order and discipline, not items of core catholic theology.
It is for this reason that folks like Tobias Haller, Christopher Evans, Derek Olsen, and many others, are to be lauded for finally saying out loud: 'let's keep the faith, and also, in accordance with that faith, find a way to include as many as possible into it.'
14 comments:
Not only that. Spong has absolutely nothing to offer, theologically.
I mean, if you're going to be a heretic, at least be an interesting one....
Well said, Father Jones. According to Kimsey, the fact that someone denies the divinity, virgin birth, bodily resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ “doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be a bishop, for heaven’s sake.” For Heaven's sake, is there ANYTHING that Kimsey thinks would disqualify someone from leadership in the Episcopal Church?
Yes, I didn't want to focus on the sheer absurdity of that line in re Spong == but it truly is astonishing.
Bishop Kimsey's remark raises a question: just why should someone be a bishop?
I think you folks are making kind of a large error here. It is "Frank Lockwood" who said that "Spong is known for denying the divinity, etc., etc...." Not Kimsey. And Lockwood said that without even bothering to quote Spong.
This is a fallacy of some sort, I'm sure, although I'm not sure exactly what it might be called.
Kimsey could be referring to something else entirely; the two statements are jammed up against one another for dramatic effect, but the second doesn't follow from the first in any way.
Spong, BTW, has claimed to be a Trinitarian fairly recently, so the "denial of divinity" section, at least, could be in doubt.
(Not that I'm defending Spong, of course.
But the conclusion shouldn't be drawn that Kimsey was referring to anything in the statement prior, which was written by Lockwood - who obviously has an agenda. I find the article to be quite dishonest and manipulative.)
In response to bls: You're right that it was Lockwood who characterized Spong's position, not Kimsey. But based on the one Spong book that I've read (and I won't read another), it was as accurate a summary as you could expect of Spong's fuzzy writing. (I posted on Anglican Centrist (Aug. 3, 2008) about that one Spong book.)
In that book Spong certainly denied the virgin birth, bodily resurrection, and ascension of Christ. As for divinity, Spong said that he doesn't believe in a "theistic" god, so I don't see how there could be a divine Son of a non-theistic god.
Spong's positions are no secret (although his reasons for them may be mysterious), and I think it fair to read Kimsey as saying that such positions are not disqualifying for a bishop. He's entitled to his opinion about Spong, and we are entitled to consider that opinion in evaluating his comments about another candidate for bishop.
You're missing another point: we have absolutely no way of knowing exactly what Kimsey was responding to with his statement. It could have been something completely innocuous; we simply don't know because of the dishonest way Lockwood wrote this piece.
I don't trust this piece in any way; Lockwood is being, as I said, quite dishonest in his presentation, and he is a totally unreliable witness.
(Somebody who wants to smear another person by association had damn well better be completely open and clear about what's being discussed.
If there's more to this story, then it should be provided here. If not, then this is merely sham "journalism" and belongs in the circular file.)
bls, actually, Frank Lockwood is a good guy, and the piece is not intellectually dishonest, and the Arkansas paper is pretty darn good.
On the basis of what's presented here, I couldn't disagree with you more. There's not one shred of connective tissue between Lockwood's statement and Kimsey's.
I'd be interested in seeing the two things connected, though, if you've got anything.
Luke Timothy Johnson's criticism of Bp. Spong's work is the best I've read. Bp. Spong's though is very fundamentalist in its own way--indeed, reductionist. I do not and have never understood how someone could be a bishop and deny basic content of the faith and teach this denial as okay. That's quite different than working through questions and doubts. As I noted at Fr. Owen's blog, we've been a good place for questions and doubts, and because of that, we are blessed with people who questioned and doubted and came to deepen all of our faith, such as Archbp. William Temple. But we don't change the proclamation and content of faith to fit the doubts or denials. That's the caveat. Indeed, if we made those changes, we wouldn't have the works of William Temple for posterity.
I think what has been misunderstood is that in quick convenience for labels, and a rush to choose sides, positions on a particular matter have been conflated to standings on theology in general. I would suggest that this conflation has led to inappropriate lumping. (Something I am forever irritated by because I am not "liberal" theologically or even morally/ascetically.) And hence, the sudden surprise expressed by some in various groupings to so-called progressive bishops leading the charge in saying "no" to Fr. Thew Forrester's election. Folks like Bps. Breidenthal and Marshall are not "liberals" theologically either, but rather steeped in the Incarnation as the only grounds for changes at all ascetically/morally/disciplinarily.In my opinion, our good order (including bishops and Prayer Book) and our creedal standing are vital to any development recognizably catholic. It also allows us to make room for one another where we can count one another faithful while unsure or disagreeing about a particular development. If we lose that, we lose everything.
Our tradition has contours in which the universals of the catholic faith and Church have taken on local expressions and flavors. Our comprehension is a part of this, and it is distinctly Anglican. We sometimes don't see how "Anglican" we are until we're in conversation with other Christians, as I've discovered being among the Lutherans. I note further that part of the second chapter of my disseration shows something of the particular distinctiveness of TEC without disconnecting that distinctiveness from the wider Communion or the Church catholic. We have had "American Reformations" if you will relating catholic faith to local realities. But distinctiveness or differentiation implies particularity-being-in-communion. It's similar to the difference between using "individual" and "personal". The latter implies communal, the former does not. Distinction and differentiation imply communal, whereas perhaps "autonomous" taken to its end may not. And btw, I note your mdiv honors thesis on regeneration. It's a good work.
Christopher, right on. Thanks for reading my Regeneration Controversy thesis. Have you seen my ATR piece? Am interested in your thoughts.
Please read an editoral comment about the election of the Rev. Kevin Genpo Thew Forrester by Paul Greenberg in the Arkansas Democra-Gazette, Sunday, May 3, 2009 edition. Paul Greenberg is editiorial page editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
Post a Comment