Published Elsewhere
October 5, 2011
I was recently given the opportunity to write a piece on immigration for The Ekklesia Project. I approached it via contemporary folk music and classical mythology…I hope it works!
The Shape of Discipleship-The Shape of History: Problems With “Loyalty to Christ”
September 26, 2010
The idea that “loyalty to Christ” will entail a hard life, a life of the Cross indeed, and that such a life may make demands of us that even at times it will require the breaking of fellowship with other Christians for the sake of such “loyalty,” has been a subject of meditation for me for a while. Scripture obviously at certain points indicate that “excommunication” sometimes is necessary, and this has been reinforced by many of the thinkers who have shaped my as-yet-young theological temperance. A friend has recently had an extended (and excellent) blog series on just this point. By some models though, “truth” – of the Gospel or of doctrine - is often set over against “unity,” which is sometimes even scorned as a concession to “man-made” structures and identities. This comes up constantly in Anglican circles from both sides, the one is accused of favoring “unity” over “justice” or “truth” and vise versa. Indeed “unity” almost always comes in short for these types of conversations. This is the plague of Protestant sectarianism – if you can’t see the truth as it “plainly” is set forth in Scripture, then I’m starting a new sect. ”Unity” here is always thrown into the eschatological future and has nothing whatsoever to do with the empirical Church.
Ephraim Radner calls this kind of thinking into stark question in all of his writings but concisely in his Hope Among the Fragments, specifically here his chapter “The Figure of Truth and Unity.” Radner recalls us to the perfect coincidence of Truth and Unity with respect to Jesus Christ, a truth brought out strongly in the Gospel of St. John, not least chapters 14-17. Radner challenges the dichotomy:
“If…unity and truth were viewed in parallel with pneumatic fruit (Gal. 5:16-26), their coordination would be of a profoundly different kind than if they were viewed as variously attained aspects of obedience. We do not tend to place kindness and self-control over and against each other…In walking by the Spirit, a Christian may fail to exhibit one spiritual fruit or another, such failures pertain to that life as a whole, to the character and shape of its discrete pneumatic history, and not to separable histories of particular virtues, as if one could say, “Until now, I have worked on love; only when this is achieved can I turn to joy.” (113-114)
Instead Radner points us to the traditional figural interpretation of the Song of Songs as an elucidation of the relationship of the Church to its Lord, a history that cannot be anything other than a complex and layered story.
“If this response [of the Church and its Lord] represents some kind of narrative progress, all that takes place in between – desire, opposition, sorrow, renewal – must therefore form the historical matrix within which the larger movement of union and conformity takes flesh” (119)
For Radner, this story envisions the Church as “a single character, whose variegated experience in relation to its Lord and lover never undermines the singularity of that link, but only undermines its temporal difficulty” (118)
Therefore:
“As a figure of the Church in the course of its Lord-conforming history, then, the Song of Songs is a bracing challenge to any attempt at its evaluative dissection on the basis of identifiable virtues. There is simply no room, in such a narrative, for assessing degrees of integrity and then acting distinctly upon them. For the existence of such degrees-the church of the more or less truthful, or more or less loving, or in more or less communion within its parts, upon which distinctions we must make decisions-cannot be detached from the single movements of its history in relation to its Lord.” (119)
This then is where I have and continue to struggle with the idea of understanding discipleship and sanctification, both individually within a parish and corporately between disparate bodies, as a singular “loyalty to Christ” which must be at all times maintained, for this is what (we are told) Scripture demands. Such a position assumes that the appropriate response to the Lords calling will be clear and readily apparent, yet in a divided Church, such clarity is hardly forthcoming. There is a sort of rigorist or puritan striving toward holiness, a position that historically has almost always lost.
Although I remain convinced that excommunication and parish discipline is absolutely necessary, this often can only be an exercise of authority open to contestation. Because of course I myself demonstrate both loyalty and disloyalty to Christ, more and less obedience. Rather than wrap up with a confident position of my own, I will end with a story from the desert monastics:
“There was a brother at Scetis who had committed a fault. So they called a meeting and invited Abba Moses. He refused to go. The priest sent someone to say to him, “They’re all waiting for you.” So Moses got up and set off; he took a leaky jug and filled it with water and took it with him. The others came out to meet him and said, “What is this, father?” The old man said to them, “My sins run out behind me and I cannot see them, yet here I am coming to sit in judgment on the mistakes of somebody else.” When they heard this, they called off the meeting.”
Even More ’09 Reflections, or “Futures in Anglicanism,” or “For the Love of God Please Stop”
January 25, 2010
In a previous post I reflected on a chaotic year for Anglicans. The post itself remained largely ambiguous as to whether I saw much hope for the coming year and several commenters wondered aloud what might set us back on track.
Far be it from me to miss an opportunity to wax eloquent on my own opinions. In this post I shall briefly, unsystematically and without much justification toss out some things I’ve been thinking about that, it seems to me, could contribute to a discussion on being faithful to our Tradition. There is absolutely no reason that anyone should take the meanderings of a kid too seriously so take it all with a grain of salt.
Of course there are reasons I think these things, but with homework being of much greater importance than blogging I will largely keep from any thorough justifications for my two cents.
1)For the love of God everybody stop, stop, stop with revisions of all kinds. A total moratorium on all Prayer Book, theologically informed Canon Law, Liturgical and theological revision for at least a decade. Our English is not nearly old enough to need updating, our laws left unchanged will not hand us over to chaos, our prayer and collects are and have been largely consistent with Catholic Christian practice and thought and our theology is not yet proved false. This will provide the common bonds of public trust so as to continue to enable the recognizability within our fellowship. Any priest altering a liturgy independently should be swiftly disciplined and any bishop or province should be pleaded with to just chill out: This means you Church of England with your lady bishops (and I’m all about lady bishops), you Nigeria with your canonical marginalizing of the Archbishop of Canterbury, you Episcopal Church with your endorsing diocene composition and implementation of rites of same sex blessing and consideration of Communing the unbaptized, and you Australia with your insufficient theology of Priesthood and Eucharist.
- 2) With that in mind, for now focus on those things central to our life and mission as Churches. Worship, Evangelism, Justice and Catechesis seem to be atop this list to me.
It seems that these two things will build the trust and love necessary to begin to hash out the future of Anglican practice which will largely be in reference to, either for or against, the Anglican Covenant. It’s here and it’s not going away. The one, a choice rooted in the Protestant conviction that one is at liberty to interpret the Scriptures on their own, the other a choice for that Episcopal concilarity of the first four universally regarded Ecumenical councils.
But the “Covenant” is not nearly enough. As the massive and desperately needed book “Love’s Redeeming Work: The Anglican Quest for Holiness” states, there has been at least since the Second World War, a general inability to understand our Anglican identity. To that end I propose a few things…
Episcopacy is absolutely central to Anglican theology and life. It must be insisted upon and emphasized that in continuity with the very early Church through the ages, we have vigorously maintained that Apostolic Succession by the reality that we have never christened a bishop without the laying on of hands of at least three other bishops so consecrated. Our Liturgies for consecration have never deviated from this. We are not Baptists with prayer books, indifferent to the right ordering of our life, neither do we think Church tradition so trite as to be of no authoritative worth. Our Articles also bear this out as we understand nothing in our liturgies to be contrary to Holy Scripture.- Related to the above…What the hell ever happened to Common Prayer? I propose the possibility of a Book of Common Prayer for use in all Covenanted churches. Or, at the very least, in terms of the liturgist exraordinaire’ Dom Gregory Dix, the “Shape” of our liturgy should agreed upon, especially our Eucharistic liturgy and the liturgies for Episcopal functions like ordination, baptism and confirmation. Parishes should not be allowed to use the Roman Mass nor neglect the Hymnal in favor of modern chorus’, or ignore the Rubrics.
- Similarly we need a Catechism. Which, though not to be used as a “Confession” in the sense that it’s contents are necessarily to be comprehended or assented to in entirety for Salvation, should be widely used and authoritative.
- Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury is fundamental to being Anglican and is one of the only “checks” against loose consularity and is essential to ecumenical dialogue with the Roman and Orthodox Catholic churches.
- Jesus loves Fender guitars
- There being a large number of Christians in the so-called “Global South” does not meant that a) those Anglicans can disregard their history b) that they cannot nor need not listen to the insights of more historic fellowships, especially the Church of England c) that they have become our rightful judges
- The idea of in-house “parties” like “Anglo-catholic,” “Broad Church” and “Evangelical” needs to become progressively left behind in favor of solidarity. Evangelicals will have been unfaithful Anglicans to the extent that they do not include the whole Christian tradition in their theology, piety and Scripture reading; Anglo-catholics will have been unfaithful to the Reformation in England if they not recognize the centrality of Scripture over all else; and Broad churches will likewise fall short if they don’t realize that there is nothing virtuous about being bland.
- All of this points to the need of a more unified practice of piety.
- If you don’t like it, become a Baptist. ***update*** (One misses the point if they think I’m using “Baptist” pejoratively. I mean only that being Anglican is not simply uniquely British way of being a Congregationalist.)
- Authority is not a four letter word.
- I am most certainly full of myself.
Responses…? Additions…? Complaints…? I want ‘em all.
Catholic, Concrete, & Critical
August 20, 2009
Halden recently noted a post by R. O. Flyer about an article by Nicholas Healy critiquing the so-called “New Ecclesiology” of Hauerwas, the RO crew, and the Catholic crew (not that they are so different). Now I haven’t read the article so I am going on Flyer’s take on things. Perhaps I am a card carrying member of the – as Tony Jones puts it – “Hauerwasian Mafia;” and perhaps I’m reading through a Milbank essay as we speak, but I wanted to disagree with their patently Reformed critique that these ecclesiologies lack the ability be be judged by God’s Word and that they are in fact “reactionary.” I wanted to also turn the tables and say that it is the idealism of a “spiritual” ecclesiology that is in need of concrete judgement.
First off, the accusation that these ecclesiologies are “reactionary” needs to be let go right away. All theology, be it ecclesiology or whatever, is done by people; that is to say, theological discourse takes place in history. Being historical we neither come to the task objectively or untraditioned by our own circumstances and upbringing. Perhaps this seems an elementary observation but it begs the question: “Is there any ecclesiology that is not situated ‘for’ and/or ‘against’ the prevailing tendencies of the day?” Obviously not, as the Augustine example makes clear (funny to put in a story that doesn’t much build up ones case). Indeed it is perhaps a the unconcrete ecclesiology that is idealistic, looking to the sky for the “Spirit to act.” Yes, it is the height of irony that Hauerwas et. al. speak “idealistically” of the Church and proceed to judge the Church for remaining in sin but are being accused of being unavailable for such judgement. How might we expect the Spirit to judge the Church but by its own preachers? And it is a categorical misunderstanding of the RO critique to say that the Church must be “saved” from evil “modernity” or the “world.” It is exactly the message that the Church has compromised itself with modernity and the world’s secularity and is in need of a “return” (ie-judgement) to theology, to being itself and proclaiming the Gospel on its own terms and not those of “the world.”
To refuse to speak of the Church idealistically is to refuse to be an escatological Church, who is “already” perfected by the act of Christ. By not living up to this accomplished ‘ideal,’ the Church continually places itself under judgement and because of its concreteness can be sanctified. It is the individualized radically free ecclesiology of Reformed Protestantism that resists judgement and who in the face of struggle inevitably chooses schism over reconcilitation, who in the name of “necessary reformation” chooses a shrunken orthodoxy over a generous catholicity thereby rendering such ‘reformation’ null as the ‘reforming’ group is continually multiplied and pluriform.
Some (more) Thoughts on Church
May 19, 2009
Rather than going headlong into talking about ‘homosexuality’ I want to go a rather different route than I am used to seeing in these kinds of conversations. Usually we jump right into the gay boat, with all sorts of loaded questions and assumptions. Which inevitably leads down the road where the two sides get fixed again into a trench. Also, there are certain weasel words that creep into the venacular: words like “equality” “(full) inclusion” “rights” etc….
Instead I want to speak briefly of the Church, concieved as a whole, of those members who the Spirit has gifted and equipped in different ways. I suspect I will say almost nothing controversial or new, but that’s the point.
In Ephesians Paul (yes I think it’s Paul, now the “pastorals” are a different story) sets out the grand vision of God plan now revealed. In chp.3 he proclaims the Gospel which till this time had been ‘hidden’ awaiting the right time. Then he begins to show how this plan is worked out in the Church. So we see in chp.4 a sort of ad hoc list of giftings that Christ gives to his people. A similar list shows up in 1 Corinthians 12-14. To go through each ‘gift’ systematically would, I think, betray the way in which Paul writes. He is certainly not meaning that these are the only gifts of Christ to his people, otherwise the lists might have needed to have been identical! Rather the point is that the holiness bestowed on every Christian in unique, and unity comes when these giftings are put to use for the building up and training of the Church for the purpose of mission (“for the work of ministry”).
What are some of the callings and gifts that we see in the Church? (I am presupposing some sort of hierarchical structure, even if in many protestant churches it is not a sacramental role)
Well, for most Christians there is the four-fold ministry of laypersons, deacons, priests, and bishops.
Lay: Most Christians will work their whole lives in the wider realm of the world. This should not be seen as an absence of a calling. Indeed, in many traditions, lay people can be amongst the greatest theologians, teachers, servants, etc… in the Church. Think of all the great monastic thinkers who refused ordination, and how they shaped the whole of Christian thought. Perhaps this as a ‘category’ is much too broad. Within this sphere we see the great diversity of the Spirit working itself out for the building of the Church and the proclaimation of the Gospel. It is no mean calling to not be called to what we might think of as “ordained” ministry.
Deacons: In most Christian traditions, both men and women, married and celibate can be deacons. This holds true even in Eastern Orthodoxy, and some are pushing for a renewal of women in the diaconate in this venerable tradition. It would be hard to pin down what this means outside the context of the various bodies, but we might think of it as a sort of intensified lay ministry. In many Evangelical churches, deacons guide the parish in making financial decisions, and even help decide who will be their next pastor. In many liturgical traditions, deacons are able to perform many liturgical functions that “ordinary” laypeople are not allowed to do. This seems to me to be a rather neglected role in the Church, one which I hope will fill out and be renewed.
Priest/Pastor: Of course this does not need much explaining. Pastors are the shepherds of the people, a focus of unity in a parish, the one who can perform the Holy Eucharist and/or the one responsible for preaching and oh so much more. As a Pastor’s Kid I could wax eloquent but I won’t.
Bishop: The big poopa. The continuity with the Apostles, the focus of unity, the person who allows for worldwide mission and encouragement.
Monastic Orders: Metropolitan Kallistos Ware said in his great little book on Orthodoxy that “renewal always comes from the monastics.” Unfortunately this is not a visible aspect of Church life in most Protestant communities. Indeed, in all but a few it is non-existant. This is a shame, and might perhaps shed some light on the current issue in question. Monastic orders constantly remind the Church of aspects of itself that it cannot as a whole yet attain. Priests have the parish, Bishops the diocese, but monks and nuns have only prayer and service. They are in many ways the “foot soldiers” of the Church. They do everything from intercessary prayer, to seminary and school teaching, caring for the poor, missions, and theologize. It is my hope that “New Monasticism” will be able to accomplish for Protestantism what traditional orders have done for the Church through history. Did I mention that they make killer beer?
Marriage: Christian marriage has developed theologically to be a sacramental sign on earth of the creative wisdom of God, an abiding witness to the way of the earth to produce and sustain life, a sort of mirror of the faithful and free love of the Holy Trinity. I speak here of “Christian” marriage and not “biblical” marriage, as Tony so aptly and sarcastically pointed out, there are various “biblical” marriages.
I’m not trying to be exhaustive, but it seems that most everyone fits into one or more of these sections. It should be a point of praise that God so generously gives so many gifts and roles to fill up what is needed to point to a new humanity in relation to Christ. There are no “Renaissance men” needed in the Body of Christ.
It seems to me that there are some questions and comments that flow out of this simple exposition. More on that with the next post.
Authority Clarified
January 13, 2009
Several commenters on my last post indicated that they though me too hard on “Free churches.” Wordiness, and not clarity, is sometimes a hallmark of my writing and I wish to clear up what I said and what I intended to communicate.
My post was made in the context of those in the blogosphere and bookosphere, involved with the so-called Emerging Church movement who feel that denominations are due for a systemic failure. It is said that since we all have different interpretations, and we all can only interpret as our uncontrollable paradigm dictates, then a hierarchical structure only serves to oppress and control. Foucalt would be proud.
My main point was a reaction to this. It was not to denounce free-churchmanship as a theological and ontological truth, but to be at least one voice in the EC who thinks there are appropriate places in Christian life for the sort of fellowship and accountability which a group can offer. I am not sold on the word “denomination.” As a good post-modern I know that words only have the value which we determine to give them. So call it a denomination, call it a fellowship, call it a Village; the point remains. That organization needs to exist whereby those things which denominations have traditionally brought us can continue into posterity.
It is my contention that often it is a distatste for authority which manifests itself in assertions such as some have made, and not a truly thought out theological argument.
That being said I would like to point those concerned to an old post whereby I think I argued for a radially free-church ecclesiology in response to Reeds posts asking how source(s) of authority can be active in an incredibly diverse Christianity.
My ecclesiology in a nut-shell.
A person “becomes” a Christian by faith in Jesus Christ as the crucified and risen Lord.
When some Christians regularly get together to proclaim that Word, take the Eucharist, operate in the giftings and fruits of the Spirit, and live as disciples including compassion for the poor and abused etc… then that is The Church operating. I do not suppose for one moment that a bishop or a prebytery or a president makes one more of a Church than another.
I hope that clears anything up, but we are always open to sustained debate here!
Authority: A Response, perhaps a few ways forward?
October 9, 2008
I do not think that a point by point response will really say the things that I want to say. I will say that you put your finger on some great points. Overall though, because you extrapolate on each Source of Authority individually I feel that you miss the fact that in all Movements, the four of these (Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience) play simultaneous roles, usually without the thinkers knowledge.
First a few points to clear the air. EVEN IN THE ‘CATHOLIC’ TRADITIONS THERE IS NO TRUE AGREEMENT ON ALL DOCTRINES. There are Roman Catholics who write theology and history that do not receive the Imprimatur and there are Orthodox priests who think that the Philioque is an acceptable position to hold (provided it is admitted to be a later accretion) or that women should be able to be priests. And so, as in most Protestant traditions, there is a disconnect between what the “Official Body” counts as Dogma and what the individuals within that body actually believe.
What then holds the Movements together? That is a simple answer…
Ecclesiology
A first reaction might be the Eucharist. But that is simply not true. We all partake in the Eucharist. The reason that some will not take it with others is because of Ecclesiology. Who is in “The Church” and who is out. As pointed out above, universally held doctrine is not a reality, and so it is the Episcopacy which determines unity. The unity from the Eucharist (in exclusivist Bodies) is only attainable by permission and blessing from the Body Politic. The only possible exception might be exclusivist Lutherans who really do seem concerned only with dogma. Though even there one needs permission from the Pastor before they can partake, even if one can sign the Eucharist card in good conscience.
In summary:
Authority, although important, is not the unifying factor, because Authority has no place of influence outside of Ecclesiology. Diversity to a degree is tolerated within Movements because of usually unspoken rules about how much diversity can be tolerated. Only once the Movement begins to feel that some people are approaching the out-of-bounds territory does Authority begin to have a place to settle disputes and maintain unity and order.
Possible way(s) Forward:
It is funny that most of the Corpus Paulinium is devoted to Ecclesiology. While many of the words of Jesus and the Early Church are not universally applicable metaphysical laws, rather timely words of God, Paul’s struggle to ‘graft’ Gentiles into the People of God is still pertinent, still applicable with almost no anachronism. I look to Paul not because of a “biblical” authority, but because it is our earliest testimony. Earlier than the Gospels; certainly earlier than the first author to speak of the Episcopacy, Ignatius of Antioch.
Here again is the situation, this might be “New Testament 101″ but it must be set up. Jesus was a Jew. He preached almost exclusively to Jews. The earliest followers were Jews. Many of them, even though Jesus had opened up a new way to relate to “Works of the Law,” still maintained their Jewish identity through the observation of Jewish ritual practices, although now shaped around Jesus whom they believe to be the Messiah. Enter, Diasporic Jews and Gentile converts, still encouraged/required to follow circumcision and kosher practices. Enter, Paul: Paul is called of God to bring in Gentiles to the People of God, around Jesus the Messiah. Paul feels that these Gentiles are brought in by Faith in Jesus the Messiah and that they should not be circumcised or required to follow Jewish rituals, but many others say otherwise. Paul fights tooth and nail and he asserts repeatedly that ALL THAT IT TAKES TO BE A MEMBER IN THE NEW PEOPLE OF GOD, THROUGH JESUS THE MESSIAH IS FAITH IN JESUS. There is nothing of Popes, Bishops, Dual Natures, Essences, Begotten Not Made, Tran/Con/Real Pres./Myst.- ation and the like.
As evidenced by the constant doctrinal correction by Paul and John especially, it is plain that often the Converts struggled to maintain proper doctrine. Even as Paul attempts to correct some false teachings that some Christians believe, he maintains that despite their confusion they are members on account of their faith.
I propose that it is a reassertion of the belief in “Justification by Faith” (as even the Romans affirm, see Hans Kung’s dissertation, or the joint Lutheran/Catholic Declaration) that should be THE DECIDING factor which determines who is part of the “One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”
What of disputes then?
I say that it is the Public Discourse, focussed locally, across denominational lines, whereby doctrines are stated and tested by a simultaneous combination of the Four points of Authority. It is the accountability and submission to each other as fellow Christians which will help correct errors. A pragmatic (but not dogmatic) idea would be for us all to take on Episcopal government, but that is unlikely to happen.
In order to practice and reinforce unity by faith in Jesus Christ we should gather around the “Body and Blood” together, love each other transformationally, and practice justice in unity.
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
