I suggest that God was so disappointed with our convoluted thinking that he inspired another messenger to make us think again. The doctrine of the Trinity had already confirmed the Jews that Christians were barking up the wrong tree and now they were confusing possible converts, so God sent a new messenger to proclaim that "There is only one God, Allah". Of course, his disciples added "And Mohomet is His prophet".
...Islam recognises Jesus as a prophet. Let us start there and show how great a prophet he is. He is the model, the ideal that God had in mind when he caused the development of the first human ancestor.
From an article in the November 2008 Niagara Anglican (pdf)
...Islam recognises Jesus as a prophet. Let us start there and show how great a prophet he is. He is the model, the ideal that God had in mind when he caused the development of the first human ancestor.
From an article in the November 2008 Niagara Anglican (pdf)
Susan Westall has written a very interesting piece for the Niagara Diocesan newspaper - "Has Christianity Blown It?". The article seems to be a rejection of a Trinitarian understanding of God, and specifically of the divinity of Christ. I tend to think those things are important, or at least "core doctrine in the sense of being creedal" as GS 2007 phrased it. The article is a continuation of a bit of back and forth which started when the newspaper's editor suggested that no one knows who was really right in the 3d century christological controversies. There was a reply by John Bowen, and now this seems to be another volley.
Does it matter whether or not Jesus is God?
Update: not that it answers the question, but it's kinda cool:
Dear Joe:
Yes!
Love in Jesus,
Gene
Posted by: Gene | October 27, 2008 at 12:00 PM
I've actually been thinking about this question for a while. In a nut shell, yes I think it does. But my reasoning behind it may not be traditional.
My theology is very Incarnation centred - I draw most of my hope and faith from the knowledge that God entered into the world in the most intimate of ways; by becoming one of us. But, on the other hand, my "modern" upbringing has me questioning how this is possible. I certainly can't come up with a tangible, logical reason and so I struggle with it.
On the other hand, being "post-modern" has allowed me to embrace the Incarnation full-heartedly. I attended a conference at which the key note speaker was Diana Butler Bass. She told the story of a fellow scholar speaking at a large church in the States shortly after Spong's book, This Hebrew Lord, came out. Someone in the audience asked the speaker about Spong writing denying the Virgin Birth. This whole topic threatened to take over the evening. The speaker finally told people that if they wanted to speak to her about it they should do so one on one after the evening's talk was completed. One young man approached her at the end of the evening and said: "I believe in the Virgin birth. It is so beautiful that it has to be true whether it happened or not."
That is where I stand on the Incarnation. It is so beautiful, it has to be true whether it happened or not. The truth is that God was very present here on earth in the person of Jesus. I don't understand the mechanics or the physicality but somehow this person we call Jesus was God come to live around us because God so loved the world ...
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Posted by: Ann Marie | October 27, 2008 at 12:21 PM
The article is like much of contemporary Western Anglicanism: full of confident assertions and fond wishes but devoid of logic or argument. Susan Westall seems to have no cognisance of the centrality of the Trinity in Christian theology. She seems to think the Trinity can be discarded, and Christianity will still be Christianity. It won't: it will be some other religion.
By the by, I've posted something on this at Anglican Essentials Blog. Thanks for the tip, joseph.
Posted by: Scott Gilbreath | October 27, 2008 at 01:43 PM
Boy at the rate the ACoC cuts things like the Creed and that Jesus guy from services it will be a few non-committal songs and coffee. Maybe they should just sell out to Tim Horton's and be open all week. Oh wait, they already have sold out, and the angels are stoking the fires, Lord have Mercy.
Posted by: Steve L.- | October 27, 2008 at 07:58 PM
You know, the number of Dioceses in the Anglican Church of Canada that have either gone off the rails or are in the process of going off the rails is incredible. Can Dioceses "go off the rails"? I guess it is the disciples that make up the Dioceses that are going off the rails. I think I could count on one hand maybe the number of so called safe or not going wacko Dioceses, so far. Very disheartening. We may as well have just joined up with the UCC. Gag Gag Gag.
Posted by: Susan | October 27, 2008 at 09:30 PM
Well, I think I'll put up John Bowen's response to the question: "does is matter whether or not Jesus is God?". And I might add my own two cents to his answer...
I think having an answer to the question is becoming more and more necessary...
Posted by: joseph | October 27, 2008 at 10:54 PM
I wonder what the blogs in the last days of Rome would have looked like.
Posted by: CPM | October 28, 2008 at 08:12 AM
Certainly the article is problematical, and yes, "the article seems to be a rejection of a Trinitarian understanding of God, and specifically of the divinity of Christ."
It is, however, an article by one individual. An unhelpful article, certainly, especially published in a broad distribution medium with a target audience of the average person in the pew, whose theological education may not be sufficient to see the traps entailed.
That said, Steve L's "quip" about alterations to the Creed and the Liturgy are at least as . . . problematical.
Nothing has been altered in the Creed (except the removal of that unauthorized interpolation the filioque), and our Liturgy is still built around the person of Jesus Christ.
While Steve's "quip" makes for a good eight second sound bite, it is an unfair, misleading and wilfully dishonest misrepresentation of the facts - and altogether too typical of the realignment crowd. Why engage in reasoned conversation when broad based slander is so much easier?
I can certainly point to more than the occasional "conservative" whose public utterances have suggested heretical beliefs. Using isolated (and not so isolated) quotations, one can easily (though perhaps not fairly) make the case that the Donatist heresy is rampant within the realignment movement. Recent comments from certain Global South figures would suggest that Gnosticism has overtaken orthodox Christianity - at least in the Church of Nigeria.
Lord have mercy indeed.
Posted by: Malcolm+ | October 28, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Father Malcolm:
I'll bite. What recent comments? By whom? Who reported them?
The inpirition for this blog post is an article by one individual. It is, however, published in the house organ of an Anglican diocese. Diocesan newspapers should be an aid to building community and contain only wholesome teaching. The statements made by the author amount to both Socianism and Modernism. As a reminder, Socianism denies the divinity of Jesus and Modernism denies the authority of preceding generations, which can include Church Tradition and Scripture. The editor should have either rejected the article or cleared it with the Bishop, or published it with some sort of personal opinion disclaimer.
As an aside, Donatism is the belief that, despite public repentence in both word and deed, a person who had fallen into public or notorious sin is forever ineligible for office in the Church because they can never gain God's forgiveness. Claiming that a currently unrepentent sinner is not currently eligible for office is not Donatism, it is part of Paul's instructions to shun false teachers because actions also teach the faithful, sometimes louder than words.
Posted by: Bill in Ottawa | October 28, 2008 at 02:04 PM
Ann Marie - you comment called to mind a passage from Waugh's Brideshead Revisited, where Charles (agnostic) is speaking to Lady Marchmain (Catholic). I'll have to look it up again, but Lady Marchmain replies to Charles that she believes the faith because it is such a beautiful idea.
Interesting.
Posted by: joseph | October 28, 2008 at 03:56 PM
The point, Bill, was that taking isolated comments by individuals and using them to claim that an entire body has rejected a particular doctrine is neither logical nor sustainable. The doctrines of the Anglican Church of Canada are not defined by the random musings of an individual layperson, even if those random musings are published in a diocesan newspaper. Thus, Steve's little soundbite has no basis in fact - anymore than random accusations of Donatism and / or Gnosticism can be substantiated by a few ill-considered remarks from some of the realigners.
Now, if Steve wants to show us some act of the General Synod altering the Creed or the Liturgy to remove references to the Trinity or to the Divinity of Christ . . .
We can wander down a rabbit hole about assorted relignment comments, but a couple of examples should suffice. Since Jeffrey John's relationship is not expressed sexually, the entire argument against his appointment to Reading was functionally Donatist. The Gnostic comments were quoted in Andrew Brown's Guardian blog this past weekend, where the Nigerian Church's website includes the following:
"He has the spell-binding gift of the anointed, and leaves no one in doubt that he is the oracle of God, speaking the mind of Christ, especially in his prophetic pronouncements, based on the HIDDEN TRUTHS OF THE SCRIPTURE." (Emphasis mine. "Hidden truths" is not a concept associated with orthodox Christianity.)
My point in raising these examples is that neither is a sufficient case to condemn the Church of England (in the first case) or the Church of Nigeria (in the second) of these respective heresies. In fact, it's dubious to suggest that they even make the case to condemn particular individuals as heretical.
One of the nastier realignment tactics has been to spread abroad the slander that the Episcopal Church / the Anglican Church of Canada have rejected assorted doctrines - even though this is simply not supported by the facts. One American bishop describes conversations at Lambeth where Global South bishops are quite surprised to discover that he actually believed in the Resurrection. Realigners have used these slanders to justify any number of incursions - as often as not in dioceses with conservative bishops.
This is dishonest. It is no different that secular controversialists calling Jack Layton a Communist (he's a social democrat) or Stephen Harper a fascist (he is, by modern parlance, a conservative - though classical economic liberal would be more accurate).
Day by day the slander is repeated - and isolated comments by individuals are held up as "proof." Doubtless this article will be used to "prove" that the Anglican Church of Canada no longer believes in the Trinity.
But it won't be true.
Lies do not become truth through frequent repetition.
Posted by: Malcolm+ | October 28, 2008 at 04:54 PM
Joseph,
Lady Marchmain replies to Charles that she believes the faith because it is such a beautiful idea.
Wasn't that Sebastian talking about Christmas?
Interestingly, Waugh made the most pious characters the least likeable even though he himself was a Catholic.
I'd much rather spend an evening with Sebastian or Charles than with Brideshead; not that that is a reflection on my own character or, anything *ahem*
Posted by: David | October 28, 2008 at 05:49 PM
Malcolm+ in all sincerity it appears your own answer to Joe's question is firmly set.
Posted by: Leslie | October 28, 2008 at 06:50 PM
Jeffery John was still living in the same house with his same sex partner when he made that statement. If a RC priest was caught in an affair with a live in housekeeper, and he said that he was sorry, but he would continue to live with her, would you believe it? Priests and bishops are called to set an example - by word and deed.
Posted by: Kate | October 28, 2008 at 07:54 PM
"Realigners have used these slanders to justify any number of incursions - as often as not in dioceses with conservative bishops."
This is untrue. If you are going to accuse us of falsehood, Fr. Malcolm, you would do well to get your own facts straight.
Posted by: Kate | October 28, 2008 at 07:57 PM
To clarify - The incursions have not as often as not been in dioceses with conservative bishops. I would also disagree with what you consider to be slander. Official doctrine of the church may be as you say it is, but the reality on the ground is very different in many parts of the country. Unfortunately, in many dioceses, the leaders don't act according to our official doctrine.
Posted by: Kate | October 28, 2008 at 08:00 PM
Not that we are getting off topic or anything...
Malcolm - I think you are correct in that some will take this as an all inclusive indicator of the "state of the church", which, strictly speaking, it isn't. Personally I take it as an opportunity to teach/witness/persuade (insert appropriate verb) what the Church teaches as the content of the faith once delivered. Which is why I posed what I think is the basic question involved. What I would be interested in seeing is whether any pastoral soul in Niagara will provide a response in the next diocesan newspaper.
Ms Westhall sought to put her opinions out in a public context, and I think they should be respectfully challenged.
David: yes, it was an incarnational conversation they were having, wasn't it? I also think Waugh was getting at the notion (gaining momentum in his own day) that the "historicity" of certain aspects of Jesus' life was being renamed as "poetry" (and therefore unhistorical).
Now I have an urge to get a bottle of champagne on ice and make my way through the novel until I find that passage again...
Posted by: joseph | October 28, 2008 at 08:15 PM
Fr. Joe - I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for that pastoral response if I were you...
Posted by: Kate | October 28, 2008 at 08:32 PM
Kate: as a means of protest, I will simply drink champagne until a senior cleric gently but firmly presents the case for the divinity of Christ in the next Niagara newspaper...
Posted by: joseph | October 28, 2008 at 08:43 PM
Joseph,
Sebastian doesn't say he believes because it's "lovely", he says it's "how he believes": a distinction that I think is significant, if a bit alien to us protestants.
In a way, I think Waugh had it right: Sebastian, for all his debauchery was special in God's eyes just because he was so utterly helpless, whereas Brideshead, although undoubtedly saved, was unutterably pompous and self-reliant. Waugh may have drifted a bit into the poetry rather than history stuff, but if he did, I find it easy to forgive him. One of my favourite conversations was when Cordelia says to Charles about Sebastian something like "it's not such a bad way to get through one's life". I wanted her to say "after all, he could have gone into business", but I don't think she did.
Yes, time to re-read it!
Posted by: David | October 28, 2008 at 09:06 PM
Found it at last:
But my dear Sebastian, you can't seriously believe it all.
"Can't I?"
I mean about Christmas and the star and the three kings and the ox and the ass.
"Oh yes, I believe that. It's a lovely idea."
But you can't believe things because they're a lovely idea.
"But I do. That's how I believe."
Posted by: joseph | October 28, 2008 at 09:43 PM
This is fascinating. I agree with Steve, so much in fact, that I left Anglicanism so that I could be sure that my children and grandchildren (God willing) will be part of the church where Jesus will forever remain both Human and Divine; where the gorgeous mystery of the Trinity will remain the paramount truth.
Posted by: Troy | October 29, 2008 at 07:34 AM
Father Malcolm:
I agree with you in that individual's opinions are not necessarily indicative of the state of an entire organization. My problem with the article is that it is so obviously a contradiction of doctrine that it should not have been published in an official ACoC newpaper.
Saint Paul asks us not to put stumbling blocks in front of our brethren. The reason I would not accept Dean Johns' candidacy for Bishop is that the perception of his manner of life constitutes a stumbling block to a large number of faithful Christians and seekers. The current actions of some of the Bishops in seeking ways to approve SSB ceremonies not permitted by General Synod is a stumbling block for the majority of the Bishops of the Anglican Communion.
Each of those Bishops was asked to implement a moratorium at Lambeth. Each of those Bishops are charged with defending the faith received and no one has yet come up with a convincing theological argument to change the Church's teaching on sexual practice or marriage. They are not upholding the vows they made before God and some, Mr. Ingham in particular, have published books that are false teaching at best and probably heresy in that he denies the uniqueness of salvation through Christ, among other claims.
Doctrine is not subject to democratic vote. Adminstration and budgets are, but not doctrine. We have ways and means to test innovations and proposals against Scripture to see if they are from God. When Scripture is mutable, these tests are meaningless.
For most of us on the conservative side of these arguments, we agree with Article VI regarding the sufficiency of Scripture. On a personal level, I believe that the 39 Articles, including all of the Homilies which I have read several times, express the foundational doctrine of the Anglican Church.
When leaders in the Church, especially Bishops, teach or permit teaching or actions that are not in accordance with doctrine, and do not correct or clarify that teaching to ensure it conforms with established doctrine, they put their congregations' salvation at risk.
Posted by: Bill in Ottawa | October 29, 2008 at 07:41 AM
Troy - only on an Anglican blog will you get Trinitarian theology combined with quotes from Brideshead Revisited...
And ps to all: this piece of writing is just the latest in a long series in which Ms Westall reiterates the same basic themes: Jesus is a model in the mind of God... Sounds rather Platonic - sort of like having Jesus as Logos, without having the Logos Incarnate. It is a repeated theme.
pps - I think I'll return to posting on that sensible pagan Virgil now.
"As the Qur'an repeats 'God is merciful', God, in His/Her mercy, used Jesus' crucifixion to give us hope that there is new life after death if only we will live life as Jesus did." (July 07). If that is the case, then I can confidently say that no member of the Anglican Church of Canada, ANiC or any other acronym will be enjoying the fruit of that hope, for none of us live life as Jesus did.
I'll follow the advice of the thief on the cross: "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Posted by: joseph | October 29, 2008 at 09:57 AM
Let me try to collate my various responses into one post.
1. Leslie - Indeed, my answer is firmly set - and implicitly set out. However, my answer is not what you seem to be implying it is. Although I was responding to Steve's slanderous comment rather than to Fr. Joe's question, I did describe the article as "problematical" and "unhelpful," and not once have I defended it's content as orthodox.
You want my specific answer to the question?
Of course it matters if Jesus is God. If Jesus is not fully divine and fully human, then Christian faith is irrelevant at best, and likely absurd. If Jesus is not God, the crucifixion has no relevance. If Jesus is not human, the resurrection has no relevance for humanity.
2. Kate, while I would stand by the charge about frequent realignment incursions into conservative dioceses, I should have been clear that the charge would not apply equally to all realigners. I would also say that the charge applies less in the Canadian context than the American. Among the most eloquent Episcopal Church presentations at Lambeth was the comment from a conservative bishop (Louisiana, IIRC) regarding the incursions into his diocese. One of the more bizarre disputes in the US is centred in the Diocese of Central Florida, where the realigners concede that the bishop is, from their perspective, in all respects theologically sound, but that they want to be "rescued" because the bishop has not been prepared to initiate schism in the Episcopal Church.
3. Again to Kate, I will agree that there is no end of theological sloppiness around - though I don't suspect the degree is any higher today than in any previous age. Nor do I think that theological sloppiness and imprecision are the exclusive domain of liberals. But heresy is more than mere doctrinal imprecision. It requires wilfull rejection of orthodoxy. Otherwise it is merely error.
4. Bill, we should note that Fr. Joe has referred to this as "a continuation of a bit of back and forth." In other words, it is part of a series of duelling columns. There was a time when Anglicans would debate any number of doctrinal issues in ongoing correspondence in the pages of the Church Times. I'm sure someone will come back with the next "volley" in due course.
5. We could go round and round again and again on the issue of the authority of Lambeth resolutions, but the fact of the matter is that the authority of Lambeth is neither more nor less than the collective moral authority of the participating bishops. In a Communion with diffuse authority, these Canadian bishops are and will be accountable for their choices - accountable to other bishops, certainly, but also to the synodical process.
6. I agree that doctrine is not decided by a simple democratic vote. But neither is doctrine (or at least our sinful apprehension of doctrine) a static thing. The Church has altered her view on a range of issues of varying doctrinal significance, from slavery to usury to the role of women to the dissolubility of marriage. I have no appetite for the immobility of Rome, nor either for the anarchy of congregational Protestantism. I much prefer the messy tentativeness of historical Anglicanism.
7. Joe, loved the video.
Posted by: Malcolm+ | October 29, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Interestingly enough my faith in Jesus as divine became strengthed after reading Harpur's, For Christ's Sake and The Pagan Christ. My faith in the physicality of the resurrection was stengthed after reading Spong's, This Hebrew Lord. I think the reason is that rather accepting these things blindly, the books challenged me to think about why I believe and knowing why I believed helped strengthen that belief.
For some people challenge draws us ever closer to our faith and in those instances articles or writings that challenge us are good. Of course there are risks involved in that. If we don't want to be challenged, we don't need to read the articles.
In discussions around such articles I learn so much more as people sit down to place in writing our core beliefs and the basis behind them. It also gives us an opportunity to bring those doctrines into contemporary life by placing in them in the language and thought patterns of average people.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
I don't think it harms people to see others trying to work out their faith.
Posted by: Ann Marie | October 29, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Malcolm, one realignment "incursion" into one conservative diocese does not equal "more often than not". Furthermore, this hasn't yet happened in Canada to my knowledge - therefore, what you said was inaccurate.
I believe that willful rejection of orthodoxy is indeed what we are seeing in many parts of the ACoC today. I have in my email box a newsletter from the head of Christian life and nurture of the Diocese of Ottawa that contains an "Evening Hymn for Autumn". It is suggested that we sing it in front of a smiling jack-o-lantern, and where one would expect to see the words God or Jesus, one finds the words "Great Pumpkin". I also came across a poster advertising a seminar on how to communicate psychically with your pet, which was held in an Anglican church in this diocese. These are my two most outrageous examples, but a little digging would produce many more. I think we truly are dealing with heresy. However, even if it were mere error - mere error becomes heresy if it is found in a bishop who insists on teaching it and refuses to repent.
Posted by: Kate | October 29, 2008 at 05:20 PM
Oh my goodness why stop at Allah the moon god being #1 in the Arabian pantheon of 360 idols... lets embrace the spirit of the Great Pumpkin. Rumour has it somewhere in the Diocese of New West ... by the seaside... the coming solstice will be exhalted.
http://www.novascotiascott.com/2008/10/29/unitarians-proclaim-halloween-official-church-holiday/#respond
Posted by: Tomas | October 29, 2008 at 06:52 PM
>>Malcolm: Of course it matters if Jesus is God. If Jesus is not fully divine and fully human, then Christian faith is irrelevant at best, and likely absurd. If Jesus is not God, the crucifixion has no relevance. If Jesus is not human, the resurrection has no relevance for humanity.
What I am about to say is not offered in the spirit of argument but instead genuine observation or something. Malcolm your point raises an issue I see as wide spread in my travels. And that is this: What I don't understand in this world is the tendency for the clergy to establish this point of divinity in their minds and then set about talk about every other thing but.
If it is true that the divinity of Christ is the hinge on which the Christian faith gains its relevancy and if the relevancy of the crucifixion and resurrection is a matter of least bit importance such that the hinge of Christ's divinity is worth the bother of hanging anything on...why isn't every pastor and priest shouting it from every roof top and bus station?
It seems as though lurking amid the faithful's answer to the question "Does it matter whether Jesus is God or not?" is a collective eye-roll. As though it is an insult to waste a bunch of time on so obvious a question, especially when we all know the right answer, when there are bigger things to discuss. The collective eye-roll seems to afflict every mainline denomination who struggles to find its way these days.
Posted by: Leslie | October 29, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Leslie, you're dead on.
We know the answer, but I don't think we understand it.
There are... implications.
There's a lifetime of exploration to be spent around that question. If we talked about nothing except the relevance of Jesus' divine nature, I think we'd find ourselves talking about everything that's important.
In particular, some of Jesus' teaching takes on some interesting meaning and authority once it is attributed to the mouth of God. Well, all of his teaching, actually.
Posted by: scott | October 30, 2008 at 03:42 PM
Leslie, I think you make a good point.
I don't presume to know how frequently the clergy as a whole preach about the Incarnation (that is, about Jesus as fully human and fully divine). One would think at Christmas at least, but who knows.
Like you, I've heard any number of sermons that don't seem to touch on the central teachings of the faith. Now, sometimes it's probably appropriate to preach about the application of our faith to our everyday life. Over time, I would expect any half decent preacher to cover a range of different things from a range of perspectives.
But frankly, I've heard some pretty dreadful pap of a Sunday morning - and I expect that more than once I've been the one preaching it. I'm told I'm pretty good, but I know that, some days at least, I can be bloody awful.
FWIW, I've heard dreadful pap in more or less equal measure from liberals and conservatives, and I've heard brilliant elucidations of faith in more or less equal measure as well.
One launching point I use for sermons about the Incarnation is actually a letter to the Churchman (as it was then) from a conservative complaining about the Moderator of the United Church. (Why you'd write to the Anglican paper to complain about the United Church Moderator is still a mystery to me.)
In any event, the letter concluded with the sentence, "Doubtless the Moderator prefers the Good News Bible or one of those other modern translations that tries to bring God down to our level."
This was meant, of course, as a condemnation - of the Moderator, the Good News Bible and modern translations of scripture.
In fact, it seems to me that God coming "down to our level" is precisely the point. And without that, the Christian faith is just silly.
Posted by: Malcolm+ | October 31, 2008 at 01:49 AM
Malcolm, I think you are missing the point. How would you react if your bishop preached in your church on Sunday morning, and told your people that Jesus didn't die on the cross, he only swooned? You can dismiss it as hearsay if you wish, but I have it from eyewitnesses. Take it as a hypothetical question, if you want.
Posted by: Kate | October 31, 2008 at 06:41 AM
I also meant to say, that there is a difference between dreadful pap and heresy.
Posted by: Kate | October 31, 2008 at 06:43 AM
I'd be quite startled if any bishop I've ever met were to have preached that Jesus merely swooned on the cross. I've certainly never heard a reliable eye-witness account of such a thing.
As a hypothetical? Well, I certainly wouldn't begin by shouting to the world. I'd begin by contacting my bishop saying "here's what I've heard, and it concerns me." Back in the good old days, it would lead to an extended correspondence in the Church Times.
There can be a difference between dreadful pap and heresy. Most dreadful pap probably isn't heretical - or at least not seriously so.
But some of that dreadful pap sets the stage for creeping doctrinal decay. Gentle Jesus meek and mild may not be heretical, but there is incipient heresy within.
Posted by: Malcolm+ | November 01, 2008 at 12:00 AM
As I said, is it appears something happens to the clergy, either at graduation or before or after, that instills in them a fascination with the details of churchhood rather than the man who is our faith. There are exceptions of course, and my guess is they are tired. It seems a sensible distraction for the devil to use and it'd almost be good if there were a class about warding it off.
Posted by: Leslie | November 01, 2008 at 10:02 AM
In particular, some of Jesus' teaching takes on some interesting meaning and authority once it is attributed to the mouth of God. Well, all of his teaching, actually.
Exactly the point that John Howard Yoder made when people sometimes challenged his orthodoxy. He responded that it was because he was firmly committed to Chalcedonian Christology that he saw the teaching of Jesus about loving your enemies as the last word on the subject.
(ducking and running for cover...)
Posted by: Tim | November 01, 2008 at 02:54 PM
Leslie, I agree that there are some clergy (and others) who, as you put it, have "a fascination with the details of churchhood rather than the man who is our faith."
But I suspect the problem may have more to do with a desire to be "safe." Preaching meaty sermons which involve rigourous intelligence and which have consequential demands on parishioners can be risky. And when you're a young(ish) cleric who depends on the stipend and housing allowance for your living, it can be easier to teach "vegetarian" sermons which present an anemic Jesus and an undemanding faith.
I don't actually believe that the laios (in general) are demanding empty pap - but empty pap is less likely to offend.
Posted by: Malcolm+ | November 01, 2008 at 11:15 PM
>>Preaching meaty sermons which involve rigourous intelligence and which have consequential demands on parishioners can be risky.
Somehow I'm not making myself understood.
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me." The simple truths are the most profound. The complexities are fascinating details, and while wonderful, not necessary. And further more I grow weary of the assumption that a thought provoking sermon means fearsome consequences that will trigger a congregational uproar. It is a defeatist insult to the congregant and it grossly misjudges the truth of Augustine's observation that our hearts won't rest until they find rest in God. Christ, and his redemption, is craved by humanity.
The problem is pastors are tempted to measure the quality of their work by the visual evidence of the efforts of their congregants...and therefore they are pressed to think a foundational sermon means goading people to get busy. (Not to mention a whirl pronouncements of whatever "issues" carries the day.) And I suppose it is unsafe because that kind of thing misses the point. Here, for the record, is the point:
Jesus is God.
Are there consequences of that?
Yes. Redemption. Relief from the baggage that plagues the human heart. Cleansing. Distance from sin as far as the east is from the west. A conquering of the devil.
This is what the people crave. They crave it, but we, the stewards of The Word, have robbed them of the language to express it.
Once reclaimed the people are liberated and they hear the whisperings of God in their own ear and venture forth at his prompting.
Posted by: Leslie | November 02, 2008 at 01:25 AM
"And further more I grow weary of the assumption that a thought provoking sermon means fearsome consequences that will trigger a congregational uproar. It is a defeatist insult to the congregant and it grossly misjudges the truth of Augustine's observation that our hearts won't rest until they find rest in God. Christ, and his redemption, is craved by humanity."
I agree absolutely. But the fact the assumption is wrong doesn't mean that the assumption - or at least the fear arising from it - does not exist.
The other extreme, perhaps, is preaching meaty sermons about yesterday's heresies. (I recall a Punch cartoon where the yooung preacher glares down from the pulpit at a bemused peasant woman in the front pew as he says, "I know what you're thinking - Sabellianism!"
What are today's heresies? I offer a few.
That Jesus is "a wise teacher."
"Gentle Jesus, meek and mild."
That the Church had it "right" at some indefinable point in the past and everything that has happened since then has been a disaster.
That the Church had it "all wrong" at some indefinable point in the past and everything that has happened since then has been Spirit-led.
That faith has no political implications.
That faith is principally about politics.
Posted by: Malcolm+ | November 02, 2008 at 08:41 AM
Good points, Malcolm.
Posted by: Leslie | November 02, 2008 at 06:26 PM
I was rushing a bit this morning, naturally.
But I did want to observe about the "balanced" list of modern heresies - balanced, but by no means exhaustive.
The thing is, the ancient heresies were often balanced in the same way. Bishop Wand of London wrote a book on the four great heresies and indicated that the four could be paired, each falling into heresy by going to far in opposite extremes. Arianism denied Christ's divinity, Appolinarianism his humanity. Nestorius denied that Jesus the Christ was one person, Eutyches denied he had two natures.
Posted by: Malcolm+ | November 02, 2008 at 09:36 PM