The wonderful Sarah Dylan Breuer has issued an invitation to all the thoughtful folks out there to see if they “can come up with a list of important points we actually agree on.” I don’t mean to be a complete dog about this, but my immediate reaction to this is - so what?
Immediately some person writes in that the Virgin Birth is absolutely critical. Huh, It is? You see, this really rubs clumber the wrong way, this whole “where do we agree” thing… it strikes me as just a re-wording of the whole covenant thing all over again.
I am not convinced that even if we had a core set of, say, 5 things that are absolutely essential that we’ve really achieved anything. Does that get us closer to God? Does it help us in our journey? We’ve got the catechism in the BCP. You and you and you and I can interpret the meaning in different ways and yet when it comes time to worship I firmly believe that we can be one body. I think the tent is big, bigger than we can even imagine. I think that inclusion is preferable to exclusion. I think that compassion is better than judgement.
SDB says “I believe that Jesus is really present in the sacrament of the Eucharist.” I say I don’t even think about it… it’s not important. We come together, we are fed, we are the body of Christ. To seek to “understand” what the Eucharist is is a waste of neurons. Jesus said “do this” which is good enough for me. I am fed, you are fed, we all are fed. Enough. You are fed in a different way than I am? Okay, I can live with that. Same for most of the Bible. You want to believe in a virgin birth, in water into wine literally, into walking on water, in bodily ressurection? Great, just don’t make those things core values that we all have to agree on. Doesn’t our human (and canine) condition imply that we can’t understand it all, we can’t imagine it all?
We used to have a priest who graded his sermons from 1 to 4 on intellectual complexity. He said that most of his sermons to us were 2’s, and that sometimes he gave us a 3 but had yet to use a 4… and I loved it. Intellectual complexity was meat and gravy and potatoes for me. Then a funny thing happened. Our next priest gave us simple sermons that had layer upon layer to ponder. They were like Christ’s parables. Simple stories that you could chew on for a lifetime. Bones that clumber could carry away and remember all week, all month, all life… I congratulate the theologians out there who study and work for real intellectual understanding of Christ. I really do. I’m not one of those, and I don’t think that was Christ’s message for us. It’s like in the movie Bull Durham where the catcher says something like “This is a simple game, you throw the ball, you hit the ball, you catch the ball”… you start thinking too much and you can’t play the game.
You see, I continue to believe the Anglican Pub motto, If you want to be here, we want you here. Now turn to page 361 in your BCP…
Here’s mine:
God loves all of us, and we can’t figure out how to deal with that.
Works for me.
Here’s another way I think about it… are Methodists Christians? How about Quakers? How about RC’s…. well, we all don’t believe the same stuff, how could we possibly all be Christians… I know, being Anglican is somehow different from being Christian. Different clubs, different franchises, different recipes, different, different, different.
This David Wilson+ guy over on the SDB blog says “We are two vastly different religions in the same Church, full stop.” No. We. Are. Not. Full F Stop. That’s just a load of crap. You want to be here, we want you here. No checklist at the door, no secret handshakes. God and Christ can and do feed us all. We all, in some sense, get it wrong.
I’m with you, Clumber. Dylan’s well-intentioned and apparently reasonable proposal actually just buys into the racket the ‘reasserters’ are running on us.
To the extent that we need anything written down to agree on, it’s all there already. It’s in the catechism, the baptismal covenant and the Creeds, which are there for us to lean on and be nourished by, not to beat each other up with. These wheels don’t need to be reinvented. Let whosoever will, come to the table and eat and drink.
Having checked out the current status of the effort over at Dylan’s blog, I feel even more strongly that it is a huge mistake. It’s an absolute train wreck already.
I like your pub saying, Clumber. It works perfectly.
Y’know, I’m a theologian and I tend to agree with you… (I’m writing “tend to” to cover my behind.)
Plus, we went through all this arguing and fighting in the streets and writing by committee with the early creeds already.
I’m still working on those.
Your statement about Eucharist reminds me of a great quote by Flannery O’Connor, fine Catholic that she was. (This is from her letters.) “The only thing that makes the Church endurable is that it is somehow the Body of Christ and that on this we are fed.”
But then, the novelists and poets say it better than the theologians (unless the theologians write poetry, which of course some did and do) especially those who try to put the cosmos and Christ into rational formulae. Doesn’t work.
About this being “two vastly different religions in the same Church, full stop,” I agree with your ‘full F Stop’, Clumber.
And what is with this proclamation being made willy nilly about how all us reappraisers will be thrown out come the Judgement because we don’t agree on every jot and tittle? I just don’t think any earthly being can call that one.
We believe that dogs are really great.
Woof! Woof! Woof!
(That of course was a Trinitarian affirmation.)
You may not be a curmudgeon…. but I’m told I am. In fact, I’ve been given the title “Archcurmudgeon of the Anglican Communion”! (Hmmmpphh!) Be that as it may, I like what you’ve written.
The Creeds and the BCP catechism, but first and foremost, The Two Great Commandments. I would add The Beatitudes, too.
Well, in truth, haven’t we all had our period of “Saying the creeds with fingers crossed”? Same with the rest of it all… my theory is that in the course of our journey we all get lost, get found, get “it”, miss “it”, drop the ball, find the trail, loose it again, and miss the point, fail to hear the message, completely understand the Big Picture, and continue to repeat this throughout our life…. given that, what does a shared set of beliefs mean? If tomorrow I wake up confused, dazed, lost, and helpless and think I have to start saying the creeds with fingers crossed again, am I then out of the communion?
I say no.
As long as you want to be here, we want you here! Even if all the stuff that we say matters, doesn’t matter to you. Maybe you’re here for our coffee hour, maybe for the music, maybe for the smiles of the people around you. Eventually, God’s message will get through to you and me… or maybe it won’t. But the doors and the table are open for you to come and be fed, in whatever way you are fed at the Anglican Pub. Who are we to set up this club and create the membership rules? This isn’t our club, it’s God’s club. He holds the franchise rights here, not us. Our Anglican services do have rules, regulations, standards, but if you want to participate, then come on in and sit down. We have a lot of work to do here, and we can use all the hands we can get. The Kingdom of God is here! The first step in that is to live like you believe it. We need to stop checking credentials at the doors to God’s Church!
Blessings to all of you wandering this way and thinking about these things… it’s a joy to talk with each of you!
Welcome back, and Amen, brother.
Hey, you old dog. Your comment above is so good that I stole it and posted it on my blog. So whadda ya gonna do about it? Dogs can’t sue.
Agreed, clumber. Have been thinking similar thoughts myself, but you said it so much better. Enough to make this bluestocking think about rolling up her blog and spending her spare time tippling pints at the Anglican Pub.
Grandmère Mimi, I’d defend you anytime, anywhere, but I have to warn you about saying that anyone, dogs included, can’t sue. Those are fighting words to lawyers. It took more than $25,000 in fines and legal fees and one the preeminent jurists of American law, Richard A. Posner, to kick this dog out of court [seeWall v. City of Brookfield/a>]. But I’m sure clumber wouldn’t go to such lengths.
But I’m sure clumber wouldn’t go to such lengths.
Klady, Clumber, well I hope not.
I think, Clumber, what you are sharing is true to some extent. I agree that no church should conduct orthodox, litmus tests at the door. And, there are tons of things that Christian believers can disagree concerning without any huge deal at all. For all of us, our growth in grace and knowledge surely is an ongoing process.
But, I think it is a concerning situation if we have leaders in the congregations who are teaching contrary to the gospel. How do we balance our desire to be open, and inclusive with faithfulness to Jesus Christ, and His gospel, the work of the cross. Surely, we don’t want to discourage or drive folks away, but do we also want to communicate the impression that it really doesn’t matter what we think together concerning the reality of the “incarnation,” or the content of the gospel, that this is all pretty much subject to anyone’s private interpretation, no matter what.
For instance, over at Father Jake’s there is a priest who sometimes posts who is a “high church atheist,” and feels that salvation is an iron age concept.
Should there be any parameters at all relating to what should be taught and affirmed in the churches? Suppose someone wants to teach the young people’s S.S. or catechism class who is unitarian in his belief system?? How should Christian parents respond showing the love of Jesus who do feel strongly concerning the gospel, and the historic faith of the Christian church?
Well Grace, I guess what I’d have to ask is, what is your definition of “contrary to the gospel?” Which gospel, which translation, which footnotes? I meet perfectly decent people following the way of Jesus who probably are all over the place with respect to reading the Bible.
And when you say “the historic faith of the Christian church”, are you talking the historic faith of 70AD, or the 400’s, or the 1400’s, or are you saying the relatively recent literal reading of the texts? The historic faith is evolving and changing, not fixed and immutable. I know there are some who want to say that’s impossible, but Christianity is filled with ambiguity and struggle and growth. To say that it isn’t is to imprison the spirit and truth of the Bible. Now you bring up situations whereby the priest or priests are out of tune with the big “C” Church, well, then the Bishop needs to have a chat with the person involved, don’t they?
I see over on SF that you say “I don’t think that God’s truth evolves. He is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. But, sometimes our apprehension of His truth grows and develops.”… I’m assuming you mean “appreciation”, yes? And I agree with you. But that’s a pretty big door you’ve opened… it implies that maybe Paul was wrong more than he was right. … notice I said maybe. After you’ve said that our appreciation changes, where do you draw the line?
I see you also say “I’m personally orthodox and evangelical in the faith.” and I guess I’m puzzled - what does that mean? Webster gives 5 definitions for evangelical, and orthodox says that you are “conforming to established doctrine”…. okay, I guess we need to see your list…. I’m over there with Mimi with minimalist doctrines, which I use to energize my journey, not to hold on to like a life raft (and no, I’m not saying you do that, but be honest, what value are the creeds to you?). I think that’s a decent question for everyone to ponder for a while.
So, let us finish with the prayer on page 355.
Thanks for getting back, Clumber.
By orthodox, I just mean that I accept the creeds and confessions of the Christian church which reflect the apostolic witness concerning the gospel. Evangelical just means committed to sharing this “good news.”
And, here’s the apostolic, Scriptural witness concerning the gospel.
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you recieved and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
For what I recieved I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.. lCor. 15:1-4.
In another place, Clumber, Paul explains that he received this gospel not from any man but by revelation of Jesus Christ.
This is the same gospel which was also affirmed by the church fathers, by the teaching of the reformation, and down to the present day. The “good news” hasn’t changed!
Everytime that you and I receive holy communion, we are affirming the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ on our behalf. Are people genuinely following Jesus who have rejected His reality as God the Son, or who have dismissed the work of the cross? For me, there is a huge difference between agreeing and attempting to follow the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus, and actually knowing and having a relationship with the Lord.
I so agree with you Clumber, and with everyone that the church should be inclusive. We should be beyond loving and welcoming, but this should never come at the expense of the
gospel, the work of the cross.
The whole center of our faith as Christians is the reality of the “incarnation,” and Christ’s death and resurrection on our behalf.
There are some folks who will be drawn to this message, who will come to Christ. But, others will as the Scripture teaches find the preaching of the cross to be foolishness.
My huge concern is that we do not accomodate the gospel to “unbelief,” as if what I’m sharing right now doesn’t matter too much one way or the other, or is open to anyone’s private interpretation. In the long run, I don’t feel this is basically honest, or genuinely shows the love of Christ at all.
Clumber,
I did mean apprehension. God’s revelation is progressive, and our understanding grows as we grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord.
Of course, now we see through a glass darkly, yes. God has revealed Himself truly, but not yet completely. Do you see what I mean?
God bless, Clumber. I love “old dogs” too.
Grace,
I accept the creeds and confessions of the Christian church as well… but they’re words open to interpretation. They were not written in English. They were created by committees (not that that’s a bad thing, it just means that in all probability there was leeway built into the words and we all understand them slightly differently. For instance, I’ll bet there’s a possibility that you and I see “born of the Virgin Mary” slightly differently. We read the major word “believe” differently too. I’ll bet we understand the cross differently (not that that’s a bad thing, as Paul gave different meanings for it as well!)… and if those are bad examples, well, I’m sure we could find one or two in there.
And I think sharing the good news is great too… but it’s a simple
today means that you just have to protest the war in Iraq? I could make a case for each one of those as “sharing the good news”.
And next week my understanding may be deeper and may change in subtle ways. The old saw about “if you’re still worshiping the God of your childhood, then somethings wrong”, can be extended to the God of last decade, last year, even lasst month. We continue to grow in Christ.
So there it is Grace, we all have different understandings of this stuff. Mrs. Clumber and I don’t agree all the time. My Bible study class doesn’t all agree all the time, but we are all commited to study and follow Christ, to seek and serve him in all we do, and we all come to the one point of unification for us, the Eucharist. But then, keep in mind, I am an old dog, and the struggles of all these people over what is true mystifies me. You and I could undoubedtly worship together, couldn’t we, Grace? We could do Kingdom Work together, couldn’t we? We could walk on our journeys knowing that ultimately we’re all going to be in the arms of God, couldn’t we?
Ultimately we are called to love God and love that which God loves. That’s enough of “statement of belief” to last me a lifetime. Do I have a “relationship with the Lord”? I work too seek and serve Christ in all people.
Sorry, there’s more here, but this old dog is under the weather today (too many dog biscuits last night, or perhaps I caught something from all these cats wandering around the Internet (when in doubt, blame a cat is my motto!))… peace be with you, Grace.
Update: Churck Blanchard has some good words about theology over there, too….
Snagged from OCICB… I think MadPriest nailed what I was trying to say so much better than I ever could. Posted here for your enjoyment:
MadPriest said…
Personally, I’m completey with you on this, Grace. As I’ve said many times before on this blog, I’m a credal fundamentalist. In respect of the Church of England, I think our deacons, priests, bishops and any members with a teaching role should, mainly for reasons of personal integrity, believe everything we say we believe in our liturgies - otherwise we are hypocrites. Of cours, “believe” is a big word and I do not want to define it for other people.
In respect of other communicants in my Church, I teach them the orthodoxy of the creeds in my sermons and on other occasions, but I cannot and do not insist that they accept what I say, and I have absolutely no interest in categorising my “flock” on the basis of who is and who isn’t a proper Christian. That’s not my job.
In respect of people from other Churches and denominations, if they say they are Christians then that’s good enough for me. If people partake of the sacraments who don’t believe that Jesus is Lord and God, that’s between them and God.
So I am fully inclusive whilst being personally orthodox and teaching the orthodox faith.
Bear in mind, for me doctrine is only about the nature of God and the action of God. Stuff like church structure and who can be a priest has nothing to do with the the nature of God as defined in the creeds, so it isn’t a doctrinal matter. I think this is something that evangelical Anglicans could usefully take on board because it would free them to preach the gospel without wasting time on irrelevancies. Then they’d all be like you, Grace.
05 May, 2007 13:06
Hope you’ll feel better, ((Clumber))). Yep, we’ll hang in there together.
God bless!