Luke 20 is one of the lections for this Sunday the 24th Sunday of Pentecost year C.

Bet you didn’t buy a greeting card for that.

The famous and in fact only exchange between Jesus and the Sadducees in the book of Luke.

I will be preaching on this text again this Sunday. And will emphasize that the Christian faith does not teach what we often call immortality of the soul. It teaches resurrection of the dead.

First a point of self-correction. Although the Sadducees ask a question about the resurrection in the future the response Jesus gives is not primarily a defense of resurrection in the future so much as a demonstration of life with God in the present.

Joseph Kommanchak marvelously compares comments by N T Wright with commentary by Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas quotes the Orthodox(?) bishop Theophylact with reference to Luke 20:

If the patriarchs had returned to nothing so as not to live with God in the hope of a resurrection, He would not have said, ‘I am,” but “I was,” which is the way we usually speak of things dead and gone, e.g., ‘I was the lord or master of that thing.’ But since he said, “I am,” He shows that He is the God and Lord of the living. This is what follows: ‘But he is not a God of the dead, but of the living, for all live unto him.’ For although they have departed from life, yet they live with Him in the hope of a resurrection.”

Compare Wright:

Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees, in fact, does point towards the refocusing of the resurrection hope which was to take place later, not least through the work of Paul. It speaks of a different quality of life, a life which death can no longer touch, and hence a life in which the normal parameters of mortal (i.e. deathbound) life, including procreative marriage, are no longer relevant. It speaks of an intermediate state in which all the righteous dead are held in some kind of ongoing life while waiting for the resurrection which everyone, Pharisees and Sadducee alike, knew perfectly well had not happened yet. It speaks about YHWH’s past word to Moses, in order to indicate a present reality (the patriarchs are still alive), in order thereby to affirm the future hope (they will be raised to a newly embodied life). [emphasis added]

How delightful to see this confluence of Orthodox with Catholic with Anglican commentary!

So when my excellent teacher in seminary Isam Ballenger emphasized “Christianity does not teach immortality of the soul it teaches resurrection” that is mostly but not entirely correct. There is a kind of continuation of the soul beyond death. But without resurrection of the body this continuation is an incomplete form of immortality(?). Komanchak quotes Aquinas on 1 Corinthians 15:

Two answers may be given. First, if the resurrection of the body is denied, it is not easy, in fact it is difficult, to maintain the immortality of the soul. For the soul is naturally united to the body, and for it to be separated from it is against its nature and per accidens; soul stripped of its body is imperfect for as long as it is without its body. Now it is impossible that what is natural and per se be finite and almost nothing, while what is against nature and per accidens is infinite, [which is what would be the case] if the soul were to perdure without its body. That is why Platonists, positing immortality, also posited reincarnation, even though this is heretical. Therefore, if the dead do not rise, it is only in this life that we have hope.

Second, man naturally desires the salvation of himself. But the soul, although it is a part of the human body, is not the whole man, and my soul is not me [anima mea non est ego]. Hence, although the soul attains salvation in another life, I do not, nor does anyone else. Besides, since man naturally desires salvation of his body also, that natural desire would be frustrated [without the resurrection of the body].

This may by the way represent a definitive answer to my earlier post “Those who ‘sleep’ (or) Moebius syllogism?”

Let me confess that on the one hand my conviction that the teaching of the resurrection is one of the essential teachings of the Christian faith but on the other hand is the teaching I find most difficult to believe.

God? Okay. Trinity? You bet. Jesus the God-man? Sure why not?

Resurrection of the dead? Oh man that’s hard. Hard to conceive. Hard to imagine. Hard to believe. So far removed from our normal day to day existence that this is where the scientific(?) rational(?) side of me says are you kidding me?!?

Do not misunderstand. I believe it. Teach it. Proclaim it. Base my life upon it. But where I too cry out “I believe Lord help my unbelief!”

One of funnier moments in Introduction to Christian Mission was when Isam Ballenger then wondered aloud:

How much does God need to resurrect? And what happens if I lose part of my body during life? What if I cut my fingernail or lose an arm? Will I get that nail or arm back? My my my! (very paraphrased from rough memory)

Yeah we had a short laugh at that. But what he said has haunted me since. His questions raise a serious issue. How exactly will we be raised?

Let me put it this way. What if we cut our nails – how long will they be at the resurrection? What if we lose an arm – will we get it back?

Let us raise the stakes. What if we never had an arm – will our resurrected bodies now have arms? What if we have extra digits or limbs – will we have the usual number? What if we are deaf or blind – will our resurrected bodies be able to hear or see? What if we are hermaphroditic – will we be one clear distinct sex? What if we have Down’s Syndrome – will we have a complete set of chromosomes? What if we have dwarfism – will we be normal size? What if we are conjoined twins – will we have separate bodies?

The last group of questions are more difficult because if we say yes then what are we saying about people with these characteristics? I have read of deaf people who are offended by the notion that they will hear after the resurrection because they regard their deafness as difference rather than something that needs to be “fixed” even by God.

Let us continue with some more general questions. How old will we be? Will someone who died at 110 be raised as if they are 30? Will someone who died at birth be raised as if they are 20? And since resurrected life is theologically continuation of this life then what kind of memories and personality will a resurrected infant have?

Hold that thought.

Will we have sex? Probably not.

Will we reproduce? Probably not.

Will we eat and drink? This is a serious question because the reason we eat and drink and breathe is so that we will not die. As one of my teachers Alan McNeil at Cornell University said “the Second Law of Thermodynamics is why we eat lunch”. But if the resurrection signifies the final defeat of death and we will never die then why would we need to eat drink and breathe? For the fun of it? Quite possibly. The Bible frequently refers to the eschatological banquet.

Okay then. Will we go to the bathroom? How will the resurrected body metabolize food and drink?

Oh right. Science-fiction.

The most serious attempt to wrestle with the implications of resurrection is the Riverworld series by Philip Jose Farmer. No matter how old you were you are “resurrected” having a particular age. Although there is a special planet set apart for people younger than 5 – so that they have a chance to learn and grow. Farmer also attempts to explore the exact “technology” that would allow resurrection. Every human being from conception(? trying to recall) has a wathan which is an artificially created “soul” that retains a perfect record of the whole person and his/her life and personality.

Obviously Farmer’s theoretical version of resurrection is not the reality that the Christian faith teaches. But it is the only serious attempt to flesh out *cough* what resurrection of the dead would look like in practice.

I believe in the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

But I have some questions. Which may not matter.

Amen.

H/T The Anchoress by the way.

“We cannot continue this dialogue if you continue along this path” [paraphrased].

Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) of the Russian Orthodox Church in his address to the Annual Nicean Club Dinner at Lambeth Palace on September 09 among other things said this to an audience that included Archbishop Rowan Williams:

The dialogue is doomed to closure if the unrestrained liberalization of Christian values continues in many communities of the Anglican world.

Metropolitan Alfreyev particularly referenced ordination of women and of people actively engaged in same-sex relationships (a long and difficult expression but better and more accurate than simply “unrepentant homosexuals”). I am not quite prepared to agree that these are the number one problem.

I have been listening to a series of podcasts that come from an Anglican-Orthodox conference last November at Nashotah House (seminary in Wisconsin in the Anglo-Catholic tradition). (I plan to write more about this later.) It is interesting to hear the presenters describe what they have in common and what they think might distinguish (separate? divide?) Anglican and Orthodox Christians. Some of them expressed the opinion that traditional Anglicanism is much closer to Orthodox Christianity than to Roman Catholicism. I also have read an essay by an Orthodox scholar who critiques the World Council of Churches partly because there is a tendency to approach the Christian movement in terms of Protestant and not-Protestant – lumping together Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity. Whereas the Orthodox see Christianity in terms of Orthodox and not-Orthodox – regarding Protestantism as an outgrowth of Roman Catholic Christianity.

Hold that thought for a moment.

Metropolitan Hilarion described the real dividing line as something other than Protestant / not-Protestant or even Orthodox / not-Orthodox:

All current versions of Christianity can be roughly divided into two main groups: traditional and liberal. The difference today is not so much between Orthodox and Catholics, or between Catholics and Protestants, but precisely between Traditionalists and ‘Liberals’. Some Christian leaders, for instance, tell us that marriage between a man and a woman is no longer the only way to build a Christian family: there are other available models, and the Church should become sufficiently ‘inclusive’ in order to recognize alternative behavioral standards and to grant them official blessing. Some try to persuade us that human life is no longer an absolute value, and that life in the womb may be ended at will. Traditionalist Christians are in fact being asked to reconsider their views under the pretext of keeping up with modern times. [emphasis added]

To be honest the issues of same-sex relations/marriage and elective abortion do not strike me as so central – even though my views on these issues are indeed more traditional aka “conservative”. What about the Trinity? Jesus the God-Man? the authority of Scripture and Tradition? proper understanding of the human condition and of salvation? Metropolitan Hilarion is vastly more intelligent and better educated than me – it’s true check out his website – and might have good answers to these questions. But my initial response is to agree with him in general – the chief dividing line is Traditional versus “liberal”. I am not prepared to agree with him on the particulars.

H/T several websites via Opinionated Catholic.

A portion of the Greek manuscript Codex Vaticanus containing 1 Esdras 2:1-8

Have been listening to the “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy” podcast series made available through Ancient Faith Radio. It is a series of lectures given by Father Andrew Damick at Saint Paul Antiochian Orthodox Church in Emmaus Pennsylvania. It is largely a survey of Christian history and theology – comparing Orthodox Christian teaching to non-Orthodox teaching.

In the first podcast on the Classical Reformation he lists several problems with the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura – Scripture Alone. The teaching that the Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice.

For a long time – perhaps since college – I have not subscribed to Sola Scriptura but something more like Prima Scriptura - Scripture First. The Bible is our primary authority for faith and practice. But we must interpret it. And so tradition and reason also guide how we understand Christian faith and practice – perhaps more precisely guide how we interpret the Bible which in turn determines what we profess and practice. In other words for years I have held to what is essentially the Anglican view. See Articles VI and VII of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England.

Some dear readers may quibble with this or that so far. This is a highly simplified presentation of the issue so far. And is background for what follows.

Father Damick addresses the relationship between Hebrew Bible and Greek Old Testament. Basically for centuries the Greek Old Testament aka Septuagint was what Christians used. Not the Hebrew Bible. And Martin Luther and other Protestant reformers were wrong in several ways when they jettisoned the Greek Old Testament in favor of the Hebrew Bible.

• The Hebrew Bible is the product of the Jewish Council of Jamnia (90 AD) and was a reaction against Christian use of the Greek Old Testament. In other words Martin Luther used an anti-Christian canon to replace the traditional Greek Old Testament. (By the way there is some debate whether the Council of Jamnia actually took place.)
• Martin Luther was trying to get back to the source – perhaps continuing in the steps of Jerome. But the Hebrew Bible at the time of the Classical Reformation was based on manuscripts about 1000 years later than manuscripts for the Greek Old Testament. The Hebrew Bible is therefore in some sense less original than the Greek Old Testament.
• Even then the Hebrew Bible with which we are dealing is a consonantal text. There are different traditions concerning the vowels. The Masoretic vocalization of the Hebrew Bible consonantal text is only one among several. Once again the Hebrew Bible is less original than the Greek Old Testament. Moreover since the consonantal text can be vocalized more than one way how can advocates of Sola Scriptura be sure that the Hebrew Bible they translate/interpret reflects the original reading (vocalization)?

It is possible I misunderstand some of these points.

The points concerning problems with Sola Scriptura are excellent. But I am less persuaded by the arguments for why the Greek Old Testament is more original(?) than the Hebrew Bible. (Trying to distinguish the Scripture issue from the academic questions.)

The point concerning the Council of Jamnia is a good one. I admit to having a bias for the Hebrew Bible partly because of my graduate studies and partly because many of my professors are Jewish. Eric Mason is a Baptist scholar of the New Testament – and a rising star in book of Hebrews studies – who once challenged me on this very point. Basically he said that the Greek Old Testament has more claim than the Hebrew Bible to be the Old Testament of the Christian church.

The manuscripts argument is weaker than it sounds. Just because the manuscripts for any given book x are later than for book y does not necessarily mean that x is less original than y. It fails to address the possibility that the Masoretic Text preserves – at least in its consonantal form – earlier readings than the Greek Septuagint. We could be dealing with the accident of discovery. Except for those books in the Greek Old Testament that were composed in Greek the Septuagint is a translation of a(?) Hebrew original. One must consider the possibility that Hebrew Bible we have today is closer to this Hebrew original. Frequently in the course of my graduate studies I came across articles demonstrating examples of how the Hebrew Bible preserves accurately an earlier/original reading that the Septuagint translators did not understand.

(And what do we do with the Qumran texts aka Dead Sea Scrolls? Granted that there are differences between biblical texts found at Qumran and the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible – giving rise to several dissertations at Harvard University. We also need to consider Aramaic translations/interpretations of the Hebrew Bible.)

So the manuscript argument alone is not decisive. When the Septuagint diverges from the Masoretic Text – in meaning that is since the Septuagint is Greek and the Masoretic Text is Hebrew – one must make some minimal effort to show why the Septuagint reading is more original. Of course one could just as well argue the opposite – that we should make some minimal effort to show why the reading of the Masoretic Text is more original.

Different traditions regarding how to vocalize the Hebrew text. You do not need vowel pointing to have a pretty clear idea how to read the text. Just because you have a consonantal text does not mean you can insert any vowels you want. Otherwise speakers of Arabic would never be able to do something as simple as read a newspaper. And the different traditions do not – so far as I know – make much of a different in what the Hebrew text means. It is more correct to see the different traditions as different ways to pronounce the Hebrew text. But the meaning is still pretty much the same no matter which tradition one uses.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not arguing with Father Damick. There was another Ancient Faith Radio podcast in which Father Thomas Hopko said something similar. Rather my intent was to use this opportunity to reflect on the relationship between the Greek Old Testament aka Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible. Perhaps the Greek Old Testament is indeed somehow more original than the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible. But I am not sure that manuscripts and vocalization traditions are enough to establish that.

Had a comment on the post about the article by Ross Douthat which turned out to be a trackback from Positive Infinity. Website with thoughtful and interesting posts from someone with an interesting story. Been there many times over the last couple years. A fellow non-Anglican (formerly Anglican) who follows Anglicanism. So stop by say “hi” and give some love to Positive Infinity.

This is a cold cruel and cynical answer – which I had heretofore avoided – to a question explored several weeks ago.

Do not just tell me that the canons say such-and-such and that legally the Episcopal Church gets to keep all money and property. That alone does not explain the motivation. That alone does not explain the extreme efforts to which the Episcopal Church has gone. That alone does not explain the Episcopal Church stipulating that no Anglicans at any point in the future can buy that property.

Why would any normal human being want to keep what someone else gave and paid for? Could they not change the canons? Could they not choose to be generous and let people keep? Could they not choose to be minimally decent and let people buy the property they already paid for?

Because they are losing money like crazy? Because seminaries and parishes and dioceses are no longer able to support themselves? Surely it is not that simple!

The executive committee of General Theological Seminary‘s board of trustees said April 19 that the school may have to sell some of its property to raise enough money in order to pay its bills after mid-November. …

The April 19 news followed a more general warning about the school’s financial future issued by the entire board after a March 29 meeting when it said it needed cash to service its debt and pay for the 2010-2011 school year. O’Pray told faculty, students and administrative staff that day that the seminary needed between $2 million and $4 million, seminary spokesman Bruce Parker said at the time.

Just one seminary needs another $2-4 million to stay afloat. Yowza. Wonder how many buildings built paid for and formerly occupied by orthodox Anglican parishes need to be sold to keep all these Episcopal seminary professors employed for another year?

For the record no it is not that simple. The Episcopal Church is not doing everything in its power to keep the property of departing parishes and dioceses simply to sell it off and pay the bills. Because if money was the primary motivation then the Episcopal Church is going about it all wrong. Millions spent each year on legal fees suing parishes and dioceses to keep said property? And refusing even to let those departing parishes to buy back the property? Indeed on one occasion selling the parish property to a Muslim group for one third what the Anglican parish would have paid?

The primary motivation has to be something like spite. Because it is costing the Episcopal Church millions of dollars each year to pursue this policy. Although one could argue that they spend millions of dollars to end up with a net gain of tens of millions of dollars. That will keep a fair number of clergy of non-self-sufficient parishes and maybe professors at non-self-sufficient seminaries going for a while.

Disclosure – I serve a small mission parish which is not self-sufficient. The issue is not self-sufficiency. The issue is simply what is the Episcopal Church going to do with all this surplus property it has no use for?

H/T Midwest Conservative Journal

A recent development in the ongoing disintegration of the Episcopal Church prompted me to address something that has been on my mind for a few years.

Quick summary. Problems in the Episcopal Church. Largely disagreements over faith and practice. More traditional Anglicans have been leaving the Episcopal Church. Individuals. Then parishes. Now even a few dioceses.

Here is the problem. The leadership of the Episcopal Church insists that while individuals can leave parishes and dioceses cannot. Which means parishes and dioceses must leave all their money and property behind with the Episcopal Church. Some have tried to keep their money and property. They have been sued. Most of the time they have lost.

Two good websites for description and analysis are Anglican Curmudgeon (focusing on the legal-canonical issues) and Baby Blue Online (focusing on history and testimony).

Now Baptists would never understand this. The money and property belong to the congregation do they not? (Although if a Baptist church splits who keeps what?) According to the leadership of the Episcopal Church the answer is no.

1. Parishes and dioceses hold the property “in trust” for the Episcopal Church (the national body).
2. The Episcopal Church has a “fiduciary responsibility” to hold on to that property even if it means suing people.
3. The Dennis Canon (passed by General Convention some time back although Anglican Curmudgeon asks whether it truly did pass) provides the legal basis and language for #1 and #2.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the leadership of the Episcopal Church is technically correct. That technically and legally #1 and #3 are correct. That the money and property of a parish or diocese belongs to the national church.

What that does not really answer is why does this matter to them so much? #1 and #3 do not in my opinion lead to #2. #2 does not really explain the behavior of the Episcopal Church leadership.

Why would anyone want to keep property that a congregation mostly paid for? Why would anyone want to keep money that came from the people of that congregation?

Think about it. Would not most normal people with a sense of decency say “Look we are sorry but the money and property belong to us. But tell you what. We understand that you and those who came before you are the ones who gave the money and paid for the property. So tell you what. We will ask you to buy the property from us at fair market value”.

Does that not sound minimally decent? Heck they still have to pay for their church building all over again. They lose all the money they gave. But they can still stay in that property and continue to worship and serve in the name of Christ our God.

But the Episcopal Church leadership has not even granted that much. “No you cannot buy the property from us at fair market value. In fact when we sell your property to someone else we will stipulate that no one at any point in the future can sell that property to you or anyone else like you”.

Which is truly astonishing when you think about it. I sell you something but tell you that at no point in the future can you or anyone sell it to someone that I specify. Makes one wonder if the other person truly owns what they are buying.

A better writer and thinker would phrase this better but hopefully you get the idea. Do not just tell me that the canons say such-and-such and that legally the Episcopal Church gets to keep all money and property. That alone does not explain the motivation. That alone does not explain the extreme efforts to which the Episcopal Church has gone. That alone does not explain the Episcopal Church stipulating that no Anglicans at any point in the future can buy that property.

Why would any normal human being want to keep what someone else gave and paid for? Could they not change the canons? Could they not choose to be generous and let people keep? Could they not choose to be minimally decent and let people buy the property they already paid for?

To quote Johnny Cochran in the famous “South Park” episode 214:

That does not. Make. Sense.

Adherence to the letter of the law does not sufficiently explain what drives the behavior of the leadership of the Episcopal Church.

Oh right. Back to the present.

Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton New York. (Been to Binghamton many times. About one hour south of Ithaca and Cornell University.) One of the few growing and thriving Episcopal parishes in the diocese heck in the state. They left the Diocese of Central New York. They tried to keep their property. They were sued. They lost.

The family was abruptly evicted from the parsonage. The church building was closed. (People who came looking for the soup kitchen hoping for something to eat had to look elsewhere. That is an important point. I will come back to this.)

The Episcopal Church sold the building to Muslims.

Who paid one third what the Church of the Good Shepherd was offering. (There is some question about whether they had the funds to make that offer but that is not the most important issue here.)

To Muslims.

See those traditional Anglicans do not believe in same-sex relations. They do not believe in women in ministry. Oh wait the rector’s wife was associate pastor so guess maybe they do. Anyways. To heck with those intolerant jerks.

Which is why we sell the property to Muslims who do not believe in women in positions of religious leadership and who believe people who engage in same-sex relations should be put to death. Yeah. That makes sense.

Somewhat amusingly a priest in East Aurora defended this in his comments. Wondered why people were so upset that the church building was sold to Muslims. Sounds like prejudice. Sounds like a lack of regard for religious tolerance.

My response:

“Religious tolerance”.

Toward Muslims. Fair enough. I am all for religious tolerance. When Hurricane Katrina came through I headed over to the Islamic center (housing several evacuee families) with a couple Chinese congregants, greeted them in Arabic, asked what they needed, the next day we provided most of what was on their list.

But not toward fellow Anglicans…

Clearly the issue here is not “religious tolerance”.

… Adherence to the letter of the law does not explain this all consuming crusade that overrides all other considerations.

Including religious tolerance. Toward other Christians.

*If selling a property because there are 2 other parishes makes sense [ed - said priest argued that it makes sense to sell the property in a small town like B'hamton because there are 2 other parishes], why not sell another and leave just one? Because B’hamton needs more than one? Well okay. Why not 3? Not seeing the logic there.

What “fiduciary responsibility”?

What I see is pure spite. Some might call it hate.

One hardly knows where to start. General Convention 2009 of the Episcopal Church began on July 7. In her opening remarks the Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori had many things to say but this paragraph in particular has attracted attention:

The crisis of this moment has several parts, and like Episcopalians, particularly the ones in Mississippi, they’re all related. The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention.

Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.

Heresy. Besides my difficulty in understanding just what she is trying to say I find it remarkable that any Episcopalian at this stage of the game let alone the Presiding Bishop can use that word with a straight face. And all the turmoil in the Anglican Communion and in the Episcopal Church in particular? Apparently that has nothing to do with words and actions and decisions by the Episcopal Church and its leadership. No – it is all the fault of those nasty conservatives who adhere to a pernicious heresy. Thank you Presiding Bishop for clearing that up.

The Presiding Bishop is not entirely wrong. Of course salvation is not solely an individualistic matter. Nor is salvation simply a matter of saying the correct words. But orthodox Anglicans know this. The Presiding Bishop is engaging in sophistic caricature.

Another bishop, who asked not to be named, described Bishop Jefferts Schori’s view of salvation as being difficult to reconcile with the vows taken at baptism and Paul’s statement on confession (Romans 10:8-10).

Professor Christopher Seitz of the Anglican Communion Institute noted that the presiding bishop needed to define her terms. If by the “Western heresy” she meant the individualism of the Enlightenment, the priority of the individual conscience as articulated by Kant, or the need for individual certainty in science and history suggested by Lessing, “these are bedrock foundations of TEC liberalism.”

As a matter of history, there is no individualist heresy, the Rev. Ephraim Radner, professor of historical theology at Wycliffe College in Toronto told The Living Church. Jesus calls individuals “by name” and saves them “one by one,” he said, and a catholic theology cannot deny this.

“Her remarks would suggest simple ad hominem arguments against conservative evangelicals, masking as theological incoherence,” Fr. Radner said.

Read the whole thing at Living church.

Precisely. Professor Seitz recognizes the irony and hypocrisy behind what the Presiding Bishop says. And Ephraim Radner articulates well her underlying intent.

Doctor Mark Thompson offered some of the most trenchant and devastating dissections of what the Presiding Bishop offered:

The Presiding Bishop’s “ignorance of the Bible and Christian theology is nothing short of breathtaking” the Dean of Moore College in Sydney, Dr. Mark Thompson told CEN.

The presiding bishop’s condemnation of the culture of individualism was not misplaced, Dr. Thompson said, but the theological approach she was taking to address the problem was erroneous. “No one was suggesting that Paul ignored the corporate implications of shared salvation,” he observed, but an “unrelenting dichotomy between the individual and the corporate” was a modern phenomenon.

Augustine, Luther, the Protestant Reformers and the Anglican divines all taught that “God’s purposes are deeply relational and hence the very opposite of fragmented, isolationist individualism. Yet they also extend further than simply corporate identity to call on human persons as persons to repent and believe the gospel,” Dr. Thompson said.

For evangelical’s “more serious still” was the presiding bishop’s “caricature” of a confession of faith that she said made salvation dependent “on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus,” Dr. Thompson said.

The confession that “Jesus Christ is Lord” was “certainly a form of words,” but “they are never simply words,” he explained. “They represent a fundamental orientation of life which includes a willingness to have our thinking and behaviour shaped by the One we acknowledge has such a supreme claim upon us,” he noted.

Read the whole thing at Conger. You do not have to register.

This is why I say the Presiding Bishop is partly right – but for all the wrong reasons. She does not appear to understand what she is talking about. And insofar as she does understand it appears she is projecting onto others what is most true about herself and the Episcopal Church. Something about beams and motes.

One of my best friends – who was ordained a deacon and then a priest in the Episcopal Church through this diocese – commented that many of the clergy in this diocese have an “infantile theology”. I am afraid Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Schori demonstrates this all too well. Bishops are not just theologians – but bishops should be theologians. Something about teaching and defending the faith once delivered to the saints.

John Smyth

Oh dear. There is something just wrong about saying “I am not participating in this particular forum any more” and then responding to comments which recently have appeared on that forum. It is like those celebrities or politicians who “respond” to each other on camera or in print – but never have the courtesy to speak to and with each other if in private.

You understand I am criticizing myself here.

But with so much traffic from there this week – perhaps I need to reply.

1) “Rick Wright is not comfortable with the CBF because he’s clearly uncomfortable being a Baptist”. There may be some truth to that overstatement. I do not have any current plans to convert to any other Christian tradition – although for about one year seriously considered even pursued the possibility. Like most people I strive to understand better the Christian faith. In recent years this has generated an increased concern for “orthodox theology”. Not because correct beliefs are super important in and of themselves. But because they matter in terms of our mission, our worship, our spiritual formation, and our life in communion (ecclesiology). Even in seminary I was much more open to and fond of creeds in Baptist life. I am aware many Baptists would disagree with me strongly on this point.

2) I would suggest however that perhaps I understand being “Baptist” a little differently from some. To me the quintessence of the Baptist vision is – in a word – freedom. But if the heart of being Baptist is freedom – then Baptists are free to embrace “orthodox” theology and practice and even ecclesiology. And yes that means weird “un-Baptist” things like creeds and sacramental theology. I am aware many Baptists would disagree with me strongly on this point. They would probably argue that even if freedom is the heart of being Baptist – that this freedom expresses itself and must express itself in certain concrete patterns of belief and practice. They might be right.

3) But even then – can we look to other Christian traditions for wisdom and insights and even specific ways of practicing the Christian faith? I do not ask others this so much as myself. To what extent can one study Anglicanism or Catholicism or Orthodoxy or Judaism and so on – and learn/borrow/adapt from them – without going ahead and converting?

4) It was concern for (the health and survival of) Anglicanism that led to increased interest in Orthodoxy. I have been haunted by a conversation with a friend who is the only evangelical Episcopal clergy in the diocese in which he said that if the Anglican Communion falls apart that would mean “the Protestant experiment is a failure”. I also have been haunted by something Episcopal Bishop Charles Jenkins said when a close friend was ordained a deacon: “It is the nature of fallen humanity to seek community which pleases”. I wonder if Protestantism is inherently incoherent. By that I mean so much comes down to what you (singular) think and feel. Yes we speak of biblical authority and the lordship of Jesus Christ – but how we understand and interpret and apply these is still largely a matter of personal feeling and opinion. No wonder then if Protestantism (by nature?) fragments. I could be wrong about this – just sharing thoughts and impressions.

5) Which is why I have been wondering if Orthodoxy offers solutions to many of these problems that seem to plague Protestant Christianity. My “orthodox” Anglican clergy friends agree strongly. I can understand if Baptist friends do not. Maybe I should just convert. I do not know that and am not planning on it.

6) So yes – there are times I would like to see more “orthodox theology” in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Although one can understand if people are uncomfortable with that given the excesses they experienced in the Southern Baptist Convention. And I am indeed impatient with the whole “more Baptist than you are” debate – which one hears from Southern Baptist and moderate Baptists alike. I acknowledge this attitude may reflect a lack of appreciation for “Baptist battles” and those who experienced them. My seminary professor Cecil Sherman would probably give me a compassionate pastoral scolding. But I do believe “we should be more concerned with being Christian than with being Baptist”.

7) To make a short answer long – I think both our excellent friend in Texas and in Kentucky are largely correct. Even if it looks like they are disagreeing. But then that is how I handle a whole bunch of issues – that the answer is not either/or but more both/and.

One of my very first posts on this website was about Anglican Christianity as Western Orthodoxy. That is – if Anglican Christianity either reinvents or rediscovers itself as Western Orthodoxy – as a Western expression of Orthodox Christianity. One does not necessarily need to convert to Orthodox Christianity in order to appreciate that Orthodoxy offers much to Protestant Christianity. Indeed I would argue that Orthodoxy may offer solutions to the many problems which threaten Protestant Christianity – which I would argue is in serious danger of becoming a failed experiment.

Enter Metropolitan Jonah and his presentation before the Anglican Communion of North America 2009 on June 26 – just three days ago.

H/T Fr Cantrell at Apostolicity.

Frankly I have not paid much attention to this because I do not care an whole lot.

The Rev. Alberto Cutié, the celebrity priest removed from his Miami Beach church after photos of him kissing and embracing a woman appeared in the pages of a Spanish-language magazine earlier this month, has left the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami to join the Episcopal church and announced that he will marry the woman he has dated for two years.

Read the whole thing at Miam Herald. You do not have to register.

You may not have followed this closely but perhaps you heard about this. The paragraph above is remarkably well written – good journalism if nothing else – because in just a couple sentences you get the picture. (I taught writing to university students for about a year. I try to recognize and acknowledge when people write well.) Catholic priest has relationship with woman. Comes to public light. Catholic priest leaves Catholic church – or does he? therein lies a rub – and joins Episcopal Church.

I have no interest in criticizing or judging Father Alberto Cutie. Really. Yeah he broke his vows. Yeah he should not have been doing that while a Catholic priest. But celibacy has got to be tough. Especially when you meet a woman you really like. Should he have left the Catholic church before pursuing this relationship? Yeah probably. But think about the practicality of that. (Counterargument below – he may have made his vows of celibacy while in this relationship. But set that aside for a moment.) If you want to leave the Catholic church in order to pursue a relationship with a woman…

Think about it. How can you even consider leaving (the “honorable” thing to do) before you have already started down that road? And are you really going to leave all that behind when you have been “dating”? One cannot terribly blame a fellow for pursuing that relationship to some extent before saying “oh man – I cannot keep doing this and remain a Catholic priest”.

Anyways. That is not what this post is about.

This post is about the Episcopal Church. And how Episcopal bishop Leo Frade of Southeast Florida has handled the matter.

“Well. What a great opportunity to kick the Catholic Church in the nuts”.

There is a certain diseased cynicism in immediately and publicly saying “Well – we would love to have this guy come join the Episcopal church. Our church allows clergy to get some”. Rank self-serving opportunism.

One wise parish priest in Baton Rouge summarized the problem in the Episcopal Church this way. “They have turned pastoral theology into dogma”.

But one wonders if this is even pastoral theology. Certainly not very pastoral toward the Catholic church or those whom Father Curie served. The reporter nails it with more good journalism:

At a press conference late Thursday afternoon, Archdiocese of Miami officials expressed disappointment in Cutié and had strong words for the Episcopal Church, especially Bishop Frade.

”This is truly a setback for ecunemical relations and cooperation between us. The Archdiocese have never made a public display when for doctrinal reasons Episcopal priests have joined the Catholic Church and sought ordination,” said Archbishop John Favalora. He said he had not heard from Frade about the transition and had not spoken to Cutié since May 5, adding that Cutié never told the archbishop he wanted to get married.

Great quote. “We don’t made a big public display when your guys join us. But when one of us joins you… you rub our faces in it”. Favalora is a real Christian bishop who refrains from calling Bishop Frade… a jerk.

But one more point. And I posted this over at Midwest Conservative Journal (which I no longer visit much – just interested in other issues right now):