More on TEC
TWS asks me what do I see are the elements of the "new faith" in the Episcopal Church? I have not answered the question because I'm not sure of the answer. That's because I think there's an enormous diversity of belief within this "new faith." So I guess the short answer is: There isn't one.
I would hold there is a continuum, and many of these groups are far from new with TEC. NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING THIS ENCOMPASSES ALL EPISCOPALIANS. Please do not misunderstand me. I am talking about a collection of people who are one loose constituency within TEC. They are:
1. Nice people. These are people who see TEC as a club, and hold to none of the elements of the Nicene Creed, except perhaps the first line. It's a nice place to be, and the people are nice. Sometimes they bring their children to church to "expose them" to it. They don't really care, at the end of the day, whether or not Christianity is true. They may be agnostics. They think church is fun and that it's important to be nice.
2. Modernists. These people hold a modernist belief that the question of the truth of Christianity is unprovable and perhaps irrelevant in light of today's science and technology, but that the mythological structure of Christianity serves as an important way of ordering their world, and have chosen Christianity as a way of doing so. They may be inspired by certain teachings of Jesus and the collective wisdom of the church, reject what violates their sense of propriety, and go from there.
3. Seekers. These are people who've read a lot of Joseph Campbell and Huston Smith. They hold Christianity is a yoga, a path to God or the infinite or whatever you want to call it. They won't. The important thing, to these people, is the journey. Variations of religions are merely the masks of God, as Joseph Campbell says.
4. "Intentionalists" or "willfulists." [I need a better name.] These are similar to "nice people" but with some actual spirituality about it. These people believe the important thing is what you intend, will and do. Spirituality is a question of changing yourself and ordering your own intentions, will, and actions. Through church life make yourself more loving, more caring, more considerate of others. To be like Christ, you act like Christ. They will often seem genuinely shocked when you imply that God may reveal Himself to believers. To them, that's nuts. The infinite is beyond — you don't know God in any sense. They may have a touch of mysticism that through good intentions and intending cool things for others, good things will happen in the spiritual realm. But more often they believe in a straight social-justice gospel — you get up, you do the next right thing, etc. They are likely to believe that you change yourself through prayer.
5. Power-trippers. These people believe the answer to the problem of sin is to change the definition of sin. By taking over a denomination, they believe they have the authority to redefine moral law to conform to their own desires. Gene Robinson of NH, for example, said "the church wrote the bible, and it can rewrite it." [note: quote not exact.] They will usually denounce any aspect of Christian belief that makes them feel uncomfortable, and try to claim the authority of the church allows them to do so. Like all that icky sin stuff.
6. Pagans. They believe in various gods and goddesses, are likely to put a statue of Sophia on the alter, and often loathe Christianity. They also delight in using TEC as a platform to denounce classical Christian belief.
As you can tell, there is a wide variety of reasonableness in all these beliefs. With the exception of the last two categories, most are very reasonable. The question, though, is not is it reasonable. The question is: Is it Christianity? As I've said before, my problem with Bishop Spong is not that he's wrong or he's unreasonable, it's that he took the money. He was hired as bishop of Newark; his job was to teach Christianity as an apostle of Christ. Instead, he taught the wisdom of his own mind while collecting a paycheck to do something else. Similarly, the problem I have with each of these groups (except the seekers — they have hope) is that they're standing in the wrong place to say the things they're saying.
More later.
(note: not proofread and subject to revision)
I would hold there is a continuum, and many of these groups are far from new with TEC. NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING THIS ENCOMPASSES ALL EPISCOPALIANS. Please do not misunderstand me. I am talking about a collection of people who are one loose constituency within TEC. They are:
1. Nice people. These are people who see TEC as a club, and hold to none of the elements of the Nicene Creed, except perhaps the first line. It's a nice place to be, and the people are nice. Sometimes they bring their children to church to "expose them" to it. They don't really care, at the end of the day, whether or not Christianity is true. They may be agnostics. They think church is fun and that it's important to be nice.
2. Modernists. These people hold a modernist belief that the question of the truth of Christianity is unprovable and perhaps irrelevant in light of today's science and technology, but that the mythological structure of Christianity serves as an important way of ordering their world, and have chosen Christianity as a way of doing so. They may be inspired by certain teachings of Jesus and the collective wisdom of the church, reject what violates their sense of propriety, and go from there.
3. Seekers. These are people who've read a lot of Joseph Campbell and Huston Smith. They hold Christianity is a yoga, a path to God or the infinite or whatever you want to call it. They won't. The important thing, to these people, is the journey. Variations of religions are merely the masks of God, as Joseph Campbell says.
4. "Intentionalists" or "willfulists." [I need a better name.] These are similar to "nice people" but with some actual spirituality about it. These people believe the important thing is what you intend, will and do. Spirituality is a question of changing yourself and ordering your own intentions, will, and actions. Through church life make yourself more loving, more caring, more considerate of others. To be like Christ, you act like Christ. They will often seem genuinely shocked when you imply that God may reveal Himself to believers. To them, that's nuts. The infinite is beyond — you don't know God in any sense. They may have a touch of mysticism that through good intentions and intending cool things for others, good things will happen in the spiritual realm. But more often they believe in a straight social-justice gospel — you get up, you do the next right thing, etc. They are likely to believe that you change yourself through prayer.
5. Power-trippers. These people believe the answer to the problem of sin is to change the definition of sin. By taking over a denomination, they believe they have the authority to redefine moral law to conform to their own desires. Gene Robinson of NH, for example, said "the church wrote the bible, and it can rewrite it." [note: quote not exact.] They will usually denounce any aspect of Christian belief that makes them feel uncomfortable, and try to claim the authority of the church allows them to do so. Like all that icky sin stuff.
6. Pagans. They believe in various gods and goddesses, are likely to put a statue of Sophia on the alter, and often loathe Christianity. They also delight in using TEC as a platform to denounce classical Christian belief.
As you can tell, there is a wide variety of reasonableness in all these beliefs. With the exception of the last two categories, most are very reasonable. The question, though, is not is it reasonable. The question is: Is it Christianity? As I've said before, my problem with Bishop Spong is not that he's wrong or he's unreasonable, it's that he took the money. He was hired as bishop of Newark; his job was to teach Christianity as an apostle of Christ. Instead, he taught the wisdom of his own mind while collecting a paycheck to do something else. Similarly, the problem I have with each of these groups (except the seekers — they have hope) is that they're standing in the wrong place to say the things they're saying.
More later.
(note: not proofread and subject to revision)