[Industrialblog,
January 19, 2007]
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)
I guess my response is kind of what my reaction to Spong was, kind of Ew, but if he was right, would it really make a difference to me?
To put it differently, what if there was no Jesus - we invented a time machine and we could show it was definatively so - No Jesus, just a story made up to make Jews feel better when Jerusalem was trashed, or something like that... (this is a fantasy, so don't get your hackles up, please.) In this case, should we wrap up the Christian church? I think not, but I think that would be a huge challenge to us. Probably many people would go into denial, and many others would leave the faith. But in the end, for me, and for many I know, the faith is about something more. Some kind of personal sense of contact with God, and some kind of sense that it should change how we believe and behave here.
Which brings me to 'A'. A quote comes to mind... "People must believe what they can, and those who believe more must not be hard on those who believe less." Or to jump to a biblical text, Mark 9:39/40 "...He who is not against us is with us". Their understanding of Christianity may be less, or certainly different, but I will not deny them the name.
When it comes to (B), I guess that there is a natural tendancy for everyone to want to make the church the place where he or she is most comfortable. If some part of the Nicene Creed bothers them, they perhaps would like to change it, or stop the church from chanting it. And we have changed the way we believe over the years. This is where we need to use our three-legged-stool to figure out what we reasonably can change, what needs change, and what cannot change. And the Episcpopal Church does have a polity that allows for change. General Convention can make a decision that alters the direction of the denomination, change the prayer-book and so on. It could authorize a new version of the creed, for instance. I bet people would freak, but they could.
On the down side, due to this polity you probably get a lowest-common-denominator faith, with everyone voting for what they want, but on the up side, the fewest people are excluded. And the faith is gong to change anyway. The faith of the disciples was expressed in a very different way than that of the apostles, which was also very different from the early house-churches in Rome, or the churches in the catacombs, or the early churches of the Holy Roman empire. And if is very different today. It is gong to change, and people are going to change it by voting with their hands, and if that doesn't work, by voting with their feet. As for me, I need to struggle against those who seek to de-Christianize the church. Mostly I don't see a lot of these people.
As for (C), I scratch my head about how people get to be priests sometime, and how they are allowed to stay there. I think that if you don't believe in Jesus, you probably shouldn't be a priest, (or at least until such time as a time machine disproves his existance). As for the other behaviors that are enumerated above, I think that some of them are not so terrible. People may have doubts about portions of the faith and still be Christian, and serve. People may have alternate interpretations of things, and views of things. Bill, you yourself have said things that make me think that you might believe that the other faiths might contain fragments of the truth. And how we walk this journey is very important, is it not?
As for the power-trippers, well, they are right in a way, we do pick and choose the faith from the Bible and tradition, dropping what we don't like. When's the last time you ate shrimp? You know the Bible enumerates Shrimp as every bit as bad an abomination as homosexuality. But we ignore that part. We, in our power-tripping way, leaned on the 'reason' leg of Hooker's stool, and said "That's stupid" - and that part of the Bible gets ignored. (And no one thinks that General Convention has to opine on it, or that we need to consult with the Global South if shrimp are served at coffee hour.)
Which brings us to Sophia and Paganism. Really, you can find both Sophia and Paganism in the Bible. A lot more Sophia, but a decent amount of Paganism too. Today people tend to identify Sophia (Wisdom) with the Holy Spirit, and I am inclined to agree with them. Sophia does appear in a good number of places in the Bible, and it would round out the Trinity if Sophia was the Holy Spirit as present among the Patriarchs. Finally, I am not a fan of bringing paganism into the church very much, but I do appreciate that there may be 'wisdom' in other faiths, and would not find it out of place for someone to read an enlightening bit from some worthy non-canonical source as part of a service (not instead of the canonical readings, mind you, but in addition).
In all this, I do not see a new faith emerging in the Episcopal Church, but I do see the personalities and tendencies you cite, Bill. They are very real. I think, taken in moderation, they are probably not a bad thing.
Peace,
TWS
More later. Pax.
Do you believe in the tenets of the Nicene Creed, as understood by the plain text?
Do you believe that Christianity (and Judaism) is, in the spiritual realm, opposed to pagan religions?
Do you believe that while other religions may contain fragments of truth, they were inspired by demons, and thus involve demonic deception?
In other words, exactly what is Christ casting out throughout the Gospels? If not evil spirits, then what?
Do you believe that false belief, involvement in false religions, and persistent sin opens people up, from a standpoint of legality in the spiritual realm, to demonic deception, oppression and even possession?
What do you think of the charismatic movement?
Do priests hold authority in the spiritual realm?
You probably know what I'm getting at. What are your thoughts on this?
I also think that there really was a Jesus, and he really did miracles, and he really did have a very particular relationship with God, to the point of actually being God.
Coming to your other questions, which may be colored by your first....
To be sure to answer your question honestly, I spent some time quietly with the Creed. The Nicene Creed is really beautiful, and I love it, and believe every bit of it. There was a time when I was very young that I was more of a Theist, and less into Jesus, and didn't understand Jesus as God. But as you might suspect, I have much more experience with the scriptures now, and my understanding has changed.
You speak of the plain text, and here I have to admit, I don't think that we will be resurrected into our current physical bodies - that isn't what scripture says, and Jesus is very clear about that. But the Creed is not intended as a technical document, just a 'sufficient statement of the faith'.
I believe that Christianity is not necessarily opposed to 'the pagan religions'. Certainly opposed to some of them, and some of their tenants. I believe that Christianity gets us closer to the GodHead than any other faith I have seen. I believe that my God is bigger than theirs, and if there is any reality, goodness and beauty to other faiths, it likely comes from the fact that the true God has helped to inspired these faiths.
Demonic Inspiration of Other Faiths: I don't like to attribute more to evil than is necessary to admit. With that said, I have seen some scary religions, and had a very few personal experiances with inhuman evil. I don't have a good answer, but maybe this is because this is not the right question for me. I believe that most faiths are inspired by and informed by encounters with the supernatural. Not all those inspirations need be positive, and people are great at twisting good things too.
Jesus Casting Out Evil Spirits: I believe that Jesus actually healed people. Often he specifically addressed the demons (per the Bible), and they responded. I believe that these were demons or evil spirits and that he actually cast them out.
'Legality in the Spiritual Realm': Mostly not. People become victim to evil by succumbing to temptation. Often you are tempted the most when you are trying to do new and good things. I believe that actual evil forces work on you at these times. People can be and are led astray by alternate beliefs and belief systems. I look around and I see lots of people in the popular culture wallowing in satanic imagery, and then claiming to be all about (a twisted version of) God or goodness - yet inspiring and participating in mayhem, degredation, evil... But it comes back to temptation. Supernatural evil can tempt you - but mostly can't hurt you, or make you sin. You do that yourself.
Charismatic Movement: Overall, I think it is a good thing. I suspect it has attracted more 'touchy feely' people than 'thinking' people, but that may be who I have encountered. I think that that needs to change. I worry that it is the new 'wicca/new age fad'.
Our authority in the spiritual realm descends from our belief in Jesus, our faith in God. It is all about faith. As such, a layperson can be every bit as effective as a priest.
You speak about what you are getting at, and I know you aren't trying to trap me - but I do get the feeling that you are working with a somewhat legalistic logical structure to the supernatural world. You can tell from my words that I do not think it works that way. I am not sure how it all works, but I do know that the universe is not on rails. Sometimes God runs a really tight ship, but the organics can be really sloppy. God is good at what he does though - often too patient for my taste. Gives us too much leeway sometimes too. Not that we can't be awfully stubborn in going our own way.
And... That's not Covey, that's St Francis of Assisi - BCP p 833. "[...]Grant that we may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; to be understood as to understand; to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive; it is in pardoning that we are pardoned; and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life."
Peace
TWS
Thanks for the answers, and sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I recognize that I have a logical structure for the supernatural, but I believe in natural law and the forms. It's called Catholicism :)
BTW, the orthodox Christian belief is that we are resurrected in our physical bodies, but these bodies are changed into something akin to Jesus' resurrected body. He could, after all, walk through walls. He was not immediately recognized by his friends. The Church allows for cremation, after all, provided you are not specifically attempting to destroy your physical body to avoid resurrection of the dead. Heh. They think of everything ...
I guess my next question is: Do you think there is such a thing as a "spirit of the age" (Zeitgeist) and that it is inherently opposed to the spirit of Christ.
That is, when we say our enemies are the world, the devil and the flesh, we mean something beyond the carnality and distraction of human society, but that there is a spirituality that can be developed by communing with this spirit of the age, that it's demonic in origin, though masks itself as a spirit of light? Do you think the actions of the Holy Spirit oppose this spirit?
If you agree, and I think you might because of your statement about people reveling in satanic imagery, exactly how can a Christian discern the difference between contact in the spiritual realm with this spirit, and contact with the Holy Spirit instead?
That's enough for now. I'm enjoying our discussion. Pax.
On to business...
Do you need to ask hard questions all the time? Can't you ask questions like, "What is Jesus' middle name?" I know that one. I'll give you a hint, in English, it starts with an 'h'. :)
OK, I think we're out of 'belief' for me and into 'think', ok? Which is a significant difference. And this isn't a strong 'think' but an 'I am thinking' kind of think. Usually when I say 'I think' I mean that I am supremely and obnoxiously confident. This is much more like 'I find this thought interesting and I like it'.
OK with that said... The Bible seems to identify some kind of spiritual force or being with groups of people or ways of thought. Thus there is an 'Angel' for Israel and another for Greece and so on - and angels for individual churches. And I don't have the source quote to hand but Augustine seems to think that God's thought-forms can become/be/are Angels too (the word of the Lord). So why not a 'spirit of the times' or a 'spirit of the age' which would reasonably change in character over time? Reasonably, such a spirit would be in conflict to some degree with the heavenly direction - and eventually, either after escatological climax, or through more gradual change, that spirit is either destroyed or becomes aligned with God.
And as I think that, hope that, and have faith that we are slowly improving, not getting worse, I think that that spirit slowly aligns with God. Struggles with, wrestles with, and becomes part of. Just as we individually hopefully struggle with, wrestle with, and become part of the body of Christ.
But yes, certainly bad influences in the Zeitgeist, whatever it is or however you discern it, and not only that, but it is fair to say that there are some unworthy spirits out there. And I don't have a logical structure that links discerning of spirits to my understanding of them, but I have what I have been told and that is the following, which may make sense to you:
1) The Holy Spirit will convict, but not condemn. Will perhaps show you what you have done wrong, but not reject you. At least in this life, you can always return to God. OK, our faith is redemptive, so maybe that is logical.
2) Other members of the faith who you trust will see Good, or even God in your experiences. Hm, to the extent that your friends are God-fearing and good at discerning spirits, that might make sense.
3) The Holy Spirit will be in alignment with scripture. Or growing upon it: "It is written... but I say...". OK, that is sort of logical too. God wouldn't visit you and suggest that everyone should commit adultery and kill whomever annoys them. Notably, our temptations aren't always so obvious.
Soooo maybe these make sense. :)
Peace,
TWS
TWS