tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post9108221832119211495..comments2024-03-28T11:33:16.271-05:00Comments on Adventus: Flailing a Deceased EquineUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-13936797027553465072014-02-27T07:48:20.308-06:002014-02-27T07:48:20.308-06:00"I may accept the authority of scripture, but..."I may accept the authority of scripture, but when it says Jesus fed 5000, I accept it as wild exaggeration, not inerrant accuracy...."<br /><br />It is a significant contrast, that between inerrancy and authority. Inerrancy calls for assent, authority for obedience, a costlier claim. It was that renewed call for obedience to the word of God that make Barth and Bonhoeffer, for me, the greatest Protestant theologicans of the last century.rick allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07612435616018593956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-44401610945579050792014-02-26T15:16:19.867-06:002014-02-26T15:16:19.867-06:00rustypickup--thanks.rustypickup--thanks.Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-67352613533392494042014-02-26T14:57:33.770-06:002014-02-26T14:57:33.770-06:00And it's funny how the whole conversation is h...<i>And it's funny how the whole conversation is held along lines of "competition" and effectively along lines of "market share" as if houses of worship were commercial entities ...</i><br /><br />Yes, isn't it? One of the many influences of secular culture I could do without, yet seldom is it criticized.....Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-84984736034516031272014-02-26T14:56:18.868-06:002014-02-26T14:56:18.868-06:00I recently purchased a copy of the second edition ...<i>I recently purchased a copy of the second edition of Barth's Letter to the Romans, and though I doubt I'll get to in anytime soon, when I was looking at the preface I noted that he defended his not doing a historical-critical commentary on the basis that historical-critical work is always merely preparatory to actual exegesis. Barth is perhaps the best example of a Reformed theologian who, entirely apart from any fundamentalism, still sees scripture as fully authoritative.</i><br /><br />Except the idea of "inerrancy of scriptures" is not to keep historical criticism apart from exegesis, but to keep it apart from any consideration of scripture whatsoever. I may accept the authority of scripture, but I don't use it as Luther did, to be a rabid anti-Semitic (one reason he loved the Gospel of John). I may accept the authority of scripture, but when it says Jesus fed 5000, I accept it as wild exaggeration, not inerrant accuracy (especially since my faith depends neither on the accuracy of that figure, nor the historicity of the conflicting nativity stories). Barth may distinguish his efforts from Bultmann's for confessional purposes; those who proclaim the scriptures "inerrant" consider Bultmann a dangerous heretic, if not worse, and would discard his work altogether.<br /><br />Besides, if we cannot change the confessions: homoousias, or homoiousias?<br /><br />Authority to adjust confessions is given to the General Assembly under the polity of the PCUSA (Not that they changed any confessions). Does the polity also say that if you don't like the outcome of a GA resolution on rules governing ministry you can take your ball and go home? Or write your own rules?<br /><br />Isn't that a bit more like the SBC, only with written creeds and confessions? Which, worse, would make the PCUSA into the UCC!Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-81301928249550594432014-02-26T14:53:28.724-06:002014-02-26T14:53:28.724-06:00Your last paragraph brought to mind readings that ...Your last paragraph brought to mind readings that I have found personally helpful over time. The first is a chapter from An Intimate History of Humanity by Theodore Zeldin, "Tolerance is not Enough". It goes directly to "It is not enough just to not think ill of people; you must think of them as well, as being as good as you.". His point is that tolerance is really just ignoring people. It is the absense of hate but it isn't really understanding or love. Tolerance can easily tip back to hate under the right circumstances. Something more meaningful and permanent requires more. <br /><br />Along the same lines, the 10th step of the The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions of AA has this interesting quote about real love: "Such a radical change in our outlook will take time, maybe a lot of time. Not many people can truthfully assert that they love everybody. Most of us admit that we have loved but a few; that we have been quite indifferent to the many as long as none of them gave us trouble; and as for the remainder- well, we have really disliked or hated them. Although these attitudes are common enough, we A.A.’s find we need something much better in order to keep our balance. We can’t stand it if we hate deeply. The idea that we can be possessively loving of a few, can ignore the many, and can continue to fear or hate anybody, has to be abandoned, if only a little at a time."<br /><br />This is a path I struggle along to genuine hospitality.<br /><br /><br />rustypickuphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17861692872132066016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-65476512386509934812014-02-26T11:19:07.150-06:002014-02-26T11:19:07.150-06:00One of the primary concerns of the pastor of FPC, ...<i>One of the primary concerns of the pastor of FPC, from the letters he wrote to this church, was the declining membership of young people. There are two universal solutions to that problem, and neither seems particularly effective: be more traditional, or be wholly untraditional. </i><br /><br />Like mainline Protestantism, my religious denomination also faces challenges of declining membership in religious institutions, and we have similar discussions (although somehow that we face the same challenges as mainline Protestantism, rather than our troubles being unique to our religion and denomination, is almost always ignored even though our denomination is historically self-consciously supposed to be <a href="http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/conservative_judaism/v064/64.3.panitz.pdf" rel="nofollow">the Jewish version of High Church Anglicanism</a>*, so I am aware of these "solutions"<br /><br />And, funny how the "solution" is always "we need to be more 'traditional'" or "we need to abandon tradition completely". The "solution" never seems to be "even if the niche filled by our movement is shrinking, it is still an important niche to fill -- so let's work on filling it the best we can fill it". Nor does the solution ever seem to involve identifying how/why "traditional" movements are growing and emulating those features of "traditional" religious movements that fit into our distinctive approach. Nope ... it's always, "let's be more stringent to compete with the fundamentalists" or "let's abandon tradition entirely". And it's funny how the whole conversation is held along lines of "competition" and effectively along lines of "market share" as if houses of worship were commercial entities ...<br /><br />* although, in my experience, the vast majority of prayer groups in the growing "chavurah" (fellowship) movement use our movement's prayer books and follow our movement's opinions on Jewish law -- so we are at the same time the most "High Church" of movements as well as the most compatible with "Evangelical worship"alberichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852752646926946626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-29802501057872046782014-02-26T10:56:38.431-06:002014-02-26T10:56:38.431-06:00" I don't recall any confession in Presby..." I don't recall any confession in Presbyterianism about the inerrancy of scripture."<br /><br />In a way I agree and in a way I disagree. "Inerrancy" has come to mean, from American fundamentalism, a literal understanding of, primarily, the first chapters of Genesis, and a denial of the Darwinian account of the origin of living species.<br /><br />But, as I read the first article of the Westminster Confession (which treats of holy scripture first, and in more detail than in the next article on God the Trinity), it seems to me to plainly assert the inerrancy of scripture, while at the same time acknowledging that the help of the Holy Spirit is necessary for the admitted difficulties of interpretation.<br /><br />I recently purchased a copy of the second edition of Barth's Letter to the Romans, and though I doubt I'll get to in anytime soon, when I was looking at the preface I noted that he defended his not doing a historical-critical commentary on the basis that historical-critical work is always merely preparatory to actual exegesis. Barth is perhaps the best example of a Reformed theologian who, entirely apart from any fundamentalism, still sees scripture as fully authoritative.rick allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07612435616018593956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-29196467376071130342014-02-26T08:24:09.976-06:002014-02-26T08:24:09.976-06:00"Well obviously, I don't think this appli..."Well obviously, I don't think this applies to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Episcopal Church, rick!"<br /><br />Hi, JCF. You most certainly are more familiar than I with the present self-conception of the Episcopal Church. But my impression, historically, is that the U.S. Church has, until the last decades, been, emphatically, as its formal name implies, the Protestant Episcopal Church (however much the Oxford Movement muddied the waters).<br /><br />Still, I would say that, if a Protestant Church is defined by its confession, catholicism is constituted by recognition of tradition as normative. rick allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07612435616018593956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-55150068601830046242014-02-26T03:45:15.738-06:002014-02-26T03:45:15.738-06:00Historically it's arguable that Protestant chu...<i>Historically it's arguable that Protestant churches have been defined by their confessions. If the confession can be ignored, and if sola scriptura is abandoned</i><br /><br />Well obviously, I don't think this applies to the <i>One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic</i> Episcopal Church, rick!<br /><br />...but of course, I think TEC is part of "reformed and reforming" tradition as well. Some of the 39 Articles still fit this (worship being in the "language understood of the people" for example). As we're a still-reforming tradition, however, other of the Articles (see re "Black Rubric" on the sacrament of holy eucharist) have been reformed right outta there. "Historical Documents" is the perfect place in the BCP for the 39s.<br /><br />Re this blog topic: when I was doing my research on the churches of Central Pennsylvania, I quickly learned of the "Bible Church" phenomenon: that almost every congregation calling itself a "Bible Church" was a breakaway from an existing congregation (often a Mainline congregation. The 1930-50s was the boomtime of such splits). Then as now, the older pre-existing congregation got to keep the historic property, and the "Bible Church" built a shiny new "modern" (!) edifice in the 'burbs or outskirts of town.JCFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14516376500318551838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-82129379329755039022014-02-25T23:35:01.205-06:002014-02-25T23:35:01.205-06:00And when the confessional identity excludes people...And when the confessional identity excludes people because of who they are? Is that no source of anxiety? For anyone who matters?<br /><br />I know it was not in the "confessions", but what of the church support for marriage being only between a man and a woman of the same race?<br /><br />And I don't recall any confession in Presbyterianism about the inerrancy of scripture, or the heremeneutics that are, or are not, allowed. Yet the "Statement of Faith" of this Presbyterian church says as much, or more, about scripture than it does about each person of the Trinity. As a former Presbyterian I find that change bizarre and disturbing and not really in keeping with anything to do with Calvinism or Reformed traditions.<br /><br />So the question is not really change, but who gets to make it. Change we like is fine; change we don't, is dangerous to the faith.<br /><br />I think the problem extends well beyond the issue of gay marriage (and, to be accurate, the change was to the restriction of pastor's to chastity in marriage, or complete chastity if single. The PCUSA didn't recognize gay marriage in 2010. I'm not sure defining the appropriate sex life of the pastor was ever in any of the Confessions. And I find it a rather bizarre standard to write into church law; but that's another discussion.)Rmjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06811456254443706479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9479398.post-45759555610325259722014-02-25T22:20:36.200-06:002014-02-25T22:20:36.200-06:00Seems to me that much of what is going on in mainl...Seems to me that much of what is going on in mainline Protestantism isn't so much a new identification with evangelicalism as concern about the easy abandonment of confessional standards.<br /><br />The issue of course is gay marriage. But, however much the concern with gay marriage is front and center, the handling of the issue by the denominational assemblies demonstrates what to some must be a distressing lack of committment to the source of the denomination's identity.<br /><br />I know I'm being too general. To give two examples: The Book of Common Prayer contains the wedding service, plainly directed at the union of opposite sexes. The Westminster Confession plainly says that marriage is the union of a man and woman. Now I am aware that the Episcopalians and Presbyterians, at least here in the US, have rather deflated their authority. The Episcopalians put out alternative books, and have stuck the 39 Articles in the back of the Book of Common Prayer as a "historic document." The Presbyterians rather dethroned the Westminster Confession as far back as when I was a Presbyterian, putting it into a "Book of Confessions" (which nevertheless, when they mention marriage, refer to two sexes).<br /><br />Historically it's arguable that Protestant churches have been defined by their confessions. If the confession can be ignored, and if sola scriptura is abandoned, what is the church then, but an organization whose faith is in the last majority of the last assembly or synod?<br /><br />(I don't confine the problem to protestants. Part of the protestant critique of catholicism was the authority of the pope, his feared ability to simply decree the faith into becoming something it hadn't been before.) <br /><br />So, yes, the main objection is to gay marriage. But behind that, I think (I'm admittedly an outsider here), is a great deal of anxiety about confessional identity, about the ease with which denominational authrrities can ignore the standards that define what it is that ordinary congregants thought they had assented to in joining the particular church. The fact that breakaway Episcopalians emphasize the Articles, and that breakaway Presbyterians emphasize the Confessions, tends to confirm for me this view of things. rick allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07612435616018593956noreply@blogger.com