Since this past Sunday after we participated in the “appreciative inquiry” exercise, exploring what All Saints and the Episcopal Church in general means to us, I’ve been thinking a lot about what being an Episcopalian means to me. My family joined the Episcopal Church when I was five years old. My mother was a Presbyterian, my father a Methodist. So for fifty two years my life has been enriched and formed by this church that I dearly love. So I offer this as a reflection on what this church means to me, perhaps some of it will resonate with you.
We are a church that values beauty in worship: our processions, vestments, our music and singing (praying twice as Augustine puts it), the language of our prayers. We believe that aesthetics inform our spirituality. That in and of itself connects us to the mystic tradition that has always kept its footing in the grand scheme of the evolution of Christianity. At All Saints we take such aesthetics seriously: musicians know this; poets know this, all artists know this, and I believe the artistic sensibility in all of us knows this. We are a church that doesn’t hang its hat on doctrine or dogma. Theology in the Episcopal church is an ever evolving process of discovery informed by scripture, our tradition, and reason, reason that includes our collective experience of being human in relationship with our God. Our discovery is open to new knowledge, and requires thinking critically. It is a process in which we can believe the tenets of our faith with integrity. By that I mean we don’t have to believe in magic to be Christians, but through study and conversation and discernment, and worship we can discover more profound meaning as to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, which in many Christian circles are explained away as supernatural, apart from human experience, which therefore,I believe enables us as the living breathing body of Christ to abdicate our own agency in the process of restoring our world to the way God envisions it….that to me is what salvation means: the process of restoring the creation to its gracious and just and peaceful order, the ramifications of such a definition of salvation are myriad.
Just today I was talking seriously to a person about the Episcopal Church, and he told me that in his denomination, he had grown tired of leaving his brain at the door, tired of the burden of worn out and tired dogma….In the Episcopal church, our questions, our speculations are much more valuable than answers, because in the life of faith we have to live in the ambiguity of unanswered questions. That frightens many, because many people want the formula, want the answers that shore up the loose ends of a life that is continually becoming amid contingency and uncertainty, even danger. Dogma and formulaic belief are fueled by fear creating a tenuous barrier from it…but we are promised that our faith is not one of fear, but one of freedom and joy.
The Episcopal Church, like the other mainline denominations is much smaller than it was thirty years ago. There are experts galore who have all kinds of explanations for the decline in numbers….demographic studies, decline in birth rates, etc….and of course the ones who say we have moved away from the “true” faith, but true faith is not a stringent belief system, but true faith is trusting the way ahead living as Christ taught us, giving our lives for the good of the whole. Diana Butler Bass, one of my favorite experts, sees great promise and vitality for the Episcopal Church in the twenty first century. She sees us as a church that has taken on issues of dignity and justice over the last thirty years with great care and integrity. We have not shied away from the issues of our times. She sees us living into the cause of the Gospel. We encourage still questions and thoughtful discourse, recognizing that God continues to reveal Godself, as the created order is still in its becoming. She states that we have found an institutional maturity never seen in Christendom. That is a huge claim, and I believe it might be true.
Finally we are a church of welcome and inclusion recognizing that God loves everyone without exception, without exception. For me I am so very honored to be a priest of such a church…and it’s a good thing because there is no place else I could go.
from the latest Herald:
“…we can discover more profound meaning as to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, which in many Christian circles are explained away as supernatural, apart from human experience, which therefore, I believe enables us as the living breathing body of Christ to abdicate our own agency in the process of restoring our world to the way God envisions it….”
……………………..
I don’t see how the Resurrection of Jesus can be described as anything other than ‘supernatural’. Perhaps magic or myth was involved in the parting of the Red Sea, the feeding of the 5,000, turning water into wine, walking on water, calming the storm, etc., but Jesus’ Resurrection…?
Ray,
If the resurrection is “explained away” as being nothing more than a supernatural event, it loses its meaning and power. The question Christians at all times and places ought to ask of the resurrection is not “was it really a supernatural event?” but “what difference does it make?” If the resurrection is the central story of the Christian faith, then it’s got to mean something more than just a dazzling miracle that happened two thousand years ago in a dusty corner of the Roman Empire that we have to believe because it’s in the Bible and the Creeds. If all we do is marvel at the supernatural miracle, we abdicate our baptismal promise to live the resurrection in our own day, and not only live it but proclaim it and help others to see it and live it and proclaim it. So that raises further questions: what does it mean to live the resurrection and what does it mean to proclaim it? What does resurrection look like in our time?
If we are unable to proclaim and live a meaning of the resurrection beyond a supernatural story, and if we can’t move our celebration of resurrection beyond chocolate bunnies and colored eggs, then we risk living and proclaiming a faith that the world neither hears nor understands. And such a faith is as good as dead, dead like so many other faiths that also had supernatural resurrection stories.
So what does the resurrection mean in our own time? What does it mean for life to triumph over death? Are the words life and death here used only literally or also metaphorically? How does the Church’s sacramental life offer glimpses and patterns of resurrection life? How do other events in Jesus’s life as recorded in the Gospels also point to resurrection? What about the story just read this past Sunday from Mark about Jesus and the Syrophoenician woman? Where can resurrection be seen in that story? Why do we always read the story of Israel’s exodus from Egypt at our chief celebration of resurrection, the Easter Vigil? It’s an Old Testament story, but the Prayer Book rubrics say it is the ONLY story that must be read at the Vigil during the Liturgy of the Word (see p 288). Where is resurrection seen in the exodus story? For that matter, where is resurrection seen in our Food Share ministry or IHN? If we cannot develop an understanding of how resurrection connects to all of these things because we are so hung up on the supernatural story, we miss the fullness of resurrection’s meaning and power for us and for the world. In other words, we miss the central point of the Christian faith.
In his note, Jim said:
which in many Christian circles are explained away as supernatural,
whereas you said:
If the resurrection is “explained away” as being nothing more than a supernatural event,
adding ‘nothing more than’ changes his statement, it seems to me, and requries, if he agrees with your qualification, a clarification and further explanation, i.e., specific identification of those Christian circles in which the Resurrection is seen as only a supernatural act.
Ray,
I’m not going to get into a legalistic discussion with you about qualifications and clarifications over wording, particularly when you appear to have missed or ignored the main idea in my post, let alone in Jim’s post. What a lifeless discussion that would be, a manifestation of death and not a proclamation of resurrection. Ain’t nobody got time for that.
Thanks, Pete.
Hi Ray,
I don’t think it would be a lifeless discussion at all to discuss Jesus’ resurrection! In Him, we have new life!
I’m assuming that since, in previous posts, both Mr. Flowers and Mr. Wilson have declared that they (and also the Episcopal Church) do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture than that is why neither cite it. But, if Scripture is not the basis for beliefs (and I don’t have a problem referring to my belief as doctrinal), then how does one know what is accepted and what is not?
To me, that can be so chaotic, and a free-for-all, if you will. I’m grateful for the simplicity and Truths of Scripture. I’m no theologian, so I welcome all the references!
So my take on the resurrection would point you to Scripture and WHY did it happen:
Wages of Sin (Romans 6:23), All have sinned (Romans 3:23) Sin has to have an atonement to bridge being separated from a Holy God and that was Jesus Christ (Hebrews 2:17, Romans 3:25), and by this once and for all atonement death is conquered (1Cor. 15:54-57). The justification is applied to those who believe (Rom. 4:24-25)
Of course, this is just a small amount of Scripture. We have a gloriously abundant amount of Scripture to confirm this.
The only “lifeless” part of this is that we were “dead” in our sins since birth, without a hope of our own apart for the atoning sacrifice of a Savior.
And as far as these tenets evolving…………I just don’t see what is the point of this worldview. I mean, where is the line drawn on what is “belief” and what is not. Is there a litmus test before something can be considered part of the evoling beliefs?
Please understand my post………I’m not trying to be silly or sarcastic. It’s just that saying all this about the evolving beliefs is basically saying it’s all relative. Is that the case? Do we go further and apply it to other areas………are all answers given on a test the right ones because someone thinks it’s right in his or her own worldview? Is a trespass against another that violates the law not a trespass if the trespasser has a feeling that it’s not wrong. Slippery slope indeed, isn’t it?
Ray, I’ll email you with some book and Scripture recommendations!
Oh Ray, you have gotten me started now! From the Geneva Study Bible on “The Resurrection of Jesus”
“Jesus’ resurrection was a divine act involving all three Persons of the Godhead. It was not just a revival of the broken physical body that was taken down from the cross and buried. It was a transformation of Jesus’ humanity that enabled Him to appear, vanish, and move unseen from one location to another. It was the creative renewing of His body, to become the body that is now fully glorified and deathless. The Son of God in heaven lives in and through His body, and will do so forever. In 1 Cor 15:50-54, Paul envisages that Christians who are alive on earth at the moment of Christ’s return will undergo a similar transformation. Those who have died in Christ before His return will likewise be transformed never to die again.
Christianity rests on the certainty of Jesus’ resurrection as a occurrence in history. The Gospels have it as their goal, with the empty tomb and resurrection appearances, and Acts insists on it. Paul regarded the Resurrection as indisputable proof that the message about Jesus as Judge and Savior is true.
Jesus’ resurrection demonstrated His victory over death, vindicated Him as righteous and indicated His divine identity. It led on to His ascension, and His present heavenly reign. It guarantees the believer’s present forgiveness and justification, and it is the hope of eternal life in Christ for the believer.”
Dear Fellow Post-ers,
Thank you for your thoughts. I would like to raise one issue and comment on another, which already has been mentioned.
Mr Flowers wrote, “That frightens many, because many people want the formula, want the answers that shore up the loose ends of a life that is continually becoming amid contingency and uncertainty, even danger. Dogma and formulaic belief are fueled by fear creating a tenuous barrier from it.”
I would counter that I have never met a person, myself being chief, who needed the “loose ends of … life” tied up. Christian faith, based on Holy Scripture, does not “tie up loose ends” in life but rather give foundational coherence to life itself. In fact, apart from the God of Truth, who undergirds all things and has revealed Himself finally and fully in His Son (Heb 1:1-2) and in His Word (2 Tim 3:16-17), there would be no coherence at all to this world, no possibility of rational discourse, no legitimate understanding of anything. Interestingly, St Peter pursues Jesus *for* his person and words, which are the substance of Christian dogma (“Then Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life;'” St John 6:68).
In that same vein, it seems that Mr Flowers’ statement, “True faith is trusting the way ahead living as Christ taught us, giving our lives for the good of the whole,” is dogmatic and presented as explanatory and normative for professing Christians. To disparage creedal confession and then make such a creedal, confessional pronouncement is contradictory. Respectfully, in keeping with consistency Mr Flowers should have written, “True faith *might be* …* or “*could be* … .”
Mrs McLain raised the matter of “evolving” theology in the Episcopal Church; she rightly wonders what is the point of such a “theology?” “Discoveries” are not neutral, nor is every “discovery” in fact a discovery of truth. In a shifting world without absolutes, what are the standards for legitimate discoveries? Apart from corrective, authoritative revelation from the living God, such standards are in the eye of the beholder. This is useless at best, evil at worst.
Instead of positing new “discoveries” from Scripture, tradition and reason, we do well first to heed the counsel of the prophet Habakkuk, read at the commencement of the morning and evening offices: “The Lord is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him.”
Ms. McClain,
You did not read my post carefully because I referred to scripture specifically in two places. I look forward to your corrected post in which you apologize for your false accusation.
The inerrancy of scripture is a difficult doctrine to swallow, especially for people like me who take scripture seriously but not literally. The resurrection, for instance, is the central event in Christian history, yet the four Gospels differ widely on the details of that event. In Matthew, for example, the women witness an earthquake and one angel rolling back the stone. In Mark, the stone is already rolled back when the women approach the tomb and one young man wearing a white robe is inside the tomb waiting. In Luke, there is no earthquake, the stone is already rolled back, and two men (not one) suddenly appear and greet the women. In John, Mary Magdalene goes by herself to the tomb, finds the stone already rolled back, fetches Peter and John who then return to find only linen wrappings in an otherwise empty tomb. Then two angels (not one) approach and speak to Mary who is standing outside the tomb. The bible appears to disagree on key details in the resurrection story. Were there two angles or one? Was the angel already inside the tomb or did he (or they) arrive later, after the disciples? Did an angel roll back the stone in the women’s presence or was it already rolled back when they arrived? Were Peter and John at the tomb with the women or were the women at the tomb without the men?
If scripture is inerrant, then what accounts for these apparently contradictory versions of the same story?
You see, Episcopalians like me who attend church regularly hear the entire bible read every three years in church because of our church’s lectionary cycle. Some of us also read the whole bible every two years in the daily office lectionary. So Episcopalians like me know and understand the bible. This means several things. One, we learn to read bible verses and stories in context – historical, rhetorical, and literary as well as theological. Two, we learn to think critically about those stories, which includes noticing such discrepancies as the differing accounts of the resurrection and wondering what such discrepancies might mean. Three, we understand that many bible stories are midrashic retellings of earlier stories, which is why, for example, we always read the story of the Hebrew exodus at Easter Vigil. Four, we learn to integrate scripture, tradition, and reason in our theological reflection.
Episcopalians don’t need to cite any references to scripture (although I did, twice, in that earlier post and thus look forward to your correction and apology) when we discuss theology, just as Jesus didn’t cite scripture when he gave the sermon on the mount or taught in parables. But we sometimes do (as I did, twice, in that earlier post), just as Jesus sometimes did. If theologizing without citing scripture is good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for me.
Finally, a question: why is it that when you cite scripture verses on this blog you mostly cite verses from the epistles, particularly Paul’s letters? Why don’t you do more quoting of Jesus’s teachings from the Gospels?
Hi Mr. Wilson and others,
I think these posts are finally getting around to a consideration of proper exegesis of Scripture so that now we might have some common ground to discuss!
I hope that, even though we seem to have significantly different worldviews, we can still discuss in a courteous and respectful way, regardless of our differences, don’t you?
You make a point three times in your post of saying that I falsely accused you of not citing Scripture, and I, by no means intended my remark to be a negative accusation. So sorry!
But haven’t both you and Mr. Flowers stated in previous posts that your view of Scripture is that it is not inerrant? I just want to be clear on that so I won’t make the same mistake.
And yes, you are right in that sense where you say I didn’t read your post closely, because you did indeed write of accounts in Scripture of Mark and Exodus. By citing Scripture, I was mainly referring to a citation with number and verse, that’s all. That’s what I mean when I use the term “cite Scripture,” and you were referring to Scripture (not necessarily using specific references) and that may have meant “cite” to you. Misunderstanding and I’m sorry if I hurt your feeling for overlooking that we had a different way of referring to Scripture. Mea culpa. I say tomato, you say tomahto.
To be perfectly honest with you, I was so taken aback at your terse response to your fellow parishioner, Dr. Hester, in telling him you didn’t have time for his questions and request for further discussion. That’s when I decided to post.
I’ve come to expect your terseness and correction to myself and Mr. Rolison, as we interlopers on this blog, albeit both of us have a history with the Episcopal Church and I, as you know from previous posts, have a family history at All Saints. But Dr. Hester is such a nice and cordial person who has been at your church for a number of years including the ones when my parents were still there. I applaud his sincere queries in discussions of Scripture.
As the old saying goes, “charity begins at home,” doesn’t it? I think, perhaps, another apology is in order and this one to Dr. Hester, who, by the way, my husband and I have had the pleasure of meeting due to this blog! Small cyber-sphere world, indeed! Perhaps one day we will meet you in person, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Flowers, too!
Now, you stated something about my quoting mainly the Epistles and not the Gospels. That is not intentional, and there are no underlying hidden agendas in my discussion for that.
I would LOVE to discuss the Gospels. I did not go to seminary and have no deep theological education. I’m just a sinner saved by Grace, and desire to serve Him to the best of my ability. I just don’t think that Scripture should be used as a weapon, but good discourse and rhetoric is acceptable to me.
What would you like to discuss?
Mrs. McClain,
Thank you for apologizing for your error. I can’t speak for Mr. Flowers, but I don’t believe in scripture’s inerrancy. The four resurrection stories, for example, differ widely about the details of that event. This appears to challenge the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. Why didn’t you respond to my question about that?
As I said earlier, I take scripture seriously, not literally. William Sloan Coffin said literalists use the bible like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support rather than for illumination.
There is nothing uncharitable about being terse. Terseness is a virtue. It concentrates the mind, refocuses attention on the task, and sets limits for discussion and debate. I don’t like to be misquoted, selectively quoted, or quoted out of context. To do so is to be uncharitable because it distorts or misrepresents what I have actually said.
Hi Mr. Wilson and others,
At one point in these postings, you told me that I shouldn’t shy away from vigorous push back or something to that effect (my paraphrase). However, now you want to justify the terseness and having not answered Dr. Hester’s question because you want to set the limit on discussion and debate.
So, not knowing if Mr. Flowers has or wants to set rules for discussion, it seems like you have said two opposite things, 1) be prepared for vigorous push back, or 2) you don’t have to answer a courteous question because you will set the limits on discussion and debate
Perhaps someone else will weigh in on whether I’m interpreting your opinion from your posts as you intended it.
You are entitled to your definition and qualification of terseness. I am also entitled to mine, and my interpretation of the various references in Scripture that instruct us to closely guard our words and to build each other up in the faith. Phil. 2: 3-4, Romans 12:10, Prov. 16:24, Prov. 17:27 to name a few.
To answer your question about the accounts of the Resurrection – I don’t have an academic answer as to why the details are not identical. Perhaps the details are not identical because the writers didn’t confer with each other? That’s what makes it believable. And that can be said to grow us in the faith.
As I have told you in earlier post, I’m not a Bible scholar or seminarian. I would punt that to Mr. Rolison, if he so desires to answer.
Your post made it sound like someone has to choose either serious study of Scripture or Scriptural inerrancy. I don’t see it as an either-or. I take God’s Word seriously, too.
According to the Coffin quote about literalism, that it is “support” and not “illumination,” then I respectfully put forth that it is both!
” I am not my own, but belong, both body and soul to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ. ” Heidelberg Catechism, question one.
Why wouldn’t any Christian want the support from God? It’s all of Grace, not of our works! And the Holy Spirit illumines our hearts to the Truth of Gospel found in the Word.
Mr. Wilson, I am probably old enough to be your mother, and don’t desire a debate with you on Scripture that degrades into argument. All Saints lists its characteristics on the web site as welcoming, and the respectful discourse I have had with Mr. Flowers has been reflective of those statements. Thank you, Mr. Flowers, for allowing my interaction here.
May God richly bless your Bible study Mr. Wilson.
Mrs. McClain,
A breakthrough! My ministry of vigorous pushback and terse defense of Mother Church has led you to see and admit that the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy cannot explain discrepancies in the resurrection stories. Could it be that the doctrine itself is bankrupt?
Now that you have this new awareness, your world is open to more possibilities. You can continue to hold fast to this doctrine knowing that it is more unsatisfactory than before. Or you can take your new-found awareness and go in fresh, more exciting directions on your spiritual journey. Maybe you now have questions that you didn’t have two days ago. Maybe you will seek answers to your questions in a new approach to bible study. Maybe you will read and study the work of biblical scholars written for lay persons. Marcus Borg’s books would be a good place to start. They’re short and readable. Maybe you will visit an Episcopal Church, maybe even All Saints, and see what we’re like in real life. You probably don’t care to meet me and that’s understandable. My ministry as your disembodied provocateur is done. As for my dogged efforts, which remind me of Jesus’s parable from Luke of the one lost sheep, why, you are most welcome!
Disclaimer: Please read this understanding the intention of the author to be funny in some places, and not in any way sarcastic or mean!
On Mr. Wilson’s latest post:
Very funny, Mr. Wilson.
You are having so much fun with this, that I will post this one last time, and then I must bow out and let others have their turn. Ray, are you out there??
Actually, YOU are welcome for MY providing your entertainment.
NOW who is making the false accusations???? Admitting that the doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy cannot explain discrepancies in the Resurrection stories? Nope, didn’t say that.
But I’m not dwelling on what I don’t see as a discrepancy. There are things that God has chosen not to reveal to us (Deut. 29:29) .
“I sed no sech of a thing……..,” she says as she thumps her Bible and stomps away in a huff.
Yer puttin’ words in my mouth, you young whipper-snapper, you.
Lighten up, for Pete’s sake…………..oh pardon the pun. Isn’t it time for some levity in this discussion?
If you will let me get back with you, in say………..oh, about three years, or however long it will take me to enroll in seminary, learn the Greek, and attain my Doctorate of Divinity to be able to call you my peer and converse with you on your level, then we may surely re-visit this topic.
Not sure if a Divinity school would take me since I’ve been out of the classroom for so long. Perhaps Redneck Tech would, although their Divinity School only teaches the art of candy making. That might not be so bad, now, would it? We all could use a little sweetness!
But, alas, by that time, you will still be far far ahead of me, I’m sure. Dadgummit, it’s just not gonna wash, is it? I can keep on keeping on, and you will always be one up ahead of me!
Oh well, you caint say I didn’t try.
Have a blessed Sabbath.
Oh, one more thing, (I guess this is P.S). – I have attended the Episcopal Church and All Saints, too. I grew up at All Saints and other Episcopal churches. See, you haven’t read my posts closely ’cause I’ve stated this before. Not reading my post closely, indeed! How am I supposed to feel about that????
But I don’t need an apology, it’s okay, because they are way too long so I don’t blame you one bit!
Dear Fellow Post-ers,
Standing over the Scriptures as Enlightened Westerners — and *effectively* (but one must never verbalize this so coarsely!) casting them behind one’s back — indeed opens vast new worlds of possibilities. The then-autonomous human mind is free to roam!
If only the human mind *were in fact* autonomous and could depend on its own self for rational understanding. The revelation of God in nature is personal and covenantal, and the ability even to think depends on the God who reveals Himself intelligibly in the world. So to elevate reason (and tradition) to equal footing with Scripture is to fail to recognize that reason is utterly dependent on the God who speaks in His world, word and Son (St John 1:9). Modern Westerners refuse to (cannot) see this point, so one failed system of human thought has invariably led to another (Leibniz to Hume to Kant, e.g.) without final satisfaction.
All this to say, Mrs. McLain’s mind would not be so independent as might be suggested if she jettisoned the Word of the One who gives her reason.
As for the Gospel accounts, could it not be that historians of the Ancient Near East related events and details with a view toward developing their purpose as much as toward chronological order? Why are there four Gospels, if not to provide four distinct (and inspired) vantage points on the incarnate ministry of the Son of God? We Westerners think a lot of ourselves and our way of doing things, which strikes one as awfully narrow and convenient.
Thank you for allowing me to post on this site.
Mr. Rolison,
Putting scripture on par with reason and tradition neither casts it behind nor jettisons it, though if you believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura I can see how you would arrive at that misunderstanding. Rather, the three act as checks and balances on each other. Episcopalians practice theology in community, not in isolation. The community keeps us grounded, while at the same time it gives us the individual and collective freedom to speculate. Community here means not just the people in your proximity, but also the church throughout time expressed through history, liturgy, sacraments, catechism, and scripture. Community means the parish, diocese, and General Convention, the laity and the clergy. Theology is a creative dialogue in community between tradition, lived experience, and speculation. It has always been this way. Scripture, tradition, and reason have always been the tools.
Your misunderstanding, then, leads you to the erroneous conclusion that the choice in theology is between either scripture or the autonomous mind. That is not a choice most Episcopalians, being catholic, understand. Additionally, if by “autonomous mind” you mean someone who thinks for himself or herself rather than being told what to think, then most Episcopalians embrace that. We are not a dogmatic church. If, however, by “autonomous mind” you meant Enlightenment thinkers, then I challenge your conclusion that the Enlightenment has produced failed systems of thought. Failed relative to what? Failed in the eyes of whom? A recent WIN-Gallup poll (August 13) reported in the Washington Post found that the number of Americans who identify as religious has dropped 13% since 2005, and the number of Americans who self-identify as atheist is up from 1% to 5%. The numbers are much higher in Europe. The data on religiosity and atheism seem to support the idea that the autonomous mind and the Enlightenment systems on which it is based are doing quite well.
As to the four Gospel accounts, the discrepancies of the details undermines the argument for scriptural inerrancy. Something cannot be inerrant when it contains errors, if by errors we mean different facts about the same story. This is why many people, including me, cannot embrace the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. We cannot ignore what is in plain sight. Yes, each Gospel provides a different vantage point because each is a piece of rhetoric written for a specific audience decades after the events it describes. So if a literal interpretation of a supposedly inerrant text proves unsatisfactory, then one must find other ways to interpret or reject the whole thing as a complete fabrication.
We Westerners may think a lot of ourselves and our way of doing things (with good reason – Western civilization has contributed enormously to humankind’s development and happiness), but I suspect this is the way people in all civilizations in all times have thought.
“The Episcopal Church: where you don’t have to check your mind at the door.”
In spite of this proud (?) exclamation from the Episcopal Church USA, there is at least one example of when Episcopalians do check their minds at the door:
The Resurrection
If you read the account (see link below), published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (March 21, 1986; 255,11), written by a pathologist, with drawings by a medical illustrator, of what Jesus suffered and how he died, it will very likely convince you that Jesus’ Resurrection was not humanly possible.
So next Easter when you enter the Church, check your mind at the door, or you may not believe what you’re about to hear.
http://www.bibleanswer.com/x_death.htm
Authors: William D. Edwards, MD; Wesley J. Gabel, MDiv; Floyd E. Hosmer, MS, AMI
I am one Episcopalian who will not be checking his mind at the door at Easter. That’s because the literal interpretation of ancient myths in this post-Enlightenment age is, for me and I suspect many others, untenable. To be a Christian, particularly an Episcopalian Christian, one does not have to surrender the gift of reason or tax credulity by suspending the laws of physics and biology. There are other ways to interpret the numinous and transcendent reality behind biblical stories like the resurrection.
I encourage people to visit All Saints and experience the worship, outreach, and community there. Listen to the readings and to the sermons, receive the sacraments, sing the hymns, meditate on the artwork. Get involved in IHN or Food Share or sponsor a child to go to summer camp. When you do, you will come to an understanding of resurrection that does not require you to sacrifice your knowledge of science or your common sense. If you are looking for a community that respects your intelligence, that celebrates human achievements in the arts and sciences, that embraces ancient truths in a contemporary idiom, that believes questions are more important than answers, that believes dignity is more important than dogma, All Saints should be your spiritual home.
With great pride I exclaim: you do not have to check your mind at the door!
Each Sunday, we Episcopalians read together the following creed, “For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;”
Most Sundays we Episcopalians read the Nicene Creed and we think different things about the words in the Creed. It is entirely possible and indeed quite acceptable to read those words with integrity and not interpret them literally.
Let’s also remember the Nicene Creed is a political document forged at Emperor Constantine’s swordpoint in 325 CE to settle a heated religious argument, the so-called Arian controversy over the divinity of Jesus or, more specifically, the Son’s relationship to the Father. To the victors go the creeds.
“…he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again…”
What do those words mean to someone who, each Sunday, recites them with integrity, but doesn’t interpretet them literally?
The thing all humans face universally and probably fear universally is death. Religion offers people a way to face death and the fear of death with greater confidence. Thus, religion is fundamentally about liberation from the fear of death.
The biblical saga is about liberation. The Israelites sought liberation first from the Egyptians, then the Babylonians. The story of the Exodus and the story of Israel’s exile and return are the key stories. As slaves in Egypt and hostages in Babylon, the Israelites experienced a type of death. The exodus from Egypt and the return from exile were examples of liberation from death. The story of Jesus is also about liberation from death. Jesus constantly confronts the powers of death at work in the world: blind Bartimaeus, the Gerasene demoniac, the woman caught in adultery, the death of Lazarus, purity laws, the Roman Empire. All of these examples and many others symbolize the various ways that death incarnate in the world distorts the dignity of the human personality. With authority, Jesus rebukes the powers of death in the name of life.
The crucifixion and resurrection is the ultimate, dramatic confrontation between death and life. The crucifixion marks what appears to be the final victory of the earthly powers. But the disciples experienced Jesus as being raised into the meaning of God. The Church became and is Jesus’s resurrected body empowered to carry on his mission in the world, rebuking the powers of death and restoring the dignity of the human personality. The indignity and shame of the cross became the dignity and hope of the resurrection, and that story continues to play out in our own day. Resurrection, then, is not a single event occurring in history. It is a way of understanding and living life. This way of life imitates the way of Jesus: accepting, welcoming, healing, caring for people on the one hand, and, on the other, rebuking with authority the powers of death that would corrupt and destroy the creatures of God: poverty, racism, disease, ignorance, famine, violence, consumerism, empire, environmental despoliation.
Therefore, I understand resurrection sacramentally. I understand it to be the Church’s witness in, to, and for the world. It is sacramental because the Church offers itself for the good of the world, a sacred act, as Jesus did. So for me, resurrection is not about the literal resuscitation of Jesus two thousand years ago. It is about the Church’s sacramental witness today, a witness to life in the midst of death. I can believe that without having to suspend my knowledge of physics and biology, natural laws which I know empirically to be true. Therefore I can recite the words of the creeds with integrity while not interpreting them literally.
“Resurrection, then, is not a single event occurring in history.”
But was it an event in history?
“But was it an event in history?”
Now I get to ask a question. If it was not, would you still be a Christian?
If Christ was just a guy – a really, really, really good guy, but still just a guy, I don’t think I would be a Christian.
Thank you, Ray. I understand your belief though I do not share it. Because the Episcopal Church is not a dogmatic church, you and I can continue to worship in community though we interpret things differently. Gone are the days, and thankfully so, when such disagreements led to accusations of heresy, trials and excommunications, and burnings at the stake. All beliefs are speculative. So long as we continue to serve the needy with compassion and stand in solidarity for the dignity of all, what does it matter whether we agree on the underlying beliefs?
Your reply is so gracious, I dislike having to disagree, but…. We could simply give our entire annual budget (approx. $550,000) to the agencies we already support with money (around $50,000 per annum) from the Bayou Bash and other sources. Underlying beliefs, on which some of us disagree, would not then come into play at all. And in so doing, we would still serve the needy, but in a much greater way -an extra $500,000 a year.
That certainly is one way for the Church to increase its charitable giving. We could shut down church operations, fire the clergy, sell the properties, and give all that money to the poor. However, such a radical step is neither a necessary nor a logical conclusion to the premise that the church’s stories need not be interpreted literally to have meaning. In fact the suggestion, presumably offered in earnest, seems to miss the point on many levels.
My only point in this discussion is that, if Jesus was only a man, albeit a very good man, then I see no reason for the church’s existence, as other institutions do a very good job of taking care of the poor and needy with less overhead. If, on the other hand, Jesus is the Son of God, with all the attributes and actions we have been taught, then I pledge my support to his Body. Finally, if you wish, you may have the last word in this discussion for I feel you and I will act according to our beliefs. If Christ was a good man, he will join the ranks of many good men and women. If he is the only Son of God – well, that’s another matter.
My only point in this discussion is that a non-literal interpretation of Jesus’s resurrection does not diminish the numinous and transcendent reality behind that story, nor does it lead necessarily to the conclusion that Jesus was just a really, really good guy or that the Church is nothing more than a charitable institution with overhead. Instead, I argue that Jesus is the archetype of what it means to be human, filled with the fullness of God, if you will; that resurrection is a way of life Jesus modeled and that the Church lives here and now; and that the Church as Christ’s body is a sacramental community, not a civic club. In short, I interpret the bible stories figuratively so that I can engage the numinous and transcendent reality which I believe to be true without sacrificing my understanding of scientific laws which I know to be true.