Bishop Lawrence Out of the TEC

MKJ said:

I was, in fact, thinking of myth in the second sense, not as something that is "not true". THough both definitions are saying something is not true as historical narrative, and perhaps in other ways as well, so I don't think you can argue the richer sense of the word myth is no different, really, than the orthodox teaching.

Your two definitions of myth here do have a connection in this case, because Anglicanism doesn't teach that either of them are correct with regard to the Resurrection or Incarnation. We teach that those were historical events that happened in a particular time and place.

These are the most fundamental teachings of our faith, and they aren't without consequence. They speak directly to the way we that understand reality is structured - that is why the belief that they are historical facts is so important.

There has never been any authority given to change that in Anglicanism, and such authority would have to come from the Anglican Communnion as a whole.

Yes, it is being taught in seminaries, and that should be very worrying to you. Academics talking about different ways of thinking about our religion is quite different than seminarians being taught things those ideas are what we believe. There has always been all kinds of ideas that go on in academia, but academia helps inform our decisions, it does not make them.

I do not see how anyone can think it is acceptable for academics (who quite frankly have been a poor lot overall in the Anglican world in the last few years) get to define how we understand our most fundamental beliefs. What kind of individual or school decides it would suddenly like to teach its seminarians some new, unauthorized idea, as Anglican belief?

And speaking of heresy - if there are any changes in teaching that could be described as heretical, it is incorrect teaching about the nature of Christ, the Incarnation, and the Trinity. These are the subjects that all the major heresies are related to. And the teaching of the Resurrection and the Incarnation as a myth is far outside even the traditional Christological heresies. It would be closer to orthodox belief to be an Arian.

I agree that Western Christianity has tended to cerebralize its faith to a degree (though actually I am not sure that is the dominant trend in Anglicanism), but I'd only call it modern in the strict sense, as in, 19th century. Theology and even philosophy and science have actually moved on from there, but that is where a lot of Anglican "radical" thinkers are stuck. It is that approach which sees myth and what you might call historical truth as very seperate, and which takes a very linear approach to theology.

But I don't really think I can be blase that this has became acceptable to teach as representing Anglican belief.

Click to expand...

Well, some of us don't find the "literal" resurrection as historical event meaningful to our lives and faith anymore. So, for some of us, the second meaning of myth as it relates to scripture and many areas of our faith, helps us to be faithful Christians in a world where the literal factuality of the Bible is untenable. So, I'm not entirely opposed to the "resurrection as myth and play-doh" in the seminary. In fact, I laud it.

Episcoboi said:

Well, some of us don't find the "literal" resurrection as historical event meaningful to our lives and faith anymore. So, for some of us, the second meaning of myth as it relates to scripture and many areas of our faith, helps us to be faithful Christians in a world where the literal factuality of the Bible is untenable. So, I'm not entirely opposed to the "resurrection as myth and play-doh" in the seminary. In fact, I laud it.

Click to expand...

Why don't we all just stay home, then?

That's a serious question. If we don't care what our founding principles are or what's right and what's wrong for that matter, why are we involved in religion at all? We could all just try to be nice wherever in life we find ourselves.

Episcoboi said:

Well, some of us don't find the "literal" resurrection as historical event meaningful to our lives and faith anymore. So, for some of us, the second meaning of myth as it relates to scripture and many areas of our faith, helps us to be faithful Christians in a world where the literal factuality of the Bible is untenable. So, I'm not entirely opposed to the "resurrection as myth and play-doh" in the seminary. In fact, I laud it.

Click to expand...

Christ's conquering death is not meaningful to you? So you don't believe those who saw his risen body? Who ate with him?

Albion said:

Why don't we all just stay home, then?

That's a serious question. If we don't care what our founding principles are or what's right and what's wrong for that matter, why are we involved in religion at all? We could all just try to be nice wherever in life we find ourselves.

Click to expand...

Isn't that what most people are doing now? Just trying to be good without the church. Most people find the church (the whole church and it's many denominations) unconvincing. And it's not the liberal theology they find unconvincing, its the irrelevance. The fact that questioners, doubters, thinkers, etc. get crucified. The fact that the thought-police come out every time someone honestly questions and rethinks church tradition makes church a pretty much obsolete institution to a large number of people. For many, liberal theology is just too little too late. They see it as trying to put a patch on gaping wound that is the irrelevant church. But, any attempt to make the church relevant to people and their lived experience in this world and not the world of "325 C.E." is met with rigidity from those who comprise the church. It's almost like people would rather see the church die in its irrelevance and backwardness, then let a fresh breath of Spirit in which might possibly change what they rigidly hold to be absolute and unquestionable truth.

Episcoboi said:

This is why the church (Not just the Episcopal Church, but the Christian Church as a whole) is dying. Those of us who have grown up in and lived our lives in the 20th and 21st centuries...centuries of war, fighting, death, destruction, division, hatred, and chaos...are exhausted. We want peace, reconciliation, understanding, justice, and just an end to all of the fighting. The world is weary of it. The church preaches all of these things, but, when people enter the church, they don't find communities of hope, peace, love, acceptance, and good-will. They find the same garbage, fighting, division, attacks, and petty hatreds that they have in the rest of the world outside. People are unconvinced by the church's message, when the people that are the church don't live it.

It is not the "gays, liberals, and feminists" who are killing the church. It is all of us. Maybe, if we learned to live with each other and our differences with a little grace, understanding, and willingness to dialogue without resorting to division and infighting, we might actually see the commonwealth of God on earth. Until then, as one of my atheist friends has said, "the church will continue to be a relic of a dark and evil time. It will continue to be pulled into obscurity and irrelevance by its own hands."

It's time to wake up, stop letting "issues" divide us, and to truly live by faith (trust) in God.

Click to expand...

I would suggest to you though that it is actually just this attitude - let us just love one another and not worry about differences in belief - that has caused our present position.

Not all kinds of disagreement or argument are bad - some are actually good. It is a good thing when a group like the Anglican Communion can have a discussion on a new issue which presents itself, and eventually come to some resolution. This has often happens in the past. THe Communion is structured so that on higher level issues, no one makes a change until the decision is made, so that it can be done clearly, honestly, and with some surety that it is a well thought out and long term decision.

If some disagree with the final decision, they may choose as individuals or a group to go somewhere else. And there can be unpleasentness over this. But it is, I think, ultimatly an honest parting of ways. People can be fairly sure they really do differ on something important. and once the decision has been made affected individuals are able to see that and make a decision for themselves.

That is not what has been going on in the 20th and 21st century. There has been for one thing a push to say more issues are decions for lower levels than the communion as a whole, even when they are issues that would ultimatly make actually worshiping together difficult. There has been a strong tendency for groups to go ahead making changes before an agreement has been reached. There have been instances where changes were instituted in practice without saying so, in order to avoid contentious discissions (and perhaps discussions that would not get the result those in the leadership wanted.) And there has been little respect for the Instruments of Communion - and arguably the ABC has not stepped in to sort anything out.

THis has resulted in bad differences and disgreements. People do not feel sure about what is actually being taught, they cannot make decisions in regard to it. They find differing, and contradictory things being taught about the central tenants of the faith. They feel they are being bamboozled, or pushed out by differing views which have no official legitimacy. In many cases they don't feel they can be sure that an Anglican parish they are not familiar with is one they could really accept the teaching of. Parishes leave but bitterly divided because both sides think what they are doing is what Anglicanism really teaches.

This is the sort of thing that is causing such angst. People are conflicted, confused, and feel they are being manipulated. And when their own parish or national church makes decisions that they are told to wait on, they feel abandoned by the higher authority of the Communion which their own church says they respect.

It seems counter intuitive, but I think that it is in fact the refusal to engage substantively and to enforce some kind of organized decision making on what we believe that is making our situation in the Anglican world right now so bloody. And it is bloody, we are bleeding membership like there is no tomorrow, and people feel terribly wounded as you said.

I think it is terribly hurtful to a more traditional Anglican when his parish, with no authority proclaiming it as right, begins teaching things like the Resurrection is a myth. It is a teaching that flatly contradicts the core of his faith. I think the new members who are a gay couple who are welcomed into a parish, and then move and find themselves told by the priest that they cannot carry on as they are, are potentially going to be terribly hurt too.

The two kinds of parishes both exist here - they essentially are like parishes of different denominations, because they can only really interact on that level. So I don't see it as allowing closer friendships to happen

I cannot see how this attempt to not offend anyone or disagree is going to be helpful or kind or peaceful for anyone.

I'm a pretty open minded guy. I'm open to a lot of things, and I fully support modern scholarship, textual criticism, and exploring all possibilities. But, I'm just not comfortable with denying the divine nature of Christ, or the incarnation or resurrection beingtaught as something that didn't actually happen. I understand that myth doesn't mean a denial of truth, but... still it implies that it didn't happen.

I've changed my mind about the play-doh however.

Adam Warlock said:

God conquering death is not meaningful to you. Nice.

Click to expand...

Did I say that? Funny, I don't remember saying that.

Resurrection is a very important part of my faith. I just don't understand it in the same way that traditionalists do.

Episcoboi said:

Well, some of us don't find the "literal" resurrection as historical event meaningful to our lives and faith anymore. So, for some of us, the second meaning of myth as it relates to scripture and many areas of our faith, helps us to be faithful Christians in a world where the literal factuality of the Bible is untenable. So, I'm not entirely opposed to the "resurrection as myth and play-doh" in the seminary. In fact, I laud it.

Click to expand...

So why would one not join a group that teaches that. There are a number that would be appropriate.

It seems rather odd to join a group that doesn't teach that.

And even if you like the sentiment, do you really find the method of undermining all of our corporate decision making processes to teach it as if it was really our doctrine, palatable?

Episcoboi said:

Did I say that? Funny, I don't remember saying that.

Resurrection is a very important part of my faith. I just don't understand it in the same way that traditionalists do.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Then how does one benefit from a resurrection that didn't happen?

Episcoboi said:

Isn't that what most people are doing now? Just trying to be good without the church. Most people find the church (the whole church and it's many denominations) unconvincing. And it's not the liberal theology they find unconvincing, its the irrelevance. The fact that questioners, doubters, thinkers, etc. get crucified. The fact that the thought-police come out every time someone honestly questions and rethinks church tradition makes church a pretty much obsolete institution to a large number of people. For many, liberal theology is just too little too late. They see it as trying to put a patch on gaping wound that is the irrelevant church. But, any attempt to make the church relevant to people and their lived experience in this world and not the world of "325 C.E." is met with rigidity from those who comprise the church. It's almost like people would rather see the church die in its irrelevance and backwardness, then let a fresh breath of Spirit in which might possibly change what they rigidly hold to be absolute and unquestionable truth.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think a lot find the irrelevance of the liberal theology unconvincing. It hardly cries out that they should become Christians to spend their Sundays contemplating one particular cultural myth and how it applies to their lives. Why not contemplate other myths equally, or nature, or just read improving books and donate to UNICEF, maybe volunteer at the soup kitchen.

The idea that the thought police come out is, IMO, a myth. Yes, some ideas get rejected. Most people think that applying discernment is a good idea. It is true that Christianity has typically been slow to work - the reason for that is is uses as much as possible a consensus model. THat is a much more powerful and loving one, I think, than "anything is ok".

Albion and MKJ, you are sooo right! I get little nostalgic for Christianity at times, and I always come crawling back...But, as I said in another thread, I think I'm pretty well cured this time. I can do bad all by myself...as the expression goes. I don't need the church to help me do that. So, deuces.

Episcoboi said:

Most people find the church (the whole church and it's many denominations) unconvincing. And it's not the liberal theology they find unconvincing, its the irrelevance. The fact that questioners, doubters, thinkers, etc. get crucified. The fact that the thought-police come out every time someone honestly questions and rethinks church tradition makes church a pretty much obsolete institution to a large number of people. For many, liberal theology is just too little too late. They see it as trying to put a patch on gaping wound that is the irrelevant church. But, any attempt to make the church relevant to people and their lived experience in this world and not the world of "325 C.E." is met with rigidity from those who comprise the church. It's almost like people would rather see the church die in its irrelevance and backwardness, then let a fresh breath of Spirit in which might possibly change what they rigidly hold to be absolute and unquestionable truth.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but the argument that there should be tolerance for the folks the speaker identifies with but not for those whom he disagrees with doesn't strike me as very compelling.

MKJ said:

Are you home from your trip?

Click to expand...

For now. I'm hoping to go back in a few weeks.

I think perhaps we have an issue with some not making the decisions they need to, and people all over making decisions that are not theirs to make.

Click to expand...

Not surprising when we have no consensus on who should make decisions or how.

Episcoboi said:

Well, some of us don't find the "literal" resurrection as historical event meaningful to our lives and faith anymore.

Click to expand...

Do you really mean its not meaningful, or is that really code for dont believe it as such?

mark1 said:

How do you understand the resurrection of Jesus?

I stand with Saint Paul and with Bishop Wright: no resurrection, no Christianity.

There is nothing wrong with following the teachings of Jesus and trying to follow his example of compassion in each day of our lives. However, a Buddhist would do the same.

Click to expand...

Likewise! Without that, I might as well have stayed Zen/Tao/Vedanta.

Episcoboi said:

Albion and MKJ, you are sooo right! I get little nostalgic for Christianity at times, and I always come crawling back...But, as I said in another thread, I think I'm pretty well cured this time. I can do bad all by myself...as the expression goes. I don't need the church to help me do that. So, deuces.

Click to expand...

If you believe what Christianity teaches, be a Christian. If you don't, be something else.

If you are looking for a group that sees all religious myth as containing truth and none of them the truth, I would suggest that the UU would be a good choice.

ebia said:

Not surprising when we have no consensus on who should make decisions or how.

Click to expand...

Would you say though that Anglicanism doesn't have consensus, or that modern Anglicans don't? Because it did actually seem to work at that level for some time. If people and bishops and national churches all submit themselves to the process, arguably it should work.

MKJ said:

Would you say though that Anglicanism doesn't have consensus, or that modern Anglicans don't? Because it did actually seem to work at that level for some time. If people and bishops and national churches all submit themselves to the process, arguably it should work.

Click to expand...

What process?

It doesn't seem like any part of the Communion is interested in submitting to any sort of process that isn't predetermined in advance to produce the answer they they think is correct.