Episcopal Heresies
September 5, 2007 - 10:49am — Fr. Gawain
We're often called heretics.
The Episcopal Church might be guilty of being Arminian, offering grace a bit more freely than usual. Or Erastian, as we do submit to the state. Definitely Latitudinarian, as we are particularly broad-minded. Often Semi-Pelagian in that we think our own agency and God's can be linked. Surely a body of pragmatic friends of the infinite.
As represented through the life, death and life of Jesus Christ.
But we're not Gnostic, Marcionites or Arians.
Comments
What ? Not an Arian? Being
What ? Not an Arian? Being in communion with folks like Spong, or the parish of Gregory of Nyssa in SF (which has formally dropped the Nicene Creed from it's services), how do you defend that claim?
The first woman ordained in the Diocese of Olympia, Laura Fraser, was quite explicitly Marcionite. Nothing was ever done to her for her theology. Gnosticism is precisely what one finds everywhere in ECUSA. Re read any theology they taught you in school. Start with the "Seeker's" area of the ECUSA webpage. The explanation of the Trinity there is a precise explanation of how to be a Modalist. You do anything you want in ECUSA, believe anything you want. That's why "being" an Episcopalian means just as much as "not being" one. If you're proud of that, what would you be ashamed of?
Hi Mr. Anonymous. You
Hi Mr. Anonymous. You mention a couple examples from people who are Episcopalian, but you make the mistake of saying they represent the entire theology of ECUSA. Then you mention someone I've never heard of. Should I get to know her? Is she single? Cute?
The TEC webpage leads me to the catechism and a glossary which describes the trinity in a fairly orthodox and opaque manner. Second, I'm not sure if we would agree about what gnosticism is. I understand it as having a radical dualism (good vs evil, for example), a debasement of the body, and a belief in secret knowledge. TEC has none of these views. If anything, the insistence by conservatives in right "thought" is gnostic at its core. Harold Bloom does a good job as describing Southern Baptists as very gnostic.
Dropping the creed from a service does not make one Arian. The creed became a part of the Sunday services quite late.
You think being in the TEC means believing anything you want. You want to believe that fact, yourself. Does that hold under close scrutiny for any faith? Does religion require we all drink the kool-aid?
"Dropping the creed from a
"Dropping the creed from a service does not make one Arian. The creed became a part of the Sunday services quite late."
- Thanks for this useful reminder!
The original drafts of the 1979 Prayer Book made the creed optional (as it still is except on Sunday). Historically the church's Trinitarian faith had been prayed and enacted in the Eucharist for before the creed was introduced - originally by Peter the Fuller, monophysite patriarch of Constantinople to support his claim that Chalcedonian Christians had departed from the old time religion. That gives us about 25,000 Sunday liturgies before any Christian had said the creed as part of the liturgy. It was repentant Arians, now militant anti-Arians who introduced the practice in Spain. Rome refused to go along and fought it for at least a couple of generations.
In my nearly thirty year experience in a parish that didn't use it, the faith still got shared.
Well, here's your Trinity
Well, here's your Trinity reference, Seeker's Center:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/17041_20885_ENG_HTM.htm?menu=menu16973
Completely Modalist. Not "fairly" or any other degree orthodox (certainly not Orthodox).
Laura Fraser died a few years ago. The Diocese of Olympia couldn't figure out what to do with her, so they bought her off with a full disability pension to renounce her orders. She remained of course, a layman in good standing, and a Marcionite. John Spong is still a bishop, in good standing. No Episcopalians have denied him communion, so I assume he must speak for them. He is simply not a Christian in any sense of the word. Mere atheism wasn't considered at any Ecumenical Council, so he'd have made it under the radar. How embarrassing for you.
Dropping the Creed is an attempt at cleverness by the parish in San Francisco. They say it was a "political" document, so they claim to be above it all. They're actually beneath it. The Creed became part of the liturgy "late". Late? In terms of the Anglican Communion? That's rich; you're claiming family history you don't have. It came into the liturgy of the *Church* late. It has always been part, since the start, of Anglicanism. Anglicanism isn't *part* of the Church that put the Creed in it's service, so this hardly applies to you! For the occasional parish to drop it (with, of course, no comment from their bishops whatever) seems more an act of honesty than anything. I don't expect the term "Arian" to disturb an Epicopalian at all, any more than anything else the Church that wrote the Creed and put it in the liturgy would condemn as heresy. When will more Episcopal congregations have the courage of lack of conviction to drop that archaic document from the Sunday morning tedium?
If there *is* a way to actually fall off the edge of the Episcopal Church, what might that be? The Catholics and Orthodox would not admit a candidate for baptism, nor tolerate a layman who denied the Creed (or believed the Episcopalian trinitarian theology on the official website!). There's a very old joke that no one from the Pope to Mao Tse Tung is quite safe from the possibility that he might be an Anglican. As true now as ever.
Your presiding bishop's mother left the Episcopal Church for precisely such reasons in the late 70's.
I discussed this with her a number of times.
Dear Ms. or Mr. Anonymous,
Dear Ms. or Mr. Anonymous, uh, it may be modalist. The best explanation? Its in English. Not Greek. Otherwise, it uses scripture and is a fairly good attempt. It's not how I would explain the trinity, but I'm not close to the national office. hope to God one doesn't have to faithful and know Greek or Latin.
I do like that joke about Mao and the Pope. That's funny!
You mention the problem of discipline, but I think there are many issues here. I think the problem is church polity rather than theology. We are a democratic church and this causes theology no end of difficulty. Falling off the Episcopal church radar would include violent coercion, with an intention of hurting other people.
BTW, why are you anonymous? I've stopped stalking people, and I have some very good orthodox friends who are always warning me about the dark side of liberal humanism. Thank Jesus and Alleluia for them. Unless you are Salma Hayek, and then, of course, I was obeying the court order quite well. Won't you marry me, Salma? I know you love me.
Sorry the name got dropped
Sorry the name got dropped from the "name" box, it stayed in this time!
Actually Peter the Fuller was in Antioch, but just as heretical...It's interesting to see how the Creed got in the liturgy, but that history is far more worthy of remebrance than the reasons for *dropping* it are.
That reason is just disbelief in anything it says. As I pointed out, the website for SGN in San Francisco gives an all time lame excuse that the Creed is "political", so they cast it out of their imaginative services. Elephant saddle in, Nicea out. I wonder do the parishoners there imagine, even for a minute, that they are or ever were in communion with St. Gregory? Isn't having other people's saints on your wall like having pictures of other people's children on your wall, people you have never met? A little creepy.
Fr. Gawain says that Modalism is there because ECUSA needs to use English! Can this really be the church that says "you don't have to park your brain at the door"? It sounds like the clergy will park it there for you. Why dumb things down when it could be explained? How can it be that other churches *do* celebrate the faith in the Trinity, while ECUSA parishes can't? It's instructive to see the ECUSA parish websites that have "Trinity Sunday" sermons posted. They all read pretty much like Fr. Gawain's did. Very uncomfortable; the sort of thing one had to learn a little about in a seminary class, and I lost the notes...Or, is it just unimportant? What's wrong with being an Arian that Fr. Gawain has to be proud he isn't one?
It's some 40 years now since Bishop pike stopped invoking the Trinity as he started a sermon; "In the name of God, Amen". The trinity was to him "excess baggage". Rather than drop the Creed, he just ridiculed it. He ordered that in his diocese it had to be sung, not said, as it was "poetry", not theology.
ECUSA has gottne a tiny bit bolder, but hasn't the guts to say it flat out doesn't believe anything in the Creed. It's an option, so why not be thorough like SGN and just admit disbelief. It would save all the hassle about sexuality, marriage and the rest. It would be honest to say this to their "conservative" members.
It's also worth asking if the Creed isn't true, if what people call "normal" teaching in the church is just an archaic relic, why do you tell people to come to church at all? What is the excuse for wearing a collar and asking for pay? What gives a cleric the privilege of celebrating a silly thing like the eucharist?
If a layman in ECUSA wants to celebrate some Sunday (or stay home and do it in his living room) what is Fr. Gawain's reason for not permitting it, or just suggesting it not be done? I hope he won't invoke some stuffy "tradition" of the "ancient church" to assert his authority over a community as the only liturgical celebrant.
I hope Salma writes.
Thanks Bob. Now I know
Thanks Bob. Now I know where you live and I will start sending you spam. And kisses.
From now on all discussion on this blog about the creed will be conducted in Latin. Fortunately, there are a couple kids in my after school program going to a Catholic school who are learning it, so I can brush up. It's been a couple decades.
I'm sad you didn't like my trinity sunday sermon. I didn't know other preachers thought as I did about it. Bob is correct that many liberal clergy don't know what to do with the trinity, but it is better than the alternative (say, a unitarian or an Islamic understanding of the transcendent), which renders God irrelevant or cruel.
Bob's question on the utility of the priesthood, however, have great merit, but not only for liberal clergy, but for all clergy, of any faith. The remote control has more interest for most people than the way I wave my hand over the chalice and paten, alas. This is another issue that, I suspect, has more to do with technology and culture than the nature of God's substance. Although perhaps our use of technology might illuminate something about how God's substance works. Not for a blog. For a book.
Fr. Gawain, I just love it!
Fr. Gawain,
I just love it! You attract the most creative 'hate mail.' Verily, I grow so languidly weary of the same tiresome threats to my personhood! And, when these threats appear, by the monster Mr. Anonymous (who must be embarrassed by his name. Why else would he be anonymous?), or anyone else claiming his name, I have to wonder where the fear comes from? Is it so terrible to think that the Lord might have gifted you with a mind of your own ( and the goodness that comes with it), or is it just that you need to dislike and accuse others? Before you answer, Mr, Anonymous, just know I am armed with 17 years of Jesuit education and the love to back it!
Heidi
It is comforting knowing
It is comforting knowing that my friend has such impecable credentials. And to think; to all of that add salsa dancer, stand up comedy, and fine cigars.
Impressive.
Thanks Scarlett. Dump
Thanks Scarlett. Dump Richard or Justin or whoever you're dating. Kisses.