Back at the end of March I wrote about the Dean of Perth, John Shepherd, and his Easter Message, “We need to challenge the belief that the Resurrection from the Dead was a physical resurrection". At the time I mentioned that I had written to the Archbishop with my concern that an ordained clergyman under his direct authority had openly denied the doctrine of the Anglican Church of Australia.

Since that time, the Archbishop has been gracious enough to respond to not one but a number of emails from me and as that conversation comes to a close I wanted to let you all know how it had gone.

Let me start by pointing out how courteous Archbishop Herft of Perth has been. I am a lowly newly-ordained deacon in the church and he is an Archbishop. That he took the time to respond to me not just once, but as a dialogue, speaks volumes towards his generosity of spirit. At no time in the dialogue, even though it will have been evident to him early on that we were poles apart theologically, did I ever sense any animosity or exasperation on his part. I trust that any comments that follow on from this article will continue in that vein.

Nevertheless there are a number of things that concern me in what the Archbishop wrote and, more importantly, in what he did not write. Those will become evident as you read through the exchange.

I first wrote to the Archbishop on 24 March this year:

Dear Archbishop Herft,

I am writing to express my great disappointment at Dean Shepherd’s Easter Message which your Diocesan website published at the following url:
http://www.perthcathedral.org/images/VIDEO/Dean Easter 2008.wmv

In this message the Dean denied the physicality of Jesus’ resurrection body and resurrection appearances and, by necessity of his argument, the historical reliability of the Gospels which record those appearances for us.

I understand that individuals within the Church may wish to hold, in good conscience, various views on matters pertaining to the Christian faith but, surely you will agree, the Dean of a Cathedral is not just an individual in the Church. He is one of the most senior clergymen in your diocese and his words are listened to by many (not least, since your website promotes them).

I am also concerned that the Dean would hold a position at odds with the Anglican Articles of Religion which, in our ordination vows, we promise to uphold and adhere to. In this case the clear words of Article 4:

Article IV
Of the Resurrection of Christ
Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day.

Being in the ministry myself I am well aware that Holy Week is extremely busy and you will no doubt have not reviewed (nor even felt it necessary to review) the Dean’s message. Now that Easter is over could I urge you to address this matter. I am sure that you, like so many other Christians around the world, are keen to hold out to as many people as possible the Christian hope given us in the physical resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, who on that first Sunday morning showed his hands and sides to his disciples and went on to eat breakfast with them and appear to the 12, and then more than 500 believers at a time.

Wishing you a joyous Easter, secure in the hope of the Resurrection.

Rev. David Ould
Neutral Bay, NSW

You will note that my expressed concern is not just with the denial of the physical Resurrection but that an ordained clergyman should openly take such a position.

The letter was written at a time when Archbishop Herft was out of the country, followed by the business of Easter. When he finally had time to provide a detailed response this is what he wrote:

17 April 2008

Dear David,
Easter greetings in the name of the Risen Christ.

Journalists and newpaper editors are, sadly, not interested in reporting accurately on any subject. Controversy and conflict is what sells newspapers. When one has a cynical, sceptical junior reporter responding to deep matters of faith, it makes our task even more difficult. Perhaps one day the Editor might send a journalist to cover cricket or footy who has absolutely no knowledge or interest in the sporting code!

I am in receipt of your email of 24 March 2008. I am grateful to you for the gracious manner in which you have raised your concerns.

The Episcopal Team is to meet with the Dean to consider the Easter message you made reference to. My response to the issues raised is as follows.

The bodily resurrection of the Jesus who was crucified, dead and was buried is at the heart of our faith. As the Apostle Paul intimates "if this is not so we are of all people to be pitied!'(1Corinthians 15:12-19). The truth it proclaims is that this Jesus, the Son of God, the eternal Word sent from the heart of God, takes on every aspect of our physicality - our constraints within time and space - he is part of the dust of history (Philippians 2:5b-11) - he bears on the cross our alienation from God. God acts and through the power of love and forgiveness gifts us with reconciliation (Colossians 1:15-20).

The Resurrection is God's mightiest act. No one sees what happens - the stone is rolled away not to let Jesus out but to let us into the deep mystery of God's action for then and all time.

The Risen Christ appears to the disciples and to others, sometimes they recognise him through his physicality, at other times he is beyond time and space. I commend to you a lecture given by the Archbishop of Canterbury on 19 March entitled Faith and History in which he outlines the Resurrection truth.

For the Apostle Paul and for ourselves the Risen Christ "appears" - is disclosed and revealed to us in a way that we can comprehend the risen presence, ie the marks of history, yet Paul recognises that he is beyond our time/space word and world categories (1 Corinthians 15; 2 Corinthians 5:16-6:10).

The meaning behind these "appearances" is significant. All of the material world in the entire cosmos, the whole creation, is affected by the Resurrection (Romans 8). There is nothing in life or death that will not be affected, repaired, restored, renewed by the Resurrection of Christ.

The life and mission of the Church, of individual Christians marked by the waters of baptism is to be a Resurrection people whose common refrain is "Alleluia".

This message is indeed foolishness to the media of our time whose primary focus is the fallenness of humanity - not the transforming power of God in Christ.

With prayerful good wishes.

Yours sincerely

+Roger

Now, we should acknowledge here that there is much that most readers of this blog will find themselves in complete agreement over. I was particularly heartened to read the Archbishop confirm that

The bodily resurrection of ... Jesus ... is at the heart of our faith

The Archbishop also raises the very real reminder that the Resurrection is more than a straight historical event. It is an "appearance" in the deeper sense in that it reveals God to us in a new and fresh way.

And yet at the same time I was left rather troubled for what was missing was an answer to my direct question: was it acceptable for an ordained clergyman to deny these truths which the Archbishop was affirming? That main question had not been remotely addressed.

I wrote back to the Archbishop:

18 April 2008

Dear Archbishop Roger,

Many thanks for your letter of 17 April. I do appreciate you taking the time out of a busy schedule to address my concerns. I share your concern that the media often misreport religious matters – your comparison to sports reporting was entirely justified! Back in the UK where I grew up it seems that newspapers are rapidly discarding their religion correspondents in favour of generalists. That can’t be a good thing for objective reporting. Let me reassure you that the media were not the source of my questions about Dean Shepherd’s Easter message. I came across the message by chance when browsing the Perth diocese website looking for other resources.

I wonder if I might indulge you graciousness again to ask for a small clarification about the contents of your letter?

It is pleasing to be in complete agreement with you that “the bodily resurrection … is at the heart of our faith” and yet I was left a little confused at to how you understood that bodily resurrection to function. I freely admit that I may simply not be grasping the enormity of what you are saying, part of which may simply be that we come from different Christian cultures with slightly different understandings of common terms.

You write “the stone is rolled way[sic.] not to let Jesus out but to let us into the deep mystery of God’s action for then and all time.” On a suspicious day I might understand you to be denying the physicality of Jesus’ resurrection – after all not only did the first witnesses of the empty tomb enter that tomb (as you point out) but Jesus must also have left it, presumably by the same opening. Nevertheless, later you write that “sometimes [the disciples and others] recognise him through his physicality, at other times he is beyond time and space”. I do not mind admitting that I am confused by this statement for it seems to provide an alternative understanding of that physicality which you have just affirmed. Is that what you were intending to communicate?

Perhaps, I might suggest, there is no need to choose between the two. Perhaps the physical resurrected Christ that the disciples and others encounter and who pervades the Biblical post-resurrection accounts is at the same time the cosmic Christ who is as you put it, “beyond time and space”. Thus, there is no need for us to choose between the two. He is one and the same. To put it in Watzlawick's words - the Resurrection and the post-resurrection encounters are both an analogical and a binary event simultaneously. We may thus affirm that the Resurrection is both physical and supernatural – there being no conflict between the two.

If this is so (and if it represents a true reflection of what you are saying – please do let me know if it does or not) then may I draw your attention to the original question raised in my emails? I had asked whether it was acceptable for a clergyman who, like ourselves, has sworn to uphold the doctrine of this church that we both love dearly to deny those doctrines (in this case Article IV on the Resurrection which affirms a bodily resurrection) and even to declare that Christians should be protected from them. I appreciate that a response to this question may yet await the outcome of your Episcopal Team’s meeting.

Thank you again for taking the time to enter into this correspondence. Helping to look after a parish is a big enough job as it is, I can only imagine what work a Diocese the size of Perth entails. I am therefore very appreciative that you do not consider this exchange as not worthy of your time.

With kind regards

Yours in Christ

David Ould

At this point I was genuinely intrigued by what +Roger was writing. One of the great joys of academic life (which I have left behind this year) is to read how those who we do not agree with express themselves. Sometimes they have refreshing ways of communicating that open up a subject to us.

I was also keen to have an answer to my question!
Here is the reply I got:

6 May 2008

Dear David

Thank you for your email and for your ongoing enquiry.

The primary Christian Credal Statement is that Jesus rose from the dead – in classical theological language through the mystery of the Blessed Trinity we confess that God raised Jesus from the dead (Matthew 17:23, Acts 2:24; Romans 4:25, I Corinthians 15:4).

All of our humanity that is taken on in the flesh of the incarnation “in the Word becoming flesh”, including the utter disintegration of the body suffered for our sin on the Cross – “the battered heart of God” is raised – in bodily reality – yet in Resurrection Glory it is beyond time and space categories – it is both and . . . analogical, binary and then some.

Bishop Glenn Davies, in his article on the Ascension in the recent Southern Cross magazine captures this truth in its essence:

What do we celebrate? We celebrate that Jesus has entered into heaven as our substitute and Saviour. He has taken glorified humanity into the Father’s presence and represents us in human body and soul at the Father’s side. He intercedes for us and beckons us to join him in glory (Act 7:56). His entry into the Father’s glory likewise assures us of our entry into glory. His ascension guarantees our ascension (1 Thess 4:15-18).

In my discussion with the Dean it is not a matter of denial but an exploration of what the Resurrection event means within Scripture, the Creeds and the ongoing life of the Church – till Christ comes.

In may interest you to know that these exploratory conversations led by the Dean in a group called “Heretics Anonymous” brings forth many young adult baptisms we have in the Cathedral on Easter morning. This year was no exception – there were eight people who came to faith through an open exploration of the Revealed Truth of God in Christ – who alone saves.

Blessings and peace.

Yours sincerely

+Roger

Readers should be aware that Glenn Davies is my local area bishop - and a wonderful man.

I have to admit that after receiving this email I felt a bit frustrated. I had asked the same question twice and had it dodged each time. Now, granted - Herft is not going to simply hang his Dean out to dry. But at the same time this was a big issue. As Archbishop Roger himself had observed, the Resurrection lay at the heart of the Christian faith and the bodily Resurrection of Jesus was a received doctrine of the Anglican Church or Australia.

So I wrote back:

11 May 2008

Dear Roger,

Thank you again for writing to me. I appreciate you taking the time to set my mind at ease. I wonder if it is possible to ask 2 final clarifying questions to make sure I understand you correctly?

You wrote to me that "through the mystery of the Blessed Trinity we confess that God raised Jesus from the dead". I understand the nature of the confession, but could you explain what you mean by confessing “through the mystery of the Blessed Trinity?”

You also wrote “In my discussion with the Dean it is not a matter of denial but an exploration of what the Resurrection event means…”. I have to admit to being confused about this. In the Dean’s message he says, quite clearly, “The Resurrection of Jesus ought not to be seen in physical terms, but as a new spiritual reality. It is important for Christians to be set free from the idea that the Resurrection was an extraordinary physical event which restored to life Jesus’ original earthly body.”.

Surely, on a plain reading, this is a simple denial of the physical Resurrection? The Dean, being an intelligent man, is able to communicate himself clearly on this matter. If so, can I return to my original question which you appear to have overlooked, namely, is it acceptable for an Anglican Clergyman to deny outright an established doctrine of our church (Article IV – which states “Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature”; affirmed in para. 4 of the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia) which all three of us have sworn to abide by in our ordination vows (so, for example, in the AAPB ordinal)? This was my key concern when I wrote to you and I would be grateful if you could provide some clarity on that wider issue, even if you do not believe that the Dean his, at this time, made such a denial.

Also, I am not so sure that Dean Shepherd and Bishop Davies are as much in agreement as you have suggested. Back in 2003 when Dean Shepherd had previously made the same apparent denial of the physical Resurrection of Jesus, Bishop Davies’ recorded comment in the West Australian newspaper was that the Dean’s views were “an extreme form of liberal Christianity that has been endemic in the churches for the last 200 years” and that “Christians who appeal to the Bible as their authority will recognise that liberal Christianity is a negative force and one which is too prone to be influenced by the culture of this age”.

It is of course, only natural (and indeed to be welcomed) that there will be shades of opinion within any denomination, just as there are within individual dioceses – I am, however, left wondering as to whether there should be right and proper boundaries upon our common faith and witness, especially where ordination vows imply such boundaries, and I am grateful for any insight you can provide into this.

Thank you again for the time you have given to enter into correspondence, I am very grateful for it.

Wishing you a wonderful Whitsuntide,

Yours sincerely,

David

Here is, of course, the issue that we are facing all around the Communion. Are there boundaries to our common faith? What are they? How are they to be enforced, if at all? Dean Shepherd has provided a concrete test-case by openly denying a key Christian doctrine.

Arhcbishop Roger, with great patience, wrote back to me one last time:

11 June 2008

Dear David

I am in receipt of your email of 11 May 2008. It is of some regret for me to hear that the correspondence I have received is part of an orchestrated campaign instigated through a website in Sydney, and that that my genuine attempts to respond were part of a process of entrapment rather than a faithful engagement in understanding differing points of view.

Let me conclude this correspondence with you with two points which may help in the process.

In discussing the issues raised by the Dean’s sermon we are clear that the Resurrection of Jesus – God raising Jesus from the dead is a totally unique new category of existence.

It is intrinsically bound to the Being of God in the Blessed Trinity. Neither Hebrew nor Greek categories were prepared for nor can they fully contain the mystery, majesty and meaning of what happened. Something quite unique took place in creation in the birth of Jesus – the word made flesh, his life of obedience, his passion and death on the cross – in atonement and the act of God who raised Jesus the Son signifying the physical, material raising of all that embodied the logos in every essential characteristic, including the scars of crucifixion – into the realms of God’s eternal being.

As a reformed Catholic I hold an utter sacramental view that belief in the physical resurrection brings with it. Alistair McGrath’s latest book Resurrection places the need for Christians to move past the “familiar” to the “strange” when we think, pray and live the resurrection hope.

Perhaps the real difficulty we face is one of the different methodology used in preaching. One that proclaims truth as dogma – received tradition and faith to be accepted – the other calls for truth to be explored until the whisper of the spirit kindles the heart to a new place of believing and belonging, praying and witnessing. Analogical or Dialogical again!

Thankfully in our liturgy, our fledgling attempts to interpret the Gospel truth, is held in the recitation of the Creed by all present and in the Sursum Corda – the lifting up of our hearts not to the word spoken but to the Eternal Word – Christ broken and offered once for all – and to receiving the bread broken and the wine poured out – “take this in remembrance that Christ died for you and be thankful”.

May we as St Augustine challenges us be a Resurrection people whose song is Alleluia.

With blessings and peace.

Yours sincerely

+Roger

Today I wrote back to the Archbishop:

15 June 2008

Dear Roger,

Thank you for your letter of 11 June. I appreciate you writing to me despite your concern that there was an element of entrapment and "an orchestrated campaign". When I originally blogged on this subject I did encourage others to contact you, as is common practice in today's world when we have concerns. I am only aware of one prominent website in Sydney that commended its readers to write to you, namely http://www.solapanel.org in an article on 11 May entitled "Physical Resurrection" (http://solapanel.org/article/physical_resurrection/).
You will note that I had originally written to you on this matter on 24 March, almost 2 months before solapanel.org encouraged others to do the same and I had no contact with them on this issue prior to the article. I hope this will help to assuage you of any unhappiness you may be feeling towards me.
However, given what you must concede is the seriousness of this issue you can surely not be surprised that those of a more conservative persuasion would not feel moved to write to you?

I must, myself, admit to some frustration on my own part. Do allow me to explain. The original question I posed to you was whether it was acceptable for an Anglican clergyman to deny an established doctrine of the Church of Australia, one which we have all sworn to uphold as part of our ordination vows. Despite asking this question very clearly in each letter I sent to you, it remains unanswered. I had thought the first time that it may have been overlooked in your busyness so I took the liberty of asking again. And then, since the substance of my question remained unanswered, again in my third message. In your last reply you have again chosen not to address this central concern.

That is, of course, your prerogative. I recognise that the Dean's Easter Message has put you in an awkward, indeed impossible position. He has openly and clearly denied a core Christian belief - and one which is part of our constitutionally recognised doctrine. He wishes to retain the privileges of an ordained position in the Church without meeting the obligations which go along with it. I must say that, personally, it is not a position that I could hold with integrity.

The Anglican Communion is, quite clearly, at a crossroads. This is a situation that I am sure you are as deeply concerned about as I am. It is always tragic when we are faced with division in any Christian body, let alone one as large and as rich and the Anglican Communion. Yet surely much of our problems have stemmed from clergy all around the globe, and particularly in Western nations, who have denied and opposed Christian doctrine and not been held accountable for it.

I realise that the word of one insignificant deacon in another diocese holds very little sway at all, but could I ask you to consider once again whether such repudiation of Christian doctrine is either acceptable or honest? Whilst I found it terribly encouraging for me to read your repeated affirmations of the physical Resurrection of the Lord Jesus (and to sense the warmth of conviction with which that belief was held), I was also increasingly troubled to note your disengagement with my primary question.

In our small parish here in Sydney we are currently preaching through 1Timothy. This morning I was reminded of my own obligation as a deacon to "hold the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience" (1Tim. 3:9). If thus the deacons, then surely the other 2 orders of clergy moreso? Not just holding onto those deep truths but with a clear conscience.

Thank you again for your generosity, both in time and spirit, in this conversation. I have been heartened that you would apply the energy to such a discussion, even when I have found myself troubled with some of what you have said.

With very kind regards

Yours in Christ

David

20 Comments • Print-friendly • Print-friendly w/comments • Share on Facebook

Comments:

This is a case study in the issue of “discipline,” which SF has raised often and well.
The long history of gracious, personally orthodox leaders who won’t curb heterodox statements and actions is a big part of our Anglican angst. This is the James Pike blunder redux.
But the fact that you get a response is a cut above what goes on here. Many of us here have written to diocesan and national TEC leaders with our concerns, and don’t get so much as a form letter in reply. Nothing.

[1] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 06-15-2008 at 05:38 AM • top

From +Roger:

Perhaps the real difficulty we face is one of the different methodology used in preaching. One that proclaims truth as dogma – received tradition and faith to be accepted – the other calls for truth to be explored until the whisper of the spirit kindles the heart to a new place of believing and belonging, praying and witnessing.

“Methodology used in preaching” is the “difficulty”?

Perhaps the Anglican problem is in clear concise communication.

And: The problem with liberal Anglicanism: Believe whatever you want - there are no principles and no consequences.

[2] Posted by MasterServer on 06-15-2008 at 08:11 AM • top

It is of some regret for me to hear that the correspondence I have received is part of an orchestrated campaign instigated through a website in Sydney, and that that my genuine attempts to respond were part of a process of entrapment rather than a faithful engagement in understanding differing points of view.

‘Entrapment’ is a curious word choice by Roger Herft. It gives the impression that the question asked of him was inherently dangerous to him. But what is dangerous about it? How would answering this question ‘entrap’ him?

[Is it] acceptable for an Anglican clergyman to deny an established doctrine of the Church of Australia, one which we have all sworn to uphold as part of our ordination vows?

By his evasive responses, Bishop Herft gives the impression of someone who does not wish to sacrifice flexibility; who does not wish to have his words recorded lest those words come back to haunt him. And in so doing, he damages his own credibility. For if he will not answer such a straight-forward and legitimate question, what confidence can we attach to his declarations about the resurrection? Is he likewise being flexible in that matter as well? Is he using words simply to satisfy the presuppositions of his interrogator? Would his answer have been the same if the question had come from a liberal Christian?

Not for nothing is it written: “Let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes, and your ‘no’ be ‘no.’

carl

[3] Posted by carl on 06-15-2008 at 09:44 AM • top

This type of dialogue seems to be common place in the Anglican Communion. Ignore or dodge the main issue/question and talk or reply around it!
Sad!

[4] Posted by TLDillon on 06-15-2008 at 10:22 AM • top

David, you pressed your questions tenaciously, but with Christian love and civility. Thank you!
You seem to think you did not get an answer.
I think you did, loud and clear.
Keep up the good work, we need you.

[5] Posted by Ol' Bob on 06-15-2008 at 02:18 PM • top

Thanks, David, for persisting with your enquiry. You’ve not done as well as Jeremy Paxman, but your degree of difficulty was greater as you were corresponding with someone who could at any stage simply decide to cease replying when things became too awkward. So thanks again for your efforts!

I’m also puzzled by Roger Herft’s claims of entrapment. In your final response, you said:

I am only aware of one prominent website in Sydney that commended its readers to write to you, namely http://www.solapanel.org in an article on 11 May entitled “Physical Resurrection” (http://solapanel.org/article/physical_resurrection/).

And while it’s perfectly true that we did raise the issue, and I’m sure we would be pleased if others did too, we didn’t actually encourage anyone else to write either in that post, or in the follow-up post, both of which were written by Sandy Grant (Dean of Wollongong Cathedral). So the question of whether, as Roger Herft claims, there was an “orchestrated campaign” remains at this stage an unsubstantiated assertion.

It seems far more likely to me that people who were deeply concerned about the question of the bodily resurrection of Jesus did as you did, and took their own initiative in following matters up.

[6] Posted by Gordon Cheng on 06-15-2008 at 03:01 PM • top

Gordon.
Here is where David encouraged readers to write to Herft, back in March back at the time of his original email. David did the right thing in writing to the Archbishop, but he did publically call for others to do the same in the forums of the diocesan website. Nothing wrong with that either. But that is what the Archbishop is talking about I am sure.
See David’s post here, number 5

[7] Posted by obadiahslope on 06-15-2008 at 04:20 PM • top

I should add perhaps that “orchestrated campaign” is laying it on rather thick in relation to a comment of a forum. How many “orchestrated campaigns” do we have here then? Hundreds, daily.
Standfirm readers should check out <a > solapanel.org </a> for reformed evangelical anglican commentary. I can say that - for Gordon it would be advertising.

[8] Posted by obadiahslope on 06-15-2008 at 04:31 PM • top

check out solapanel.org that is.

[9] Posted by obadiahslope on 06-15-2008 at 04:32 PM • top

yes obadiah, you’re entirely right. I had forgotten about that. But, as you say, hardly an “orchestrated campaign”

[10] Posted by David Ould on 06-15-2008 at 04:38 PM • top

Thanks obadiahslope, and a fine name, may I say.

Hmm, well that is no more an orchestrated campaign than any of a thousand other grumpy (or even reasonable) things that get said on various diocesan forums around the world.

But perhaps there is another, secret, orchestrated campaign that none of us are aware of

[11] Posted by Gordon Cheng on 06-15-2008 at 05:44 PM • top

I guess I’m not understanding - What is mutually exclusive between Christ’s bodily resurrection, and it being a mystery? In other words, when we say “Christ rose from the dead,” why does the next word out of our mouths have to be “but,” rather than “and” ?

Anyways, “and” is more mysterious than “but,” any day of the week, especially when it comes to theology.

[12] Posted by Moot on 06-15-2008 at 06:43 PM • top

David Ould, I’m curious as to what you can say about the Dean who’s at the heart of all this. Would there be a point in writing to him about it? Has he published or clearly adhered to heretical positions a lot?

I ask because I got the sense from the Archbishop’s correspondence that he didn’t understand the Dean’s comments in the same way that you did (or, I guess, wasn’t willing to say so if he did). I agree that words have plain meanings, and I agree that the Dean’s message appears to deny (or at least seek to circumvent and move beyond) a physical resurrection. But I’m wondering if the Dean has more to say about the topic, or if perhaps he discusses it in a different way with the Archbishop or the Episcopal Team.

[13] Posted by DavidH on 06-15-2008 at 06:50 PM • top

no DavidH, sadly there is very little point writing to the Dean. We wait every Christmas and Easter for the next denial to come from his lips.

You’re right, Archbishop Herft writes as though he understands something different from Shepherd’s writing than I do. But actually, what you’ll notice in the whole correspondence is that he never once actually addresses what the Dean said. Not once does he answer a direct question about the Dean’s position.

And thus you have classic liberal avoidance.

[14] Posted by David Ould on 06-15-2008 at 06:55 PM • top

David—Good show. Very straightforward, polite, and kindly persistent. But my guess is that you have him pinned in a Catch 22. If he says, “the Dean was out of line,” then he has to DO something about it, which I imagine he is loathe to do. If he says, “the Dean did nothing wrong,” then you have him on a theological skewer. He finds himself in the same position as the pharisees when Jesus posed the question, “John’s baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?”
Your boldness and gentleness were a blessing to me today. God bless.

[15] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 06-15-2008 at 07:31 PM • top

There is an interesting progression in Bishop Herft’s responses to the assertion that John Shepherd has denied the physical resurrection. In his first response, he blames the media - implying that John Shepherd was misquoted by incompetent and disinterested journalists.

Journalists and newspaper editors are, sadly, not interested in reporting accurately on any subject.

Bishop Herft reasons that if the question can be shown to derive from a faulty report, then the question is rendered moot. But David Ould has access to a primary source material.

Bishop Herft next asserts that John Shepherd is engaging in deep theological reflection and not heretical discourse - subtly implying that this is all beyond the ken of a poor country vicar.

In my discussion with the Dean it is not a matter of denial but an exploration of what the Resurrection event means within Scripture, the Creeds and the ongoing life of the Church

But David Ould points out that words do in fact have meaning, and then asks a question once removed from the case of John Shepherd.

[I]s it acceptable for an Anglican Clergyman to deny outright an established doctrine of our church ...? This was my key concern when I wrote to you and I would be grateful if you could provide some clarity on that wider issue, even if you do not believe that the Dean has, at this time, made such a denial.

There being no more possibility of avoiding the question by dismissing the charge against John Shepherd, Bishop Herft now discovers that David Ould is a secret IRD operative scheming to trap him with his own words.

It is of some regret for me to hear that the correspondence I have received is part of an orchestrated campaign instigated through a website in Sydney, and that that my genuine attempts to respond were part of a process of entrapment rather than a faithful engagement in understanding differing points of view.

The accusation of bad faith allows Bishop Herft a convenient escape from a question he does not want to answer. So we have to entire progression.
1. Tell the inquisitor the media incompetent.
2. Tell the inquisitor he is ignorant for asking the question.
3. Tell the inquisitor he is asking the question in bad faith.
Why could not Bishop Herft have just said “Yes, it is acceptable for an Anglican clergyman to deny an established doctrine.” It would have at least been honest.

carl

btw, the next step in the progression should be
4: Tell the inquisitor to stop asking or he will be punished.

[16] Posted by carl on 06-15-2008 at 08:53 PM • top

I’m glad you and others called him out on this, although I am disappointed that he refuses to acknowledge the problem and act as an Arch Bishop should. Regardless of his personal views on the matter, he should uphold the Articles of the Church within the clergy. Heresy (defined as doctrine differing from the orthodox Creeds of the Early Church) should not be tolerated when preached from the pulpit. It’s not as if the Dean was suggesting “new exploration” or “possibilities”, he flat out said Christianity should not believe in a bodily resurrection of Christ. I commend you for handling the dialogue with the grace that you did, even if +Roger felt he was horribly tricked into openly speaking about what his diocese is up to.

[17] Posted by Hammerstrike on 06-16-2008 at 09:28 AM • top

A little note which I trust will not be regarded as OT: it has never been good interpretation of the Gospel record to suppose that the stone was rolled from the tomb in order to let the Lord out of it. He had already come through the folded winding-sheet and the head-wrapping [the first lying collapsed and empty, the second ἐντετυλιγμένον, or wound tightly round, with a gap for the neck between it and the sheet], and through the rock, as he would come through walls and locked doors, with a body SOLIDER than the material of this world. The God Who raised Jesus is the God out of Whose mind all matter came. The stone was rolled away AFTERWARDS, to show the first witnesses that the tomb was already empty.

[18] Posted by Dr. Priscilla Turner on 06-17-2008 at 01:36 AM • top

Yes, Priscilla, the Lord would just be operating in the same manner that allowed him to come through locked doors shortly thereafter and offer the apostles “Peace”

[19] Posted by yohanelejos on 06-17-2008 at 01:49 AM • top

The elder of the two fascinating sisters may have won four Wimbledon titles but this is the special one; so exceptional in fact that to this mcp certification day she keeps the replica of the trophy she was given that day beside her bed at home in Florida. Prior to arriving at the Championships Venus had suffered her worst ever run mcse online of form but as we know only too well, Williams’s are made of tough stuff. In the longest ever Wimbledon mcts exam women’s final time-wise (two hours 45 minutes) Venus became the first microsoft certification female in 70 years to win the final from match point down.

[20] Posted by smith67 on 04-27-2010 at 01:51 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.