Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Total visitors right now (TitusOneNine & Stand Firm): 337
Matt Kennedy
Has the Episcopal Church really been “Falsely Accused”? Part IV
Wednesday, August 30, 2006 • 3:04 pm
Suffice it to say that one reason the Episcopal Church has fallen into heresy is because of the widespread conviction among prominent leaders that Jesus Christ is unnecessary.

This morning we will be getting to specifics. In the first three installments of my response I have demonstrated that:

1. Not only have false teachers like John Shelby Spong and Dr. Marcus Borg been given the unfettered freedom to preach and teach in parishes and diocesan gatherings accross the Episcopal Church for the last thirty years, but their message has been embraced and trumpeted by influential leaders in the highest echelon including, notably, the presiding bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori.

2. Nevertheless, the pervasive presence of false teaching is causal not material. The Episcopal Church officially stepped outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy with the election, consent, and consecration of V. Gene Robinson, a divorced man living in sexual relationship with another man, to the office of bishop in the state of New Hampshire, a decision confirmed most recently at GC2006.

Now we move on to take up the seven charges Fr. Tom lists in his introduction. The first charge deals with the question of exclusivity and salvation.

The Church world-wide proclaims and has always proclaimed that salvation can only be found in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

There is some variation with regard to the precise way this this exclusivity is understood within the various branches of Christendom.

Some branches hold that the benefits of Christ must be appropriated subjectively by faith during the earthly life of an individual. Those who live beyond the reach of the gospel who by grace sincerely seek the Truth and follow the Truth they find will be given an opportunity to hear and receive the gospel before they die either by direct revelation or through the missionary efforts of the Church.

There is, according to this view, no salvation apart from the name of Jesus Christ. If God intends to save an individual, he will effectually call him through the gospel in accordance with Romans 8:30:

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified


Others hold that an individual who, though without access to the gospel, sincererely seeks the Truth, follows the Truth he finds, and obeys the witness of his own conscience, may be saved by the merciful and vicarious application of the benefits of Christ.

These generally appeal to Paul’s words in Romans 2: 13-16

13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.


I think this argument is quite a stretch given the fact that Romans 1 and 2 are building up to Paul’s summary condemnation of all humanity in Romans 3:

9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” 13 “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” 14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 in their paths are ruin and misery, 17 and the way of peace they have not known.” 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”


In other words, yes, those who have not heard the revealed Word of God may be saved if they follow their conscience and do what is right. The problem is that no one follows his conscience and does what is right. We are all sinners and thus we all are in vital need of the One Savior identified by Paul in Romans 3:21

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.


However you exegete this passage, whether you follow NT Wright and understand Paul’s “righteousness of God” as God’s own righteousness in accordance with which he keeps his covenant and “faith in” Christ as the faithfulness “of Christ,” all agree that the final clause, “for all who believe,” necessarily applies. In other words, subjective “belief” in or faith in Christ is necessary for salvation.

In any case, this is a tempest within the family of Christendom, not external to it.

Anglicans have traditionally aligned with the first group. Article 18 of the Articles of Religion states:

They also are to be held accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the name of Jesus Christ whereby men must be saved.


And yet, despite these differences, all Christendom proclaims, in keeping with the clear, consistent testimony of the Word of God and Tradition that the salvific benefits of Christ (his righteous life, atoning death, life-giving resurrection) are necessary for salvation.

Care needs to be take here. The second position, which is held by the Roman Catholic Church does not hold that Buddha (for example) and Christ are equally valid vehicles to the divine. Nor does it hold that Buddha and Christ are simply two manifestations of the same diety. Rather, the claim is that God mercifully applies the benefits of Christ to those who, without access to the gospel, seek and sincerely follow the truth as it is more dimly refracted through the dusty lens of Buddhism.

It is, in other words, the person and work Christ alone, refracted through the distorted lens of other faiths, that provides the only hope of salvation, not the faiths in themselves.

In that sense the two major divisions within Christendom regarding the exclusivity of Christ are agreed, Christ is the only material cause of salvation. There is no other.

The biblical warrant for this exclusive claim is as indisputable as it is overwhelming. I do not have the time or space for more than a brief persusal of the primary passages in question along with brief comments, but the biblical evidence is clear enough.

We’ll start with the Great Commission. The final words of Jesus Christ before ascending bodily to the right hand of the Father:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (Matthew 28:18-20)


If in fact Jesus considered the various faith traditions of Judea, the Mediterranean and, indeed, of the world, equally valid vehicles to the divine, this command would be incoherent. The call is very clearly to proselytize the entire world, to call people of other faiths to faith in Jesus Christ. There are no exceptions. The command it is directed toward his own people, the Jews, and toward the Gentiles. Disciples of Christ are commissioned to make other disciples of Christ and teach them to obey his commands.

Turning to the Johanine passages we see the exclusivity implicit in the Great Commission brought to the fore. In John 3:16-18, 6:53-54 and 14:6 (just three passages among many) Jesus’ self-referential call to faith is paired with an explicit denial that there is any other vehicle. Jesus offers himself as the only way to the exclusion of every other path.

16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:16-18)


Often John 3:16 is quoted by itself. But without verses 17 and 18 the full exclusive weight and salvific import of the text is missed.

In John 6 we find Jesus again pointing to himself as the only means to eternal life while, at the same time, explicitly denying the possibility of salvation by any other means.

53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:53-54)


Finally, in John 14:6 Jesus refers to himself as the exclusive embodiment of Life and Truth. There is no other way to God the Father, but through his Son Jesus Christ.

6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


Turning to Acts we immediately notice that the entire thrust and purpose of the book is to demonstrate and bear witness to the early evangelization of both Jew and Gentile. Notice that Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 is specifically directed toward his Jewish listeners. The obvious and explicit message is that their present faith status is insufficient. They must repent, surrender to, and become disciples of Jesus as the Christ.

32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing…36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “
Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:32-41)


This message is proclaimed throughout the streets of Jerusalem accompanied by miraculous healings and exorcisms. The authorities, many of whom took part in the arrest and betrayal of Jesus, feel threatened by both the preaching and the miracles so they call Peter and John to testify. They question the source of the disciples’ power to heal. Peter answers:

10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. 11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.


As in John, we see here in Acts 4 the claim that Jesus is Lord (messiah) and Savior paired with a denial that there is any other.

Finally, we turn back to Romans 10. Some have argued that Romans 9-11 represent the culmination of Paul’s argument throughout the book of Romans. This may or may not be true depending on your take regarding the New Perspective on Paul. I tend to reject the NPP but the point I want to make stands regardless.

In Romans 9-11, Paul takes up the problem of the Jewish people. His people, he laments, have not submitted to Jesus as the Christ. They have zeal but their zeal is misdirected.

Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes
. 5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9
because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved
. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14
But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent?
As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.


Two very important points. First of all, Paul affirms that salvific faith is a matter of subjective appropriation. A person must believe in his heart and confess with his mouth that Jesus is Lord and that he is risen from the dead to be saved.

Second, Paul urges evangelism precisely because there is no salvation apart from this subjective appropriation. Notice the logical implication of verses 13-16. All who call on the name Lord Jesus will be saved. But how can they call on one in whom they have never believed and how can they believe in someone about whom they have never heard? In other words, to call on Christ and be saved necessarily requires knowing about the person of Christ. An amorphous spirituality directed toward the ambiguous “divine” will not do. According to Paul, faith in Christ alone saves.

Romans 10:1-17 is the passage Fr. Tom leaves out of his apology. He mentions the section running from Romans 9-11 but suggests a conclusion the actual text simply cannot support.

Charge against Episcopalians: Jesus is only one of many paths to God instead of the only way.

As Bill Coats notes, most in our church believe Jesus to be the sole path to salvation. However, there has always been room for other views, including St. Paul’s argument to the contrary in his Epistle to the Romans (chapters 9-11), where he argues that the Jews remain the people of God and Christians have been grafted into Jewish holy history.


First of all perhaps the majority of parishioners in the Episcopal Church believe that Jesus is the sole path to salvation, but many of the most influential leaders do not. More on this in a moment.

Secondly, Fr. Tom argues that even if there are some who believe there are many roads to salvation, it’s quite alright because Paul (of all people) believed the same. What follows is an amazingly inaccurate characterization of what Paul says with regard to the Jewish people. Yes, Paul does say that Gentile believers do not constitute a self-existent "branch" in themselves. However, through faith in Jesus Christ, Paul says, they have been grafted into the "living olive branch", made descendants of Abraham by adoption, joining together with the remnant of Abraham's "natural" descendants (believing Jews including Paul himself).

But Gentile believers are not to be arrogant. They are adopted. They have been igrafted. They are not natural children. God is blessing them with adoption through Jesus Christ in hopes of arousing such jealously in the Jewish people that they will turn and embrace the rejected Savior.

11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. 12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! 13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. 15 For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? 16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.


Notice the “if” clause in verse 23. That “if” is crucial. It indicates that what he is about to say in the remainder of chapter 11 below is consistent with what he has already claimed in chapter 10 above, that salvation comes through the subjective appropriation of the gospel of Jesus Christ:

25 Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; 27 “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” 28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. 33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” 35 “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen
.

In this remarkable passage Paul reveals the God is not finished with his chosen people. “God’s gift and his call are irrevocable.” The Jewish people, Paul’s people, have been cut off because of their lack of faith in Christ. But this is only temporary. God is faithful to his covenant. For that reason somehow, and God’s ways are "unsearchable" so who knows how, all of Israel will be saved.

The question is: does this mean that they will be saved apart from Jesus Christ? As Paul would say: by no means! There is nothing in the text to suggest such a thing and everything to suggest the opposite: that Israel will “somehow” be saved through Jesus Christ precisely because God is a covenant keeping God. Moreover, a very strong case can be made that Paul is predicting that all of Israel will be saved not just “through Christ” but through the subjective appropriation of the gospel of Jesus Christ in accordance with the understanding articulated in Article 18 above.

To sum up, the consistent and unbroken New Testament witness is that salvation is found in Christ alone. While there may be some differences within Christendom with regard to those who live beyond the reach of the gospel (whether subjective appropriation of the gospel of Jesus Christ is necessary), all are agreed that the only way to find salvation is through Jesus Christ. There is no other way, no other vehicle to the divine.

Unfortunately, the Episcopal Church failed to affirm her commitment to this unbroken testimony of the scriptures and unified proclamation of the Church when the House of Deputies by a vote of 70.5% to 29.5% refused to consider Resolution D058. The resolution read:

Resolved, the House of _____ concurring, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church declares its unchanging commitment to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the only name by which any person may be saved (Article XVIII); and be it further

Resolved, That we acknowledge the solemn responsibility placed upon us to share Christ with all persons when we hear His words, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No-one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6); and be it further

Resolved, That we affirm that in Christ there is both the substitutionary essence of the Cross and the manifestation of God's unlimited and unending love for all persons; and be it further Resolved, That we renew our dedication to be faithful witnesses to all persons of the saving love of God perfectly and uniquely revealed in Jesus and upheld by the full testimony of Holy Scripture.


Some would have you believe that this rejection is meaningless because, as Fr. Tom says, the majority of Episcopalians believe that salvation is found in Christ alone.

It may be true that the majority hold to this essential tenet (there’s really no way to tell), but you would never know it by listening to the words of Episcopalian leaders.

Here is Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori in a recent Time Magazine interview:

Q:Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?

A: We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.


Notice the question offered the PB-elect the opportunity to say something in keeping with at least the Roman Catholic understanding of salvation. She could have said, for example, “Christ is the only way to salvation but we believe that Jesus can work in the lives of those who have never heard the gospel.”

Instead her answer goes beyond the differences within Christendom and posits a pluralistic path to salvation not necessarily tied to the person and work of Christ. Christ is “our” vehicle to “the divine.” But unless we want to “put God in a box” we must assume that there “other ways.”

This comes very close to a direct refutation of the very words of Christ himself who, as we saw above, said “I am the way” and there is no other.

But, of course, the PB-elect is far from alone.

Here’s a section of bishop John Chane’s (bishop of the Diocese Washington) Christmas Eve sermon at the National Cathedral in 2003:

And what was God thinking . . . when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the Law to Moses? And what was God thinking . . . when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the sacred Quran to the prophet Muhammad? And what was God thinking . . . when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the birth of Jesus Christ, the Son of God? Were these just random acts of association and coincidence or was the Angel Gabriel who appears as the named messenger of God in the Jewish Old Testament, the Christian New Testament Gospels, and the Quran of Islam, really the same miraculous messenger of God who proclaimed to a then emerging religious, global community and to us this morning that we are ALL children of the living God? And as such we are called to acknowledge that as Christians, Jews and Muslims we share a common God and the same divine messenger.


And, of course, who can forget bishop Swing of California (ret) founder of the United Religions Initiative, a group he hopes will one day become like the United Nations of Religion. Here’s the charter. Bishop Swing hopes to be the Christian ambassador to the URI.

Today the challenge is whether to aim at being a nice international interfaith group or aim at changing world history. The reason I am going to work for URI at this time is to focus us on the latter goal. I will try to raise one hundred million dollars, be a spokesperson throughout the world, and assist in public relations.

How does my past factor in my future? I look at it as if I have taken all of the Christian core courses and now I would like to declare my major: interfaith relations. I intend to go deeper in my Christian faith with this curriculum.


Bishop Swing visited Virginia Theological Seminary during my middler year and preached in the seminary chapel on John 14:6. It was, as you might guess, a tragic sermon that reduced Jesus to something quite similar to the PB-elect’s one “vehicle to the divine” among many.

A few of us walked out during the peace.

There are, as I am sure you know, many more examples scattered across the internet of prominent “mainstream” Episcopal leaders denying the univocal testimony of the scriptures and universal profession of the Church that salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone but were they all to be included, “the world itself,” as John says, “could not contain the books that would be written”. Well, at least that would make this essay far longer than it already is.

Suffice it to say that one reason the Episcopal Church has fallen into heresy is because of the widespread conviction among prominent leaders that Jesus Christ is unnecessary.

But I suppose it doesn’t really matter all that much because, in the words of +Katharine Jefferts Schori’s predecessor:

"Broadly speaking, the Episcopal Church is in conflict with Scripture. One would have to say that the mind of Christ operative in the church over time has led the church to, in effect, contradict the words of the Gospel.”

Frank T. Griswold, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church
Sermon delivered in Salt Lake City, UT, April 27, 2005


For once I can agree with Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold. The Episcopal Church has contradicted the words of the Gospel.

But the mind of Christ had nothing to do with it.

Comments:

Cripes, another thread!  Matt, you are really earning those big Stand Firm paychecks now. 

OK, here is what strikes me from this installment as my initial thought.  Matt, your examples of comments from the PB elect, Bishop Chane, and Bishop Swing were (I hope) helpful to Tom in understanding why we have this particular “false accusation” toward TEC and its leadership re: the life and work of Jesus Christ. 

Tom, if you’re still there, rather than wade into the scripture portion of Matt’s post, I’d ask that you deal with the cited examples.  For example, was it reasonable for us conservatives (in light of everything that has happened) to scratch our heads when we read the interview of PB-Elect Jefferts Schori (I’m getting confused now on her name because of the various misspellings out there so sorry--you know who I’m talking about) that Matt quoted and in particular the quotation about Jesus being a vehicle to the divine?  Maybe my scholars haven’t kept me up to date on this apparently new way to describe Jesus.  What would be helpful from you and the other moderates would be a response kind of like, “You know, when I read that part, I got a little uncomfortable too so I can understand your concern.” Of “She could have done a better job in one of her first forays into the public realm avoiding the use of language that she should have known would be problematic.” Do you identify with either of those?

Peace.

[1] Posted by Widening Gyre on 08-30-2006 at 03:57 PM • top

But, of course, the really scandalous thing about Woodward’s defense is that he doesn’t deny or correct the accusation.  Instead he takes the stance: some Episcopalians believe Jesus Christ is the sole path to salvation, and some believe there are many paths to salvation.  And that’s OK! Both positions are perfectly acceptable in TEC, and in fact, so Woodward claims, the apostle Paul did not believe that Jesus Christ is the sole path to salvation, so, (Woodward goes on to say in the rest of his apology) as in so many other areas, Scripture can’t even provide us guidance.

Woodward in fact confirms the accusation, and replies (in essence) “so what?” As Matt demonstrates, no Evangelical or Catholic Christian (let alone “classical Anglican") would have responded “So what?”

[2] Posted by William Witt on 08-30-2006 at 04:43 PM • top

WG said,
What would be helpful from you and the other moderates would be a response kind of like, “You know, when I read that part, I got a little uncomfortable too so I can understand your concern.” Of (sic) “She could have done a better job in one of her first forays into the public realm avoiding the use of language that she should have known would be problematic.” Do you identify with either of those?

WG - Tom already answered this question.  It was part of one of his answers on the Episcopal Majority thread.  This was his answer.

Lastly, your claim represents a theology of triumphalism, that after the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection, there is no longer any need of other religions. That theology has been repudiated by nearly every major Christian denomination, including the Roman Catholic Church. The horrors visited upon innocent Jews, Muslims and others through the century from our theology of triumphalism is more than any of us could possibly comprehend—and there will not be enough time in history for us to make proper amends. It continues even in our own country. If your belief is fruit, it is bitter for others while sweet to you. It is, sadly, not bearing the kinds of fruit promised by Jesus from his disciples.

[3] Posted by Jackie on 08-30-2006 at 05:10 PM • top

What a refreshing series of articles with simply delightful exchanges.  Despite the occaisonal rancor and lack of charity in the comments I have found so much clarity in this debate.  It has completely reinforced in my mind that TEC today is hopelessly divided between irreconcilable differences.  Bishop Duncan has it right.  My thanks to Rev Woodward for making this possible and to this StandFirm site which I stumbled on about a year ago.  Now what to do?  I’m still an Episcopalian but I’ve decided I must leave.  I’ll wait for a while to see what the ACN can work out but I won’t wait forever…

[4] Posted by Nevin on 08-30-2006 at 05:16 PM • top

William Witt nails it in the last paragraph.  The interesting thing about reaching a conclusion with Tom Woodward is that it’s kind of like trying to grab a piece of Jello.  In the first thread, for example, Rev. Woodward ostensibly claimed to be a moderate - orthodox, even - and then went on to deny the Virgin Birth and (arguably) the bodily Resurrection.  It’s hard to respond to that when it seems self-evident, to paraphrase Mr. Witt, that no Evangelical or Catholic Christian would have responded, “Oh, sure, that’s perfectly orthodox.” It’s one of those things where, if you don’t get it, then I can’t explain it to you: it represents two incompatible frames of reference (one of which is, parenthetically, incompatible with history).  So, he protests the accusation, then demonstrates that, at least for himself, it’s true.

The revisionist side posits a kind of everything-is-valid belief system as the true expression of historic Anglicanism.  That, however, can’t possibly be true when set against the pre-1979 Prayer Book tradition or the very hard-edged Articles of Religion, both of which indisputably represent historic Anglicanism.

On this particular subject, considering the Great Commission only, what rings false about Mrs. Schori’s, “in a box,” comment is that, as a Christian, she is still called to evangelize the world, even if her catechism allows for Jesus’ saving action to occasionally work outside the Church. But, she doesn’t even have the strength of her faith to say that; too offensive to others, I suppose.  The inevitable result of not evangelizing - of leaving people where they are on their own, “paths to god” - interestingly, is that the church shrinks.  This is what we’ve seen, which empirically supports Matt+ and argues against Rev. Woodward.

Matt, you have addressed the subject definitively, and your article is a keeper.  Thanks for writing it.

[5] Posted by Phil on 08-30-2006 at 05:18 PM • top

Dr. Witt,

I intended the first part of my article about the differences within Christendom to be a refutation/correction of Fr. Tom’s claim that the Church has “always” allowed for a pluralist and exclusivist viewpoint. In fact the church has always been exclusivist. The only difference has been the question of how that exclusivity is applied to those who have yet to hear the good news.

[6] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 08-30-2006 at 05:19 PM • top

Awesome.  For us simple pew-sitters this is the intelligence for what we already knew by faith but could never express.  I may just steal it and use it as part of my Confirmation class.  I think the kids will love it.

Amen and Amen ...

[7] Posted by Wilkie on 08-30-2006 at 05:28 PM • top

Wilkie: the kids will love it.  Do not try to entertain: challenge and challenge again.  They have their entertainments (with which you would probably be wise not to compete).  They do not have healthy, safe forums to challenge themselves or their society (forget the schools and the peers).  SO: present this “intelligence we already knew by faith but could never express” to a youth group and you will--verily--serve the Lord.  That is what would best be called orthodox work of the Gospel.

[8] Posted by terebinth on 08-30-2006 at 06:05 PM • top

Matt,

I’m on the road—sitting in an office building in Georgia right now getting ready to get back into the car.

But thank you.

This is an article I’ll be emailing to many.  And many others will be hand mailing it.  Your work is excellent and very helpful in educating those who are moderate in the church.  I so appreciate the time you are putting into this.

[9] Posted by Sarah Hey on 08-30-2006 at 06:45 PM • top

Phil:

The interesting thing about reaching a conclusion with Tom Woodward is that it’s kind of like trying to grab a piece of Jello.

I have been searching for an analogy to describe what I was seeing in Tom+’s posts.  I kept wanting to say “Don’t feed the trolls”, but that would be tacky, so, I’ll just think it.  I reiterate an earlier post, echoing +Duncan, we have no common basis of reference, therefore it is impossible to debate our worthy opponents.  We are indeed two separate and different religions.  The reappraisers are more like Unitarian/Universalists, with liturgy.
[10] Posted by El Jefe on 08-30-2006 at 07:32 PM • top

I have thoroughly enjoyed the informative lesson from Matt and others.

The analogy I came up with today:

The church has voted that what we thought was orange all along was really red. We all agree it is red now (70% y 30% n)

If I remembered my light spectrum better i would pick two colors several shades apart.  The “new” color is the old color minus something.

Thanks for helping another formerly “playing church” cradle episcopalian better understand more of the foundation of the faith.

[11] Posted by usma87 on 08-30-2006 at 08:16 PM • top

EJ: “...we have no comon basis of reference...U/Us w/liturgy.” You have no idea how destructive such writings actually are.  There is a common basis, it is Good News, and you, EJ, do not own it, or the rights to it.  If you want it to be impossible to “debate our worthy opponents” (I would prefer “engage”,) you are on that track.  If you want possibilities--albeit possibilities that might be challenging--find a track which signals humility, friendliness, dare I ask for worthiness?  Otherwise your “Orthodox” righteousness works as a scare only.  Fear has been defeated.

[12] Posted by terebinth on 08-30-2006 at 08:21 PM • top

Terebinth, the destructive part is the refusal of the non-Orthodox to refuse to engage on a Scriptural level.  Until that happens, we are truly on two separate paths and as Matt so wonderfully relayed above - it is they who have taken a new path.

[13] Posted by Jackie on 08-30-2006 at 08:45 PM • top

Gregg, please try to put this series together.  It really needs to be in front of all Anglicans (with comments).  This is the kind of “stuff” that truly helps all of us.  Matt+ I believe that you are giving us all that you have.  Thank you and thanks to your family and parish for supporting you.

[14] Posted by Lee Parker on 08-30-2006 at 08:48 PM • top

Lee,

I was thinking the exact same thing, when it was parts I & II. Then I saw part III appear, and was glad I waited. Then came part IV.

Matt, let me know you wrap it up, and I’ll put them all in one place. wink

[15] Posted by Greg Griffith on 08-30-2006 at 09:27 PM • top

P.S. - In the meantime, if you want to print these threads out or save them to your computer, you can use the “Print-friendly” or “Print-friendly w/comments” links at the bottom of the main post.

[16] Posted by Greg Griffith on 08-30-2006 at 09:28 PM • top

Jakie: I am addressing the so-called Orthodox.  Because others refuse to meet on valid ground is no reason to abandon those grounds.  Again: we cannot get right by being wrong.  There can be no freedom without truth.  And truth will not be bottled up and doled out by a select few, no matter what they call themselves, or how noble their intentions are.  Truth is objective, received, organic and whole.  Why shortchange it as some sort of formula?

[17] Posted by terebinth on 08-30-2006 at 09:42 PM • top

Good writing, exposition, and thinking, Fr Matt!
That’s why I keep coming back for more.  I do not plan to read any further postings from Fr Woodward.  He has been invaluable in showing us what we are up against, but having served that purpose, his usefulness is finished.  If he remains silent, he will not be missed; if he responds, he will not be read.
I must confess to being on what you call the RC side in my understanding of salvation through Christ alone.
The possibility that some persons, outside the Christian community, unbaptized and ignorant (humanly speaking) of the Gospel might be saved through God’s “uncovenanted mercies” has been entertained by many non-Roman Catholics.  Zwingli believed in the salvation of “virtuous pagans,” a theory that had been kicking around since patristic times.  (Augustine was explicitly for it, writing “there are many sheep without, many wolves within”.)
The great Dutch Calvinist dogmatician Hermann Bavinck entertains this view, and the Westminsiter Confession of Faith opens a way for it in the Chapter on Effectual Calling, “III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth.  So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word.” This seems to allow the possibility that “those far off,” e.g., the Eskimoes living in 500 B.C., might have been among the elect.  Joachim Jeremias interprets the parable of the Great Assizes in this manner, when the sheep, collected out of “all the nations,” asked in amazement, “Lord, when did we see thee?”

[18] Posted by Laurence K Wells on 08-30-2006 at 09:53 PM • top

And we cannot get to Truth unless we stand on His Holy Word.  We are not seeking to one up anyone here - simply Stand Firm.

[19] Posted by Jackie on 08-30-2006 at 10:00 PM • top

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
John 14:5-7

[20] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 08-30-2006 at 10:03 PM • top

Laurence, I don’t think Tom Woodward+ will be posting anything here to refute, given his silence here so far on Part IV and his lack of any comments after his first one on Part III.  I haven’t even seen him posting further comments on “Falsely Accused” on Episcopal Majority or the same article on his own blog, Turning the World Upside Down.  When I posted comments refuting his seemingly wilful misinterpretation of Romans chs. 9-11 on EM, he never addressed my points.  Just changed the subject, typical revisionist jello sliding down the wall.  Fr. Rick Harris O. P. deftly sliced up his assertion that proclaiming Jesus as the only way to salvation led to the Holocast, and no answer from Tom+.

[21] Posted by Milton on 08-30-2006 at 11:10 PM • top

Matt,

To you and to my other friends, I am “Bill.” I am only Dr. Witt to those who insist that the orthodox are ignorant fundamentalists who do not know how to read.  As I said to Sarah on another post, my wife even wears shoes.

I’m not sure if you think I’m disagreeing with you here.  I’m not. I wouldn’t be spending so much time--time I should probably spend elsewhere--commenting to your series of posts if I didn’t think you were right on target.  Carry on!  My comment about “That’s okay!” was summmarizing Woodward’s position, not commenting favoably on it.

Dr. Witt,

I intended the first part of my article about the differences within Christendom to be a refutation/correction of Fr. Tom’s claim that the Church has “always” allowed for a pluralist and exclusivist viewpoint.

[22] Posted by William Witt on 08-31-2006 at 06:36 AM • top

Tom,

I for one hope you will continue to post your comments here at Stand Firm not only because I seem to have lost the link to your blog but also because I firmly believe that we all (my fellow conservative brothers and sisters in Christ included) will continue to benefit from this conversation.  I guess I disagree with those here who might liken continued conversation to the great line from Bull Durham--"talking to you is like talking to a fungo!”

If I may, I think we could all benefit from a clarification of an issue that this recent thread has brought up.  Your first alleged false accusation is that the conservatives have taken delight in claiming that TEC and its leadership believe the following:

“1. Jesus is only one of many paths to God instead of the Only Way (John 14:6).”

The confusion that has arisen is over just what you are calling a “false accusation.” For instance, as I read your article, I had thought the false accusation was that we conservatives had falsely accused TEC of believing the point quoted above.  To which I had been asking the follow up questions, “Where do you think we conservatives came up with that notion?” I think this particular conversation is helpful and needs to be continued.  It is my hope that we can reach some sort of agreement that our side’s “mistaken” belief was reasonable and justified and as a result of that your side will acknowledge that it needs to do a better job with its pronouncements and language (and speak out louder against the extremists on the left). 

But as I read Matt’s Part IV piece and others comments here (and then re-read your article and responses), I am starting to wonder if the “false” part of this discussion isn’t so much the alleged allegation but that the underlying thought behind the allegation is “false.”

OK let me try to explain that better.  What exactly is your point here?  Is it that we on the conservative side are “false” in accusing TEC of embracing this idea that Jesus is only one of many paths to the divine (your response being, “Hey, TEC believes Jesus is the only way, heck, we say as much every Sunday in our liturgy!")

OR are you saying that the conservative side is “false” in believing that Jesus is the only way to the divine (your response being the “so what” response mentioned above, “Hey, if you are going make accusations about us, at least come up with legitimate accusations, you dumb bunch of ninnies!” I fear that if this latter explanation is your position, then we might just be better off talking to a fungo.

It reminds me of the conversation at my parish right after GC 2003 where after a couple of meetings we were still struggling with figuring out how to proceed since the “sides” appeared so far apart.  I suggested that we try to start with some common ground and then move forward to determine where our paths started diverging.  OK, said the group, let’s start at common ground.  So I said, “OK let’s start with the fundamental Christian proclamation that Jesus Christ is Lord, a real Nicene Creed bedrock belief.”

Hands immediately went up, Well, that’s not gonna work because it all depends on what you mean by “Lord.”

Ugh.  Now moving that conversation did take a ton of effort (in fact it ultimately failed).  I’m not saying it is impossible but it ain’t something we’re gonna be able to work out in a blog.  Does that make sense?

[23] Posted by Widening Gyre on 08-31-2006 at 07:45 AM • top

Thanks, Father Matt.

I really like your writing.

I think you speak the truth in love.

DoW

[24] Posted by DietofWorms on 08-31-2006 at 08:31 AM • top

Dear Bill Witt,

Thanks for all that you contribute to this site. Knowing that you are reading and commenting adds a great deal of comfort in debates like this. Things I need to research you pull out of your memory. Thank you for everything.

[25] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 08-31-2006 at 09:34 AM • top

A great piece, but can the spelling boo-boos be corrected?

“eschelon” should be “echelon”.

There may be others.

[26] Posted by Randy Muller on 08-31-2006 at 10:05 AM • top

There is a common basis, it is Good News, and you, EJ, do not own it, or the rights to it.

I do not claim to own anything but my own intellect, and that faith which is the gift of God’s grace, and my own pitiful efforts to frequent repentance and seeking of forgiveness.  I did not mean to imply that we should cease the search for reconciliation.  What I hope to convey is that there seems to be a great divergence in what we accept as basic truth.  There must be some commonality in our basis of belief, e.g. John 14:6, John 3:16, the “5 fundamentals”, the three creeds, the (39) Articles of Faith.  Phil aptly characterized Tom+ Woodward’s postings as trying to grasp jello; my impression is more like trying to nail it to a wall.  When engaging our worthy opponents, I personally expect that there will be intellectual honesty and application of the rules of logic.  So much of what I have read from that quarter is a mixture of intellectual vapidity and pos-modern deconstructionism.  Words mean things.  We should at least have a common basis in the definition of words and concepts if we are to engage in any kind of productive discussion, otherwise we have what Dr. Eric Berne called “crossed transactions”. (c.f. “Games People Play” and I’m OK, You’re OK") Sometimes it becomes apparent that the party with whom one is engaging has created a new set of rules and definitions, and it rapidly becomes obvious that there is no true engagement, at least the way I was taught to debate.  Rather than raise my blood pressure and waste time, which in my case is better spent preparing for comps and working on my dissertation, it is more productive to disengage and bless the “other”.  I am by nature conciliatory, but sometimes other approaches are more appropriate and effective. 
KTF,

Charles

[27] Posted by El Jefe on 08-31-2006 at 10:06 AM • top

“Things I need to research you pull out of your memory.”

Matt, I do not claim to be a great theologian.  I do read widely, and I have been blessed with an above average memory.  If I’ve read it at some time or another, I can usually remember where, and, fortunately, can pull the book off my shelf, and find the reference.

At the same time, and I’m not bragging, debating with reappraisers is too often just shooting fish in a barrel.  Since the arguments are after the fact attempts to justify a pre-determined policy, they’re often not very well thought out.  Although trained to do theology by mostly reappraising Roman Catholics, that is not how I was taught that theology should be done.

[28] Posted by William Witt on 08-31-2006 at 10:15 AM • top

Randy,

Thanks, I’m getting to it slowly. I am rather swamped with parish work today and will likely be so tomorrow as well. Generally these things are cleaned up the day they are posted, but everyone is VERY busy at the moment. I’ve corrected echelon but, as you say, there are probably more...sorry I can’t be of more help at the moment.

[29] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 08-31-2006 at 10:36 AM • top

If reappraisers want to see what differences that do not divide look like and what true dialogue looks like, they need look no further than the exchanges between Matt and Bill on the threads of Parts I-IV.  “Iron sharpens iron” and “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity” are plain to see here.  This series likely will be in much use as a resource for defining an Anglicanism truly faithful to Scripture, tradition and reason, in that order and relative importance!

[30] Posted by Milton on 08-31-2006 at 10:58 AM • top

I have immense admiration for the theological work of Bill Witt.  Not that I always agree with him, but above and beyond his vast reading and amazing recall, his trenchant reasoning and analytical powers are awesome.  Bill Witt is a blessing to this blog and a gift to the Church.

[31] Posted by Laurence K Wells on 08-31-2006 at 01:44 PM • top

TW’s+ latest push here in the Rio Grande starting at the Report of the Task Force on Communion last friday at the cathedral. Since then he has posted it on a yahoo group that many in the DRG read and the new message is “Share the facilites, don’t leave!” I haven’t reponded to Tom+ on epidioriogrande since a month after ‘06. I’ve work to do before the night comes. . .

I expect we will hear that message he floated from all corners and nationally before long.

[32] Posted by Bob Maxwell+ on 08-31-2006 at 04:15 PM • top

This is only marginally on-topic and probably would have been better posted with Part I, but it was too good to pass up.

There is a reply to Spong’s theses from +++Rowan (from a 1998 Church Times, as reprinted by, of all things, Tasmanian Anglican) here that is well worth reading, both for what it says about Spong and for what it says about +++Rowan.

[33] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 08-31-2006 at 07:16 PM • top

Craig, I have posted on this same response to the 12 Spong Theses on Pt. II of Matt’s series. See also more Rowan quotations on Pt. III.  There are responses by Terebinth and others on these threads.

[34] Posted by Paula on 08-31-2006 at 08:37 PM • top

The quotations and discussions of the Archbishop’s response to the Spong Theses is on PT. III of Matt’s series.

[35] Posted by Paula on 08-31-2006 at 08:40 PM • top

TomW+ is a great asset to the cause.  He should be put in a nice glass case on a pedestal with a nice brass label “Highly developed revisionist deconstructionist from the early seventies era.” In future generations we can have them study him and see what happens when a church or seminary casts away from the anchor of the scripture and procede with a vaporous methodology that was taught in the past.  He is the best example of this I have seen in a long time.  I’m sure he is personally a delightful gentleman and would be fun to have as a friend, but I wouldn’t want him teaching my grandchildren theology.  But sometimes people change.  We can pray.

[36] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 08-31-2006 at 09:46 PM • top

Matt,
I believe you are wrong in your analysis of Romans 9-11. I take my stand with the great NT scholars like Karl Barth, Krister Stendhal and Paul van Buren. Your analysis is pretty standard Holiness Church or Baptist, but it is not the heart of Anglicanism, especially the Anglicanism of the late 19th and 20th century.

That does not surprize me. Several of the clergy in my diocese anxious to leave TEC are much more Bible College than they are Episcopal seminary graduates.  That’s OK, but it is not OK for them or you to claim you speak for traditional Anglicanism.

Please give it up on D058. As I explained earlier, that was a bogus resolution from the beginning. The “no” votes were, in essense, telling the proponents to stop wasting GC’s time—everyone had affirmed their faith through the Nicene Creed earlier that day and every day of GC.

W.G., Thanks for the questions and concerns. I believe if conservatives were to listen to KJS, really listen to her—most of your concerns would wither away—especially if they were to give any weight to the Biblical witness to other ways to God.

I don’t think it is going to happen, but if Matt or Phil or Jackie would really listen to KJS or be in some kind of respectful dialogue, they would discover that we are all close enough to one another to more than co-exist. Chane/KJS/TBW and others would all assert that it is through the Risen Christ that we all have access to the Father. Does that mean that everyone who has not been Baptized is consigned to Hell for eternity?
As you asked, my blog is: turningthingsupsidedown.blogspot.com.
email is:

Phil, I respectfully ask that you pay attention to what I have written. I have not denied belief in the Virgin Birth and I have clearly affirmed my belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Did I not use correct code words that neo-puritans use? In my less charitable moments I wonder if you and others need straw men to attack in order to feel OK about your own religious convictions. Reread the Gospels to see how Jesus dealt with that issue—that may soften many of you on this site.

To those of you who will be leaving TEC. I regret your leaving. There is space for you in this church—but why stay with a church you treat with such scorn. Jesus has several things to say about that, too.

I take it not many moderate or liberal Episcopalians wander over to Stand Firm—I can tell you it is wandering into a nest of True Believers. True Believers get off on scorning those with whom they disagree and are not interested in coming to terms with anyone who is not a fellow TB. I wish you better than that.
Tom Woodward

[37] Posted by TBWSF on 09-01-2006 at 01:03 AM • top

Re: “To those of you who will be leaving TEC.”

TBWSF . . . always “wishing and hoping and dreaming” . . .

As in: “but why stay with a church you treat with such scorn.”

; > )

[38] Posted by Sarah Hey on 09-01-2006 at 01:40 AM • top

Tom said: “Did I not use correct code words that neo-puritans use? In my less charitable moments I wonder if you and others need straw men to attack in order to feel OK about your own religious convictions.”

Neo-puritans that has a nice ring to it, Tom.

There is no need for straw men - we have you and you have been a delight.

We love you Tom. I pray for you daily. Repent and return to the Lord.

Peace,

G+

[39] Posted by Sir Highmoor on 09-01-2006 at 02:29 AM • top

TBWSF.

“Chane/KJS/TBW would all assert that it is through the risen Christ that we all have access to the Father...”

No, actually they (at least Chane and KJS) would assert, as I have shown above, that “we”, as in “Christians”, have access to “the divine” through Jesus Christ, but that others, Muslims, Buddhists etc..., have “access to the divine” through other “vehicles.” To say otherwise is, according to KJS, to “put God in a box”

Again, had they said something close to what at least the Roman branch of the Church has said (that the light of Christ is refracted through other faiths) we may have some room to work. But that is precisely what they did not say.

But, please, prove me wrong. I have cited evidence, you have countered with an assertion. Please give us something to chew on here.

Also, you can mention theologians, but it might be better to read the theologians before you do so. Barth, ironically, embraced a more Roman Catholic perspective on this, assuming, at the very least, the possibility that the benefits of Christ are distributed to all through their faith traditions:

“The proclamation of the Church must make allowance for this freedom of grace. Apokatastasis Panton? No, for a grace which automatically would ultimately have to embrace each and every one would certainly not be free grace. It surely would not be God’s grace. But would it be God’s free grace if we could absolutely deny that it could do that? Has Christ been sacrified only for our sins? Has he not … been sacrificed for the whole world? ... [Thus] the freedom of grace is preserved on both these sides” (Barth, God Here and Now, pp. 41-42).

This is clearly sets Barth into the second camp (described in the original article) WITHIN Christendom and sets him apart from +Chane, +KJS, and +Swing.

As far as modern theologians, the two most prominent, W. Pannenberg and Moltmann, both stand in more or less the same line with regard to the possibility of the mediation of Christ’s salvific work, with Pannenberg being far more pessimistic about the idea of universal salvation.

Your understanding of the traditional line of thought on this is badly skewed. Only a small number of liberal protestants take the line +KJS, +Chane, and Swing have taken. Christendom as a whole has ALWAYS proclaimed that salvation is only possible through the application of the material benefits of the person and work of Christ. While there are legitimate differences as to whether that work must be subjetively appropriated, there is NO difference as to whether it is Christ who saves.

As for my comments on Romans, it is clearly in line with a more Reformed understanding, but it is far from “baptist” (as if this is an insult?). But it is quite interesting that you are not willing to actually engage with what Paul says on this and that you prefer exegetes who, as you admit in your comments under your article on Episcopal Majority, read Romans through the lens of the holocaust and are, for that reason, loath to offer any exegesis that would suggest that the Jewish people have been “cut off”. I am quite familiar with the fear.  EP Sanders had it too and it has informed the NPP. But, the role of the exegete is not to read contemporary tragedies into the text, bot to exegete the text. The question is, “what does Paul say?”

[40] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 09-01-2006 at 03:54 AM • top

Tom, Please help us understand the liberal opposition to D058. If it is what we believe, if it is what everyone just proclaimed in the Nicene creed, then it should have been an easy vote, pass it and move on, two minutes on the agenda.

That opposition is so vociferous, and the arguments against it so specious (wrong committee etc), leads one to conclude that a simple declaration of faith threatened someone’s agenda somewhere.

[41] Posted by BillS on 09-01-2006 at 04:55 AM • top

Here, by the way, is that great “fundementalist” NT Wright offering his “baptist” reading of Romans 11:

“Gentile Christians must not boast of their superiority to Jewish non-Christians (not to Jewish Christians: Paul is referring to branches that are broken off), because to do so would be to set up an inverted ‘national righteousness’, which would incur the same sentence as the original (Jewish) sort (v.21). And the possibility that is always held out (continuing the answer to 11:11) is not a large-scale last-minute restoration of ‘all Jews’, irrespective of Christian faith, but the chance that Jews, during the course of the present age, will come to Christian faith and so be grafted back in. The crucial verse here is 23: ‘if they do not remain in unbelief’. Paul clearly sees the salvation of Jews in the future as dependent on their coming to Christian faith. His major concern is that the Roman church must not regard Jews as beyond the reach of the gospel of Jesus...What, then, of 11:25-7? Does it actually intrude into this sequence of thought with a different idea, a large-scale, last-minute salvation of Jews with, perhaps, no suggestion of Christian faith? The answer is emphatically no.” (NT Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, pp. 248-249)

The exegesis I offered in the article above, far from being a fringe or radically fundementalist one, is, in fact, precisely in line with the best modern scholarship.

AND, as I have already shown, in keeping with the teaching of the Chruch throughout the ages.

Yours, as Bill Witt pointed out earlier, is in line with a very tiny (and shrinking) cohort of contemporary liberal protestants.

[42] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 09-01-2006 at 05:09 AM • top

“I take my stand with the great NT scholars like Karl Barth, Krister Stendhal and Paul van Buren.”

Tom Woodward,

If by this, you mean that Barth believed that Jews would be saved apart from the mediation of Jesus Christ, you clearly have not read Barth.  The crucial locus for Barth’s understanding of salvation is his discussion of election in Church Dogmatics 2.2.  The central thesis of that section is that the primary object of election is Jesus Christ, and that all election of individuals takes place exclusively through him. 2.2.7.32. Barth’s section on “Israel and the Church” is the very next section (7.33), in which Barth argues that there is only one elect community, that Israel is elect because Jesus Christ is the Messiah of Israel, and the Church is elect because Jesus Christ is the Lord of the Church.  Moroever, Israel is still elect (in Jesus Christ!) but “Israel is the people of the Jews which resists its divine election.” To use Barth as an example of someone who believes that Jews are saved apart from Jesus Christ is to make Barth say exactly the opposite of what he says.

[43] Posted by William Witt on 09-01-2006 at 06:27 AM • top

While I can’t definitely speak for Matt or Phil, I can for Jackie.  Why is it that when we disagree with those on your side of this divide, the response is that we are not listening.  You see the problem is that we ARE listening.  Very closely.  And what we hear is NOT in the Anglican Tradition as you proclaim but in the new progressvie tradition.
Tom, within in your own comments over at EM, you have chastised us for having an out-dated world view more linked to the nazi party than Christ.  And you chastise us in this way because we believe the words spoken that say, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but through me. I won’t even attempt to address the scholarship to rebutt the arguments over here.  Especially since Matt and Dr. Witt have done that in great detail and with great style.
And you still have not answered several questions.  I know the threads are long so let me recap:
1) What evidence do you have that David Hicks is a liar as you proclaim?  Please evidence only not the hearsay of a friend.
2) Despite the fact you dislike Exodus, NARTH, NOEL and Right to Life, why would that be a detractor for membership from a group that was seeking true diversity?
3) When you state you believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, don’t you think you need to explain to your readers that it is not a physical resurrection or a real Virgin Birth?  It is fully okay that you do not believe these things.  It is not okay that you whip us over the head with words that dance around the facts.  I am a full supporter of a person’s right to choose their religion.
Thank you for your time and for listening.

[44] Posted by Jackie on 09-01-2006 at 07:29 AM • top

TBWSF,

From someone who is a moderate, a theological novice, and a mere foot soldier…

On “code words”....

Isn’t one of the big problems here the meaning behind the words, not just the recitation of some orthodox pass code?

Frankly, I don’t trust a lot of the words I hear from the solidly reappraising side, because I suspect language games. For example, you affirm the Virgin Birth, in some abstract sense, but at the same time, I understand that you think one can believe in the Virgin Birth and at the same time assert that the Jesus had a biological father, that Mary conceived because she had relations with someone. The abstract belief using the same label as the traditional one is masking a fundamental disagreement.

From the reasserter side, while I hardly agree with all the opinions/assertions, I don’t come away with a sense of language trickery.

I sense you would like to reclaim the word ‘orthodox’ for the reappraiser side, because having that label won’t scare the horses and upset the foot soldiers. But from what you have posted here, orthodoxy for you is abstracted away from the traditional sense of the word. Again, this seems to be a language game.

Jean

[45] Posted by jean on 09-01-2006 at 07:36 AM • top

Tom Woodward, it really would be helpful in this discussion if you’d pick a stance and stick to it.  Your original thesis was that ECUSA had been falsely accused.  Matt’s thesis is that ECUSA has refused to affirm that Jesus Christ is the exclusive means of salvation.  You claim above that Matt is mistaken in his complaint about D058.  Voting it in would have been a “waste of time” because the delegates had already affirmed the Nicene Creed. Implication: “TEC affirms that Jesus Christ is the exclusive means of salvation. This is so obvious it doesn’t need to be reaffirmed.”

Similarly, you assure us that if we would only listen to KJS our concerns would melt away.  Apparently she also is only affirming the Church’s historic stance that Jesus Christ is the exclusive means of salvation.

Yet, it’s been shown several times in these posts that KJS does not affirm that Jesus Christ is the exclusive means of salvation.  He is, rather, a “vehicle” for Christians.  It would put God “in a box” to insist that he is the exclusive means of salvation for everyone.

You take away with one hand what you’ve given with another.  So after criticizing Matt for claiming that TEC refused to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the exclusive means of salvation by passing D058, you then chastise Matt for interpreting Paul (correctly) to teach that Jesus Christ is the exclusive means of salvation, including for Jews.

You insist now that “have not denied the virgin birth” and have “clearly” affirmed belief in the “bodily resurrection” of Christ.  Yet you have done neither.  A few articles back you affirmed that you did not believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, to which Fr. Doug Taylor-Weiss responded at length.  You’ve asserted that you do not believe a “literal physical resurrection,” but have not clarified what a “non-literal” physical resurrection might mean.

You’ve claimed to be a classical Anglican, but have rejected the church’s historic hermeneutic distinction between moral and ritual law (found in the fathers, Aquinas, Luther, Hooker and the 39 Articles) in favor of Countryman’s purity/love ethic.  And you’ve brought up the “shellfish” argument, a clear indication that you’re either unaware of the Church’s hermeneutic or think we are.

You accuse Matt of exercising a baptistic “Bible school” heremeneutic when, in fact, Matt’s hermeneutical principles (set down by him at length) simply echo Hooker and the 39 Articles, and his interpretation of Romans is in agreement with Bishop N.T. Wright, as well as (I might add) Barth, whom you’ve misrepresented.

You have accused us of being “true believers.” I think we’re more interested in coherence.  If in fact you affirm classical Anglicanism, you’ve been given every opportunity to correct our misunderstandings.  Rather, you keep confirming that we haven’t misunderstood at all.  Everything you’ve done to defend yourself confirms that your methodology and conclusions are those of Liberal Protestantism.  Your differences with Spong, Borg, Countryman, et al, are matters of degree at most.

Despite this, you continue to complain that you’ve been misunderstood and that you really are just a “classical Anglican.” Forgive us if we kick the tires before buying the car.

[46] Posted by William Witt on 09-01-2006 at 07:42 AM • top

“I take it not many moderate or liberal Episcopalians wander over to Stand Firm—I can tell you it is wandering into a nest of True Believers. True Believers get off on scorning those with whom they disagree and are not interested in coming to terms with anyone who is not a fellow TB. I wish you better than that. “

Not the irenic closing lines we would hope for......

[47] Posted by ILLINOISMOM on 09-01-2006 at 08:24 AM • top

The Rev Woodward on Matt’s analysis:  “… it is not the heart of Anglicanism, especially the Anglicanism of the late 19th or 20th century.”

Ok, now we are getting warmer.  It appears that the Rev Woodward may be beginning to realize that his wildly liberal Protestant theology is of a slightly more recent origin.  Good.  His new claim that classical Anglicanism began more than 350 years after its birth is rather startling!

[48] Posted by Nevin on 09-01-2006 at 08:46 AM • top

(Oops! I did not mean to post on Part III. See? I bungle about.)

Greetings!

Please forgive me for entering the party so belatedly. It is not that I am bad with time; I am merely new here.

I hope everyone will permit me to digress a little bit. I am a New Hampshire Episcopalian; I have met face to face with VGR for 90 minutes in what I’ve called an “elegant dispute”; I have been one of his most outspoken critics; I attended his consecration and was a member of a small and solemn protest group who respectfully walked out of that consecration.

The battle over orthodoxy is essential, of course, but determining what is orthodox is essentially difficult. If anyone is interested in reading my lengthy and exhaustive (sort of) series on the battle over what is orthodox and reasonable (Scripture, Tradition and Reason serve as our guides), they are invited to go here; anyone interested in my views of Mr. Spong can find a riotous essay here.

Mr. Woodward seems to have something terribly wrong in his impressions of life in New Hampshire. In the comment thread of Part II of this series, he wrote the following:

Jesus has already welcomed VGR into the fold: it is his responsibility after all. How do I know he has been welcomed—look at the presence of the Holy Spirit throughout his ordained ministry. The Pauline marks of the Spirit have marked his ministry from the