davidould.net

non angelus, sed anglus!

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Hounding the Heretics?

My recent post on the Dean of Perth’s Easter message raised a number of comments - most were in favour of the position that I had taken but 2 in particular were not.

I thought it might be good to set out an answer to the comments made.

First, Christopher Wortham writes:

I too am saddened, but by your intemperate response to the Dean’s sermon rather than by what he said. Fundamentalism of all colours--whether Christian, Jewish or Islamic--serves only to stir up hatred and division through intolerance and lack of understanding. I can readily accept your literal interpretation, but I would not presume to think it the only valid one. Please: a little less indignation and a little more humility before the fact that all our human perceptions are limited in various ways. I personally find John Shepherd a most delightful, inspiring and instructive person. Your orchestrated attack on him is deplorable.

I’m not quite sure why Christopher thinks my response is “intemperate”. There’s nothing that I’ve written that appears (at least to me) to be “unrestrained” or “unbridled” as dictionary.com defines the word. Rather I’m simply expressing my disagreement. Firmly, to be sure. But in an unrestrained way? Hardly.
Next we have the pejorative use of the word “fundamentalism”. Apparently we must all have a little more humility in our truth claims.

The question, then, is whether one can be certain about the things of God, particularly since “our human perceptions are limited in various ways”. Granted, we do not know everything. But surely we can know some things very well! I know, for example, that my 4 year old daughter loves me. I have more than enough evidence to be quite intolerant and fundamentalist in my claim. It is an unassailable truth and I’m sure Christopher would see no reason to disagree. Why then disagree with other matters?
Note that Christopher does not claim that God is unable to reveal Himself properly, just that we cannot understand. But does the Bible work on the same assumption? Does it recognise that we will never truly know or, alternatively, does it speak to a humanity on the assumption that they are able to understand sufficiently, even if not perfectly?

One example will suffice. At Church we have been working through John’s gospel. At the end of his account of the Resurrection John writes the following:

John 20:30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. ³¹ But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Note a number of things:

John has written about a number of “miraculous signs”
John considers the recording of those signs to be sufficient grounds to respond in trusting faith to Jesus
The response of trusting faith in Jesus flows from the realisation that He is the Christ, the Son of God

Now, this is not, of course, an exhaustive account of Jesus but it is sufficient. It is also utterly comprehensible. Amongst those comprehensible things is that very real physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ. He shows His disciples the scars on his body. He cooks and eats a breakfast with them. It is a very real physical miraculous sign. John records the sign with confidence that we may understand it and act upon it.

There is, then, no “humility” on the part of John. He does not say “maybe”. He states the facts and calls us to respond to them. Christopher’s complaint of fundamentalism, then, should not be directed to me but to the Apostle John for it is John who insists upon those things that the Dean of Perth himself insists should be challenged. The Dean himself makes a fundamentalist claim - that another claim should be challenged. Why is it, Christopher, that the Dean may challenge John’s claim but we may not challenge his?

I’m sure that the Dean is delightful. Not delightful enough, of course, to have responded to my email, but delightful nevertheless. But that is not the point. He has denied what is in the Scriptures. As for an “orchestrated attack” - I think Christopher has a far higher view of my influence than is merited. Those who know me will, I’m sure, set him straight.

Now, onto the second complaint. This one from Richard Flanigan:

Ah. The arrogance of the ‘truth’ claim. If only human nature were that consistent. How many times have we heard the claim of truth made by persons of every religious persuasion on earth. Why should anyone accept the claim that religious fundamentalists in whatever forum or faith are exclusively privy to the ‘truth’ about the revelations of God. Do you honestly believe that the God of Love would be so intolerant of his creation in all its forms as to exclude 99% of the world population simply because they are either not members of the Christian faith or because they dare to exercise the free will breathed into us at birth and question the literalness of a bible the many translations of which have been the source of considerable scholarly debate and opinion over many, many centuries. What make the statement of bishops in the 16th century in the 39 Articles more ‘truthful’ than the claims of contemporary scholars and theologians down the ages including those of the late 20th and the 21st century? Do you honestly believe that God revealed his ‘interpretation’ of the ‘truth’ solely to Church in England, in the provinces of Canterbury and York in 1562 and never before or again in Christendom. Chris Wortham is right when he says “Fundamentalism of all colours--whether Christian, Jewish or Islamic--serves only to stir up hatred and division through intolerance and lack of understanding.” This has nothing to do with the claim of ‘truth’!

Richard goes one step further than Christopher by questioning not only human perception of God but God’s actual self-revelation. What may we actually say about the “truth” of God? Well, here’s what Jesus says and what is said about Him, again from John’s gospel:

John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ

John 8:31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. ³² Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

These are, of course, just a few examples of how the theme of truth pervades the Gospel. Jesus is the one in whom the truth of God is found. To follow Him is to know the truth.

As with Christopher before him, Richard’s complaint is not really with me but with the one who spoke these words. It is Jesus’ claims to speak the truth about God that Richard is unhappy with. That is, I suggest, a very dangerous position to be in.

Now what of history? Richard asks a very valid question:

What make the statement of bishops in the 16th century in the 39 Articles more ‘truthful’ than the claims of contemporary scholars and theologians down the ages including those of the late 20th and the 21st century? Do you honestly believe that God revealed his ‘interpretation’ of the ‘truth’ solely to Church in England, in the provinces of Canterbury and York in 1562 and never before or again in Christendom.

Well, in and of themselves there is nothing that makes the 39 Articles more “truthful” than “the claims of contemporary scholars and theologians”. Personally I believe they are a far better representation of what the Scriptures say than those other alleged authorities. Nor do the Articles themselves claim to be the “sole” interpretation of the truth. That is to attack a straw man. The point I wished to raise was that Dean Shepherd was publically attacking a position that he has sworn, in his ordination vows, to uphold.
The current Prayer Book of the Australian Church is ”An Australian Prayer Book” (AAPB). There are a number of promises that Shepherd made upon his ordination to the Priesthood, set out in the AAPB ordinal on pp.608-615. Here’s a key one:

Will you always faithfully minister the doctrine and sacraments, and the discipline of Christ, as the Lord has commanded, and as this Church has received them, according to the commandments of God? Will you teach the people committed to your charge to keep and observe them diligently?

To which Shepherd would have answered:

I will do so, by the help of our Lord

Now, how would Dean Shepherd go about discerning how this Church has received that Doctrine? Well, he would go to the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia, helpfully available online [pdf] wherein he would read:

it is hereby further declared, that the above-named Book of Common Prayer, together with the Thirty-nine Articles, be regarded as the authorised standard of worship and doctrine in this Church, and no alteration in or permitted variations from the services or Articles therein contained shall contravene any principle of doctrine or worship laid down in such standard. (para. 4)

Now, the 39 Articles may or may not be a correct statement of true doctrine, but they are the statement that the Church into which both Shepherd and I are ordained have stated is their standard. Hence my original complaint that the Dean was teaching contrary to those Articles and, in particular, 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.

This really is simply a matter of integrity. If Shepherd doesn’t believe this stuff then fair enough - no-one is forcing him to believe it. I am quite happy that men and women in good conscience don’t believe it. I am desperately sad for them but recognise their need to believe freely and not under compulsion. As Richard puts it, it is right that he should “dare to exercise the free will breathed into us at birth”. But that is not what is at issue. What is at issue is integrity. Shepherd (and he is not the only one) has sworn to uphold the very things that he now denies. He is free to deny them but not free to maintain the position that he holds, namely a priest in the Anglican Church of Australia.

Of course, no-one is going to fire him, I don’t expect them to. But what I do look for is integrity! I look for men and women to step up to the plate and accept the consequences of what they believe in. Honourable men and women, surely, understand this. They don’t continue to take a salary and enjoy the trappings of an office when they themselves reject the constitution of their organisation! You wouldn’t expect the Chief Executive of PepsiCo to stay in their position if they publically announced that Coke was a better drink! It’s an outrageous idea. So why should clergy be any different?

As for Richard’s final charge of intolerance, I’m afraid I have nothing to add to what is already written above. He and Christopher will, no doubt, be unsatisfied with what I have written. I should, before finishing, thank them for writing comments on my site. I appreciate their candour and their willingness both to come into “enemy territory” and to identify themselves.

I trust, however, they and others will not be so intolerant themselves so as to not carefully consider (and hopefully even respond to) what I have written.

click here to leave a comment

Page 1 of 1 pages

Statistics

This page has been viewed 209577 times
Page rendered in 1.4428 seconds
Total Entries: 834
Total Comments: 3506
Total Trackbacks: 2388
Most Recent Entry: 09/05/2008 03:15 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 09/05/2008 07:43 pm
Total Members: 4
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 9
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 09/08/2008 08:00 pm
The most visitors ever was 96 on 07/01/2007 09:30 am