A Statement from Bishop Johnston
3/15/2013
 |
| The Rt. Rev'd Shannon Johnston, Bishop of Virginia |
This week, I received some questions and concerns about the fact that I was a co-sponsor of a "Clergy Day" with Dr. John Dominic Crossan, hosted by the Church of the Holy Cross in Dunn Loring. This event was in conjunction with two evenings of presentations by Dr. Crossan at that congregation which has been studying his writings as part of a Lenten program. When approached by the rector about the possibility of a day when clergy might have the chance to hear and question Dr. Crossan, I readily agreed that this would be a fine opportunity for our clergy (and clergy from neighboring dioceses) to engage first-hand a scholar who is a world-renowned figure and who would be speaking about a topic of great import: the final week of Jesus' life. It is my firm conviction that clergy should be current in their knowledge of various schools of thought that, agree or disagree, have broad dissemination and can be influential for a large number of people, both churchpersons and those without a community of faith. In short, it is important that our Church's leaders know "what's out there," what is being said and taught.
Admittedly, Dr. Crossan is quite controversial with respect to some of his views concerning Jesus' life, the historical context, and the resulting theology of Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection. But these very controversies are precisely why I believe it is important to have the opportunity to hear directly from him, to think critically (in the larger sense of the word) about what he has to say, and to ask probative questions so as to gain the clearest possible understanding.
Due to the meeting of the House of Bishops, I was not able to be in attendance at the Clergy Day, and so I did not myself hear Dr. Crossan on this occasion. But from my own reading and from what I have heard about the Clergy Day's content, I have been able to gather some perspective. Reports of the presentation and the Q & A sessions, even from those who took issue with him, have been quite affirming, saying that Dr. Crossan was energizing and provocative, substantive and responsive. I think it is a healthy dynamic that some questioners pushed back at Dr. Crossan's premises; I also know personally that Dr. Crossan encourages and welcomes critical feedback, as he did at this event.
What concerns me is the assumption that by co-sponsoring this event, I am "endorsing" or signaling agreement with Dr. Crossan's opinions and teaching. I mean to imply nothing of the sort. I simply do not think that we need to be fearful or reticent to encounter ideas different from our own personal convictions and the Church's official teachings, even if we find those ideas to be objectionable in some way. Indeed, I find some of Dr. Crossan's points to be offensive to the faith.
Some of the questions put to me about allowing Dr. Crossan to teach in the Diocese of Virginia challenged my own creedal orthodoxy - a kind of "guilt by association." I reject such reasoning completely. Allow me to quote from my own pastoral address from January 25, 2013, delivered before the diocesan Council:
"I am as creedal a Christian as you will ever find. The core of my faith is utterly and absolutely defined by the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. I do in fact believe that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments contain all things necessary for salvation. But I also think that inevitably, people will have differing ways of understanding, interpreting, appropriating and applying these essential truths. I do not accept that my own dearly held faith is in any way compromised by agreeing to disagree over the ways in which the catholic and apostolic Church gives witness and offers ministry, any more than I feel that my Church is compromised by my doing so . . . To me, the plain fact is that I - we - need to hear and understand other views of Christian truths."
As I've noted here, I quite disagree with many facets of Dr. Crossan's theology - for example, his view of the Resurrection of Jesus, which I believe to have been bodily, personal and unique to the Lord, accomplished in a moment of historical time. This is a central tenet of the Christian faith and is without qualification the proclamation of the Episcopal Church and of this bishop. Indeed, any teaching that is contrary to the Creeds is contrary to the witness of our Church and, specifically, is at odds with my own faith and teaching.
Nonetheless, I will not be a censor of ideas, a roadblock to inquiry that is grounded in a search for "God with us." The Holy Spirit is still at work with and within the Church and, in my view, we cannot shut down that which pushes our limits. Many times in human history, we have seen how the Spirit has pushed the Church beyond itself.
I give thanks for scholars, like John Dominic Crossan, who are part of that work that challenges us, even if it turns out to be an occasion to return to our own orthodox convictions with stronger roots. No less do I give thanks for scholars, like N.T. Wright, who keep us grounded with such compelling integrity. I also give thanks for those places, like Church of the Holy Cross, Dunn Loring, that provide the forum and the hospitality for all who would seek a deeper understanding of faith in Jesus as our risen Lord and Savior.
The Rt. Rev. Shannon S. Johnston
Bishop
15 comments:
According to Holy Cross' newsletter, Dr. Crossan was allowed not only to speak, but to preach during a service. Seems to be an odd position to put someone in if you find some of their "points to be offensive to the faith."
http://www.holycrossepiscopal.org/docs/newsletter.pdf
According to Lambeth 1988 The office of a Bishop has three central functions.
To be a guardian of the Faith
A Pastor to the pastors
A focus of unity for all people in his diocese
I was sorry to have missed the Crosson lectures. I had planned to attend, but family commitments interfered. Dr. Crosson is well known and well respected in academia as a Biblical scholar. I see no problem with him speaking at a church. As Jeff Walton's report indicated (and I'm glad Jeff was able to attend), Crosson was not advocating mass defections of the faithful, he was talking about what his research has taught him. The more we know about the history that surrounds Biblical events, the better we understand this absolutely awe-inspiring record. I come into contact with all kinds of people day after day, many of whom are much more alienated from Creedal Christianity than in Dr. Crosson. They in no way affect my acceptance of the creed. Dr. Crosson's knowledge strengthens my faith, it does not erode it, even thought he and I probably have reached different conclusions about the Resurrection. Hats off to Holy Cross and the Diocese for making this available to so many.
Scout
" I simply do not think that we need to be fearful or reticent to encounter ideas different from our own personal convictions and the Church's official teachings." I think the word 'encounter' here makes it sound like people just bumped into the heretical teaching. Wasn't he invited?
This is an excellent "statement" from Bp. Johnston - especially:
'What concerns me is the assumption that by co-sponsoring this event, I am "endorsing" or signaling agreement with Dr. Crossan's opinions and teaching.... I simply do not think that we need to be fearful or reticent to encounter ideas different from our own personal convictions and the Church's official teachings, even if we find those ideas to be objectionable in some way... I do not accept that my own dearly held faith is in any way compromised by agreeing to disagree over the ways in which the catholic and apostolic Church gives witness and offers ministry.... [T]he plain fact is that I - we - need to hear and understand other views of Christian truths.... I will not be a censor of ideas, a roadblock to inquiry that is grounded in a search for "God with us." The Holy Spirit is still at work with and within the Church and, in my view, we cannot shut down that which pushes our limits. Many times in human history, we have seen how the Spirit has pushed the Church beyond itself.'
Bravo, and well said! Diversity (and even - or perhaps especially - controversy) in theological opinion is the lifeblood of God's Spirit working among us. It leads us into "conversation" (which is intimately related with "conversion", as Frank Griswold used to point out!). It is what leads God's People to an ever deepening understanding of our experience of and relationship with God - which in turn enables us to more fully: (i) love the God whose presence we experience; and (ii) discern what God is calling us to do, as God's hands and feet in this broken world, to build up the Reign ["Kingdom"] of God on Earth.
Diversity builds up and strengthens - not weakens - the Body of Christ (just as Paul recognized in stressing the value of a diversity of "gifts" among members of the Body).
A discomfort with controversy, or with encountering views other than one's own, is most often simply a sign of one's insecurity in one's own beliefs. And, as the philosopher Heidegger pointed out, faith which does not constantly expose itself to the possibility of unfaith is not faith but a convenience.
Peace, John
As impressed as I am by Bishop Shannon's statement, I find troubling and (a-typically) rather churlish the linked statement from Rev. Dr. Tory Baucum, who seems to see the simple co-sponsoring of the Crossan talks by the Diocese as some kind of betrayal or "aggravating damage," the avoidance of which "is foundational to our efforts at peacemaking."
The problem I personally have always found with repeated attempts to pursue "reconciliation" and "peacemaking" with some traditionalist Christians, in the face of our doctrinal differences, is that I always get a sense that, for traditionalists, "reconciliation" ultimately consists of a two-way process: in which (i) we (who disagree with them on a few doctrinal matters but who still faithfully serve and worship the same loving God that they do) simply need to admit that we are "wrong", "repent", and express how sorry we are for having "offended" and "disrespected" them by our "heresies"; and then (ii) they graciously accept our apology for our errors, on condition that we never do it again!
Now this is not reconciliation! What is needed (and what I had hoped was emerging as a paradigm in the admirable course of dialog between Bishop Shannon and Rev. Dr. Tory) is a spirit of mutual respect in which it is accepted and understood that: (i) we disagree, and will probably continue to disagree; but (ii) we can still, as sibling members of Christ's Body, find a way forward to respect one another and to nurture a relationship with one another, despite (and perhaps even strengthened by) our differences of belief; and (iii) we will not try to "use" our relationship to attempt to "convert" one another, and will not allow our differences to "trump" the value of building relationships.
It is in this kind of respectful and loving building of relationships and acceptance of the other (in their otherness) that we truly are "peacemakers" and live into being the "imago dei" that is our nature and call - not in rushing to find offense and "disrespect" in any action by the other that we do not like...
Peace, John
jschwarz,
"Bravo, and well said! Diversity (and even - or perhaps especially - controversy) in theological opinion is the lifeblood of God's Spirit working among us" Unless it is from a conservative bishop in TEC and then they are sent to conciliation.
So, when will an ACNA bishop be invited to speak and preach at a TEC church?
It is a straw man argument to say this is about being a "censor of ideas". If someone cannot see the difference between going to see someone debate at a college and asking someone to come to your church to teach your laity and clergy without providing for any planned counter-views (and, no, I do not believe someone happening to get up at Q&A time is that), then I cannot help them. This was never about a free exchange of ideas or a healthy debate. That is simply a post hoc justification, and an unconvincing one in my view. It was about Crossan teaching.
But clarity is good. If you think it is good to have Crossan teach in your church, then the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia is for you. If you'd rather have Crossan teach at Georgetown or somewhere and hear Os Guiness or Alistair McGrath teach in your church instead, then you would probably prefer a Virginia ACNA church. Because despite the Episcopal Diocese' loud proclamations of diversity of thought, tolerance and the like, it is a one-way street. The ideas of orthodox evangelicals are censored in TEC.
Arthur
John Crossan speaking in a TEC church and ordination of a lesbian at the Falls Church Episcopal is just TEC being consistent with its post-Christian interpretation of the Creeds.
I can only view the reconciliation attempts as, at best, an intellectual exercise by the well intentioned. In polite company, we can agree to disagree, but a house divided against itself cannot stand. Reconciliation is not just about talk but action.
The Virginia diocese was the largest one in TEC because the traditional Christians were tolerated. Trusting the tolerance of TEC, the traditionalist believers raised money, bought new properties and built new churches and large sanctuaries.
When the traditionalists expressed opposition to practices contrary to Christendom (and even Judaism and Islam), the well of TEC’s tolerance dried up.
As TEC is winning property lawsuits based on legal technicalities, the denomination of “tolerance” and “all are welcome” are cashing in, redlining traditionalists from even the possibility of purchase and leaving Anglican believers homeless. I understand that Apostles in Fairfax was recently sold for $5.5 million. No church that bid could compete with private investors.
As far as the church property, TEC is being TEC: the Christian denomination that closes churches, welcoming those who teach and practices concepts that would not have gotten ancient Christianity passed its first round of martyrs.
True tolerance by definition is not selective. How can there be reconciliation when TEC is selectively tolerant and robs the very churches that built up the diocese?
My church of the last seven years, the Falls Church-Anglican, is homeless along with its extensive community outreach and other thriving ministries. The Falls Church Anglican, Truro, Apostles and other traditional churches are self-supporting.
Truro hangs in the balance, perhaps due to the polite reconciliation, and rents out the very church that its parish, including myself for a different seven year period, helped build and support.
This is real reconciliatory action. TEC should graciously allow congregations to have their churches back, even if it means the traditionalists will have to buy back what they built or enhanced due to its trust in TEC’s tolerance. At the Falls Church, it means the vast majority of the church can use the large sanctuary and the 100-person TEC members use the historical church.
The world will be more impressed by us settling up our differences as a family than in court. I wonder how TEC’s leadership will explain themselves on judgment day. May Our Lord Have Mercy on Us All--Annmarie
Re: "despite the Episcopal Diocese' loud proclamations of diversity of thought, tolerance and the like, it is a one-way street. The ideas of orthodox evangelicals are censored in TEC."
There are still a number of conservative and traditionalist congregations remaining as parishes in the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia. Have any of them actually proposed bringing in an "orthodox evangelical" to speak at their parish (as Holy Cross did in the case of Dr. Crossan - as part of their Lenten program)? If they did, I seriously doubt that the Diocese would interfere. Or that they would be "pressured" not to do so. I even suspect that, if they notified the Diocese of it as an upcoming parish event of interest as "adult education", it would be published in the Calendar on the Diocesan web-site. Do you have any actual evidence or example to show that TEC "censors" the ideas of "orthodox evangelicals"? Or is this just more paranoia?
In my perception, there is an important distinction to be made. TEC does in fact (whatever you may choose to believe to the contrary) have a strong culture and history of "tolerating" and even encouraging diversity of thought - and respect for such diversity has been fundamental to the spirit of Anglicanism since its foundation in the Elizabethan Settlement. Anglicanism was born out of a opposition (or rather offering an alternative) to the insistence on doctrinal rigidity which characterized both Calvinist Protestantism ("the Puritans") and Roman Catholicism.
I have read of no example (although I am sure there are a few unusual cases I am not aware of) where a "traditionalist" priest or bishop was "censored" or disciplined SPECIFICALLY for holding, proclaiming or teaching a conservative theological or doctrinal position. What I HAVE read of are many cases where clerical discipline has come in response to an action or threat against the polity of the diocese or TEC. Although the priest (or bishop!) may (whether ostensibly or honestly) view that action as being "necessitated" by a particular theological stance, it is NOT the theological stance (or the holding-teaching-proclamation of it) that leads to disciplined and the perceived TEC "intolerance".
IOW: What TEC, especially in recent years, has NOT "tolerated" is when priests or bishops engage, not in disfavored theological teaching, but in what one might call "ecclesiastic rebellion" - or the threat thereof. Conservatives, to my knowledge have not been disciplined for holding or teaching conservative (or "orthodox") views. They have been disciplined for actions taken against their bishop, or against TEC: e.g., flagrantly disobeying their bishop, slamming the church door on their own woman bishop on the grounds that "women can't be bishops", announcing and then effectuating an abandonment and separation of their congregations from TEC parishes (or dioceses) while purporting to take parish or Diocesan property with them - or else taking actions which clearly and unequivocally (to any reasonable observer) appear to indicate an imminent intent to abandon TEC, etc etc.
(cont.)
(cont.)
Intolerance of actions betokening schism and abandonment of the church is a whole different thing from intolerance of different religious teachings. Perhaps the apparent failure of some in these pages to understand this difference is because "orthodox evangelicals" themselves - in a quite un-Anglican way - do view doctrinal purity as a good and necessary thing and regard as harmful the "toleration" of (or exposure of parishioners to) diverse points of view which they regard as "heretical", revisionist", "contrary to the faith of the Apostles" - or whatever. Perhaps this leads some to assume that TEC and liberals, when they "push back" against attacks on their church, "must" be motivated by a similar "intolerance" for "theological diversity" - namely, traditionalist or "orthodox" theology.
I would give 3 anecdotal examples in support of all this. (1) In the Diocese of Va. under Bishop Lee, prior to the announced departure of CANA congregations, there is no evidence of any attempt or policy to inhibit the teaching or practice of traditionalist, "orthodox" Christianity by those congregations (in stark contrast to the outright refusal to allow progressive parishes to, e.g., bless same-gender unions!). (2) Rather, TEC and the Diocese acted and "disciplined" CANA clergy ONLY AFTER those congregations had taken action to abandon TEC - and to alienate parish property while doing so. (3) Later policy changes by TEC (and most dioceses) to authorize blessing ceremonies for s-g couples (which so offend traditionalists) have been extraordinarily careful to include strong "conscience clauses" which explicitly respect and "tolerate" the refusal of any clergy-person to participate in such rites, where this would conflict with their religious views. So where, in all this, is the evidence of TEC's "one-sided" tolerance for theological diversity?
Peace, John
It has been the practice of Islam to build a mosque on the site of a victory, sometimes obliterating a house of worship of another faith to do so.
The ordination of a practicing lesbian at the Falls Church follows that example.
Progressives don't push as hard now because they control ALL the levers of power and they are not nearly as deferential as moderates and conservatives were in the past. The defining moment for me was the Diocese of Washington's treatment of Christ Church, Acoceek. That is how I see the erstwhile tolerance of the progressives acted out. It is unfathomable to progressives that anyone could oppose whatever "new thing" they feel they've been blessed to institute and if you don't like it they'll be in your face with it until you leave or at least are silenced. As in Christ Church's case, it's clear that you'd better enjoy your current rector, because they'll make sure we have someone in line with the proper thinking for the next one. I see the policy as "drive out the ones you can and wait out the ones that stay."
It also says something about TEC that polity is more important than doctrine. We can be wishy-washy all day long about the nature of Christ and whether He rose bodily from the dead etc, but hey, if you think that just because your name is on the deed you actually own the property...well, hey, whoa there buddy, that's grounds for ecclesiastical charges. As the recent "agreement" with the bishops who field the "friend of the court brief" shows, that iron fist is firmly in place under the velvet glove.
Well, a dozen or more bishops and 400 or more priests all deposed, and that was as of several years ago. You say they surely must have all deserved it.
As would have been noted in the ecclesiastical trials, no? Oh, they were not given trials, they were considered to have abondoned communion, though asking to be transferred to another Anglican province, so as to avoid a messy trial? How considerate. And if those other provinces are no longer in communion with the episcopal church, I assume that is nothing significant.
And now we see Johnston will be presiding over a service where John Shelby Spong will be teaching on Good Friday at St. Paul's, Richmond. Undoubtedly no censoring of ideas there, and a clear statement of what teaching is consistent with Johnston's interpretation of the creeds to boot.
As I suggested, rather a clear distinction between episcopal and ACNA diocese in Virginia, n'est pas?
Arthur
Post a Comment