The Church, as it ponders scripture, tradition, in the light to the
best reason it can muster, is itself the judge of the Church's
latitude in doctrine and practice.. It defines that latitude from time
to time, seeking to welcome the broadest possible expression of the
basics of the faith. Core doctrines are maintained most notably by
unambiguous reference in liturgy and catechism. Thus when Bishop
Righter was tried for allegedly violating the Church's doctrine in
accepting certain persons for ordination, the court was able to say
that while the question was a theological question, it was not a
matter of core doctrine and was not addressed in our central
documents. Unpublished documents from the right wing opine that they
subsequently think they would have more likely gotten a conviction if
they had charged Righter with violating the discipline (operating
rules) rather than the doctrine of the Church.
When Bishop Robinson was elected, there was again a question of
doctrine, but no core doctrine in prayer book and canon to which
appeal could made. (Attempts to apply to documents from the UK still
cause me to wonder.) When a multiply-divorced man was elected in
Northern California, at least a majority in both houses believed that
the New Testament teaches about divorce, and particularly its
prohibition of remarried bishops did not form an absolute barrier.
Although I did not agree, this made a kind of sense, the question of
moral modeling aside, because the Church is in fact now more open to
remarriage. Beyond that, both Bishops Pike and Righter had contracted
serial marriages, not to mention many priests.
In the case of the bishop-elect of Northern Michigan, perhaps we can
get our ducks in the correct rows. His Buddhist practices are
sensational but not the point. In sermons and other writings
(including eucharistic prayers which I fear were used outside Rite III
settings, giving us a question of discipline as well as doctrine), the
bishop-elect makes it clear that the doctrine of the Trinity as
confessed in the Creed and explained in the Catechism is not what he
holds. He will use base-three theological language, but never in
service to the proposition that in Jesus of Nazareth God became fully
human. Similarly, his understanding of the atonement is not
conformable with the liturgy or catechism, but appears to be something
like gnostic enlightenment. His writings represent a very shaky
understanding of the Second Person of the Trinity, God incarnate,
severely weakening his gospel.
Apart from his sense of freedom from the seeming minutiae of rubric
and liturgical text, in which he is by no means alone, Fr. Thew
Forrester seems to have been an exemplary priest, a saintly pastor and
an enviably fine human being. That is not the point. The point is that
there has been no time like the one we inhabit for bishops to proclaim
unambiguously the gospel of Christ in all its fullness.
In a cardinal church in the west the creed is never used, and a
eucharistic prayer from around the world is used each week, along with
other ritual freehand before and after the gathering. I couldn't tell
what I had just attended or what the church actually celebrated.
As a Church we are increasingly a laughing-stock. Not because we
welcome lesbian and gay people, and carry on social ministries that
enact the sacrifice of Christ on a corporate basis, and certainly not
because of our latitude and the conversation it engenders. We are a
laughing stock because we do not consistently proclaim a solid core,
words as simple as "all have sinned and come short of the glory of
God," yet "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself."
Increasingly it seems that the Cross has become foolishness _in_ the
Church, and our former hallmark teaching of the Incarnation is seldom
heard, and less seldom heard to matter. If our embarrassment is going
to end, the voices of bishops as clear, traditional, and powerful
evangelists to be raised in the churches and in the market place.
Many bishops find a number of techniques that come from the social
sciences useful in their ministries, and have significant investment
in Eastern meditation--their qualification to be bishops, however, is
that, as the chief confessors of the creeds and presidents at the
sacraments. The are to be unambiguously ambassadors for Christ, God
making his appeal through them.
For these reasons I believe the present election cannot go forward and
hope that it will not.
No comments:
Post a Comment