85061_Crosswalk.qxp
5/27/2005
1:37 PM
Page 2
Pentecost I, 2005
Crosswalk The official publication of the Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina
inside side 2
Written Word, Living Word Is the Bible true? What does the Bible mean to us? Bishop Henderson answers FAQs about Holy Scripture and urges us to "get serious."
6
The canon of Scripture What does it mean to be a "people of the Book," and how did we get that way? Journey through the centuries with the Holy Spirit as the Old and New Testaments take shape.
10
The Bible and sexuality It's a hot topic. What does Scripture really say?
14
Anglicanism 101 The Windsor Report: The recommendations may be controversial, but the report can also serve as a primer for "Anglicanism 101." Check out the many ways you and your congregation can use The Windsor Report as a formational resource.
Visit our diocese online
www.edusc.org
Anglicans and Scripture
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
6/7/2005
9:30 AM
Pentecost 1, 2005
Page 3
Crosswalk FROM THE
Bishop’s desk
Written Word, Living Word Sisters and Brothers, dearly Beloved:
Crosswalk
Official Publication of the Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina 1115 Marion Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 803.771.7800/800.889.6961 803.799.5119 fax dioceseusc@aol.com Crosswalk E-mail Address phill@edusc.org Bishop The Rt. Rev. Dorsey F. Henderson, Jr. Archdeacon and Senior Pastoral Assistant to the Bishop The Ven. Frederick C. Byrd fbyrd@edusc.org Canon for Christian Formation The Rev. J. Philip Purser ppurser@edusc.org Canon for Congregations & Mission The Rev. Mark Clevenger mclevenger@edusc.org Canon for Youth Ministry The Rev. L. Sue von Rautenkranz suevon@edusc.org Canon for Communications, Editor of Crosswalk Peggy Van Antwerp Hill phill@edusc.org Canon for Finance and Administration Julie Price jprice@edusc.org Director of Finance and Insurance Cynthia Hendrix chendrix@edusc.org Executive Assistant to Bishop Henderson Jane B. Goldsmith jgoldsmith@edusc.org Assistant to Archdeacon Byrd Bonnie Blackberg bblackberg@edusc.org Assistant for Christian Formation, Manager of Diocesan Resource Center Roslyn Hook rhook@edusc.org Assistant for Youth Ministry and Communications Bethany Human bhuman@edusc.org
Cover: The lectern at Church of the Good Shepherd, Greer. Photo: Eric Schnaufer.
2
The subject of this issue of Crosswalk is the Bible—the Holy Scriptures—the written Word of God. St. John’s Gospel expresses succinctly the truth proclaimed by the entire New Testament: that Jesus Christ is the Living Word. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. . . . (John 1:1–2, 14)
Is the Bible divinely inspired? Faith and Practice (Morehouse-Barlow, rev. 1978) is one of the published works of the late Bishop Frank E. Wilson, traditionalist bishop of the Diocese of Eau Claire. (This volume is nothing less than a résumé of Christian doctrine and a basic classic of the teaching, worship, and life of Anglicanism. I commend it to you with enthusiasm.) Bp. Wilson begins his chapter entitled “The Holy Scriptures” by stating that the Bible “is the record of the revelation of God” and clarifies what Anglicans mean when we say that the Bible is divinely inspired: “we do not mean . . . that it is the result of divine dictation. . . . We mean that the men [sic.] who did the writing were actively seeking God’s will. . . . [They inscribed] accounts of God’s dealing with human life. . . . [A]nd [we mean] that the spiritual reliability of these accounts was tested over long periods of time by the people for whom they were written”. Thus the conclusion that while the Bible is the record of God’s revelation, it is Jesus who is God’s revelation—the full and perfect manifestation of God. We could say, then—quite accurately—that the purpose of the Written Word is always to point to the Living Word and to enlighten our understanding of who Jesus is as Savior and Lord—and thus what it means to follow his example. The life which Jesus came to live is a model for our lives. The Bible is a description of that divine model. Therefore, the importance of the Written Word for our lives is apparent.
Is the Bible true? This question—or, as it is sometimes posed with a somewhat hostile intent, “Don’t you believe the Bible?”—is a common one. Of course the Bible is true. And yes, we Episcopalians believe the Bible.
How do we discern the truth of the Bible? The Catechism affirms the faith of the Church—based on the biblical record of our Lord’s teaching in John 16—that “the Holy Spirit. . . guides the Church in the true interpretation of the Scriptures.” But why do we need the Holy Spirit for this? Isn’t the “plain reading” of the Bible sufficiently clear? The answer is no. I state the obvious: the Bible includes several types of literature. It contains history and biography, law, poetry and prose, prophecy, theology, and more. All proclaim God’s truth. But one discerns the truth in poetry differently than when one is reading the law; . . . in reading a historical account than when one is reading theology—and so on. We can approach the Bible and its different kinds of literature in three ways: literally, symbolically, and historically. All of these are accurate gauges for understanding the Bible, but no one of them is necessarily effective for every part of the Bible. How do we know which part is to be understood under which category—or combination of categories? For that we desperately need the guidance and aid of the One sent specifically to lead us into all truth: the Holy Spirit! —continued on page 18
B R E A K I N G
news
Upper SC wins eight national communications awards At the national Episcopal Communicators conference, held in Salt Lake City, April 26–30, Upper SC publications garnered eight awards. Awards of Excellence for: Front page (Easter 2004 Crosswalk, design by Roc Jackson, photo by Eric Schnaufer) Devotional/Inspirational writing ("Prayer, relationship— transformation," by Peggy Van Antwerp Hill, Easter 2004 Crosswalk) Awards of Merit for: General excellence (Easter, Pentecost I and II issues of Crosswalk) Theological reflection (Duncan C. Ely, "Wanderings" column for Crosswalk) Honorable Mention for: Single photo (Cover photo of wisteria, by Eric Schnaufer, Easter 2004 Crosswalk) In-depth coverage (Pentecost II 2004 Crosswalk, on the Baptismal Covenant) Layout ("Making all things new in the Church," layout by Roc Jackson, Easter 2004 Crosswalk) Online publication or Webzine (e~DUSC) Check out our national award-winners on the Web site (www.edusc.org) or at www.episcopalcommunicators.org/. At the diocesan Web site you can also subscribe to our award-winning electronic newsletter by clicking on “Communications,” and then “Subscribe.” —continued on page 22
Visit our diocese online
www.edusc.org Please send all Crosswalk address corrections, deletions or additions to:
Starboard Communications, Inc. 5175 Sunset Boulevard Suite L Lexington SC 29072 803.996.3670 phone 803.996.3575 fax data@starboard communications.com e-mail
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
6/7/2005
9:30 AM
Page 4
Crosswalk COMMON PRAYER. . .
Praying the Scripture with
Pentecost 1, 2005
Seek, find, demand, taste . . .
lectio divina By Felicia W. Smith
A
s Christians, we recognize that each of us is on a journey. Each journey is unique, an irresistible call and a responsibility to move forward. We all share the same goal, which is union with God, but getting there is different for each person. Over the centuries of Christianity, a variety of spiritual tools have been recognized and developed that provide different starting points for this journey. The tools include such practices as communal worship, the liturgies of our tradition, Stations of the Cross, the rosary, icons, the labyrinth, the Jesus prayer, centering prayer, retreat, pilgrimage, and lectio divina. Lectio divina, or divine reading, is an approach to reading/praying Scripture that comes to us from western medieval monasticism, predating the invention of the printing press. In the words of one practitioner, it is “a slow, contemplative praying of the Scriptures . . . . [that] enables us to discover in our daily life an underlying spiritual rhythm” and, consequently, to offer more of ourselves and our relationships to God.
Seek, find, demand, taste
Lectio divina is a four-step process, outlined below. Lectio— reading or reciting a small portion of Scripture until a word or phrase catches your attention and invites you to stop there. Meditatio—meditation, reflecting upon that portion of Scripture to extract the meaning. Oratio—prayer, responding to the Scripture through prayer or by simply remaining in silence before God. Contemplatio—contemplation, resting wordlessly in God’s presence and the upwelling of love. The 12-century monastic Guigo II described it this way: reading seeks; meditation finds (meaning); prayer demands; contemplation tastes (God). The process is really a seamless flowing of these steps. And it may happen that some of the steps do not occur during a particular period of prayer, or they may happen in a different order, especially as one
Prayer of St. Anselm O Lord my God, teach my heart this day where and how to see you, where and how to find you. You have made me and remade me, and you have bestowed on me all the good things I possess, and still I do not know you. I have not yet done that for which I was made. Teach me to seek you, for I cannot seek you unless you teach me,or find you unless you show yourself to me. Let me seek you in my desire, let me desire you in my seeking, let me find you by loving you, let me love you when I find you.
becomes used to the process and has come to trust it. Sometimes one feels called to return to the printed text to seek a new word or phrase to ponder. Other times, a single word or phrase continues to unfold. It is not necessary to evaluate the quality of either practice or experience. Lectio divina has no goal other than to be in God’s presence by praying the Scripture. Learning to trust the flow of the process requires
Lectio divina has no goal other than to be in God’s presence by praying the Scripture. Learning to trust the flow of the process requires willingness, time, and effort. willingness, time, and effort. Lectio divina asks us to set aside time—half an hour to an hour—and a designated place with which we associate our practice. It is a solitary activity, which may be difficult at first, if such is new to us. We need to be gentle with ourselves as we adjust to being at ease with solitude, yet we must be firm with ourselves and persevere. Lectio divina asks of us discipline and effort. It asks of us willingness to be open to the working of the Holy Spirit; it asks us to trust the Holy Spirit as it does the work of turning us, drawing us to God.
Striving for the kingdom
My own experience of lectio divina builds upon a practice of centering prayer; I find them closely related and with the identical end of union. Here are three Scripture passages that have consistently
spoken to me—the lectio step: Jeremiah 29:13–14a: When you search for me, you will find me; if you seek me with all your heart, I will let you find me, says the Lord. Matthew 6:32b–33: And indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all things will be given to you as well. Matthew 17:5: While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, “This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well-pleased; listen to him. Words in bold italics are those taken into the meditatio step, which in turn calls forth oratio, the prayer that wells up in response to the experience. The flow of the practice yields to contemplatio, wordlessness and deep resting in God. Scripture provides rich resources to meet us, whoever and wherever we are. As we flow from one step to the next, we recognize that this is always a process in partnership with the Holy Spirit. The end goal of mystical union is always the same. And yet the experience is never the same, because at each time of prayer we are slightly different from the last time; our experience of the Holy continues to change and grow deeper. Some resources that have been helpful to me and to many include Thomas Keating’s Intimacy with God; Martin Smith’s The Word Is Very Near You: A Guide to Praying with Scripture; and M. Basil Pennington’s Centering Prayer: Renewing an Ancient Christian Prayer Form. Felicia W. Smith is a member of St. Simon & St. Jude, Irmo.
3
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
6/7/2005
9:30 AM
Pentecost 1, 2005
Page 5
Crosswalk WHAT’S IN THE WORD?
Blessed to be an Anglican . . .
The real issue . . .
ONE MAN’S GRACE-FILLED JOURNEY By Larry Newton
Exeter, England
I By the Rev. Richard H. Norman, Jr.
I
n Mark’s Gospel, we hear Jesus say “Let anyone with ears to hear listen!” (Mark 4:23) That familiar admonition with its intention is loud and clear. However, I find myself wondering if we all hear the same thing. Words are powerful and have different meanings and applications for different folk—the words of Scripture no less so. The other day a colleague and I found ourselves discussing, yet again, the Church, the Anglican Communion. My friend summed it up nicely: the issue is not really about the authority of Scripture, but about the interpretation of Scripture.
The real issue Perhaps, as a result of wishful thinking or selective discrimination, I have not heard of anyone discounting the authority of Scripture. I have not heard of the rejection of the belief that the scriptures have been divinely inspired, nor have I heard any rejection of the understanding that the Old and New Testaments contain all things necessary for salvation. (Sound familiar? Hint: it’s in The Book of Common Prayer.) What we have heard a great deal about is how our sacred texts are being interpreted. Lest we think that the interpretation of Scripture is a contemporary issue, we would do well to recall that it has been an issue throughout the ages (and, no doubt, will continue to be so). Early on it was just so for the disciples immediately following Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension: consider Peter going to the home of Cornelius (the Roman centurion) and baptizing Cornelius and his household and the ensuing controversy of welcoming Gentiles into the Christian community (Acts 10 and 11). There were those who felt that Gentiles should be excluded from the community, while others felt the Gospel was for all. Within our tradition, when it comes to interpreting Scripture, we do not have the Magisterium, or institutional teaching authority, that is available to our Roman Catholic sisters and brothers. In and of itself, the lack of the Magisterium is not necessarily a bad thing (some of us might even think of it as a liberating thing)— though the lack of institutional teaching authority does mean that occasionally we find ourselves having to grasp the nettle and address issues that we may find uncomfortable or challenging.
Relationship with the scriptures
4
ition Trad
Reason
Scriptu
re
As Anglicans we do not approach Scripture as if it is the sole, sufficient, infallible rule of faith (sola scriptura). Instead we look to the popular image the ANG three-legged stool, derived, as most of us learned in LICANISM our confirmation classes, from the writings of Richard Hooker (1554?–1600): Scripture, Tradition (part of which comes to us from Church’s early fathers of the first five centuries), and Reason (what might be called “divine reason” or “inspired reason”). —continued on page 27 Some have suggested the inclusion of a
am standing on a small hill overlooking Exeter Cathedral. It is a cold December day, no snow, but bright and sunny. A statue of Richard Hooker is in the foreground. The cathedral, built in 1050, is magnificent, with its majestic North Tower Exeter Cathedral: Awe in a world of contradictions dominating the façade. Over the centuries it has been continuously rebuilt and expanded, reflecting Norman, English, and Gothic influences. Beneath the cathedral, archaeologists have discovered the remains of Roman baths and the camp of the Roman Army’s Augustan Legion. Nearby, evidence of fifth-century Christian worship has been found. The sense of history is palpable. I enter the cathedral, awed by its presence. In late afternoon my companion and I take parting pictures of the narrow picturesque streets in Exeter. They are festive, decorated in preparation for the Christmas holidays. It is cold and darkness is approaching. Few people are out. Suddenly four burly black-jacketed men from across the way confront us. They demand our cameras. It seems surreal. We are American tourists. Certainly there must be a mistake. There is no mistake. They become menacing. We are in disbelief. As if from nowhere a young girl appears. She tugs on the leader’s jacket and implores him to let us go. He is momentarily distracted. We depart as if on cue. Times have changed. Lockerbie is not that many years past. The IRA has targeted London. As we enter Plymouth, we pass the war-scarred remains of a parish church, a bombed-out memorial reflecting the devastation of World War II. The stark silhouette is a reminder. The events of the day flash through my mind: the majesty of the cathedral, the festive anticipation of Christmas, the confrontation on a deserted street. How bizarre. How extreme. It is a world of contradictions.
Discovery Weekend Although I had attended the Upper South Carolina Great Gathering in Greenville in 2002, I had little idea of what to expect at a Discovery [Renewal] Weekend held in my parish. Perhaps an expansion on Bishop Henderson’s charge: “One Body. . . One Mission. . . Changing Lives?” Or an opportunity to explore the boundaries of Christian belief? To develop stronger spiritual bonds with fellow parishioners? Or to experience a deeper personal sense of one’s own faith? After two days of shared experiences, prayer, fellowship, forgiveness, and reflection, it becomes apparent that this weekend is like no other. It ignites a sense of awareness, a keener appreciation for one’s own place in the world. No longer just another person, I am somebody special—loved and cared for in a larger community more than I have ever imagined. As a cradle Episcopalian, I have always appreciated the rich traditions and the liturgy, and the music. But I have never experienced such an intense feeling of belonging. Perhaps, this part of my search is over. I can move on, to explore and understand new dimensions.
Anglican heritage It is months later. I am wrestling with a definition—what does it mean to be Episcopalian? We are a complex group, representing an incredible diversity of views. How did we get this way? Why so much controversy? As a “broad church” I remember there is continual need for caution and compromise. —continued on page 24
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
6/7/2005
9:30 AM
Page 6
Crosswalk
Pentecost 1, 2005
Hooked on Hooker . . . Editor’s note: Anglicans often speak of the “three-legged stool” of authority—Scripture, tradition, reason—that distinguishes them from Roman Catholics and Protestants. Roman Catholics generally give more authority to tradition; Protestants favor the Scripture; but Anglicans recognize three normative sources of authority as described by 16th-century English theologian in his treatise Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. Although Hooker never used the image of the stool, it has come to be accepted as a convenient symbol of Anglicanism’s uniquely balanced approach to teaching the faith.
Anglicans and the Bible By the Rev. Thomas C. Davis
I
doubt that it was ever the intention of Richard Hooker (1554?–1600) to suggest Anglicanism’s most persistent symbol—the famous three-legged stool of Scripture, tradition, and reason. Derived from Hooker’s writings, it has passed into our folklore, and even made it possible to argue about which leg of the stool is the longest. The analogy does not work unless the legs are of equal length, but it was never intended that Scripture and tradition be of equal weight. Roman Catholics did not treat them as equal until the Council of Trent (1545–1563), which produced the definitive determination of Roman Church doctrines in answer to Protestant “heresies.”
The love of reason However, unlike the more radical children of the Reformation, Anglicanism has not usually treated the Bible as the only authority.
Fundamentalists consider the Bible verbally inspired, dictated by God, and infallible. All the same they read it through the eyes of tradition, and with the use of reason. There are very few Christians who give every single word of Scripture equal authority, and almost all of us would assume that common sense should also be a guide in Bible reading. Anglicans have almost always given high place to reason. The universities have been the source and the site of our most dramatic revivals. The Wesleyan movement, which gave rise to Methodism, began in 1739 at Oxford; the Oxford Movement (1833–1845),
which sought to renew the Church of England by reviving certain Roman Catholic doctrines and rituals, took its name from its place of origin; the Broad Church movement with its social implications and liberal views in theology and biblical studies, began with F. D. Maurice, a priest and professor at Kings, one of the red brick colleges at Cambridge. At the same time, an English language edition of the Bible for both public and private use has been part of the Anglican tradition since its beginning. The Bible is not just the property of bishops and scholars but
Biblical encounters . . . By D. Jonathan Grieser
I
can almost predict when it will happen. About the third day of class, a hand will go up from one of my students. Sometimes it is a tentative question, coming from someone in the back row. More often, it comes from a confident young man sitting in the front row who seems to be the spokesman for a group of students. The class is “Introduction to Biblical Literature” at Furman University, and in the first meetings I have been stressing that the Bible is a compilation of texts written by human authors. I have already shown the students some of the complexities of textual formation. I have even introduced them to scholarly theories concerning the authorship of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. I have told them that every act of translation is itself an act of interpretation.
Facing 2 Timothy 3:16 In those first days of the term, I have paid close attention to student responses, sometimes expressed verbally but often signaled by body language or by whispered conversations in the back of the classroom. So when the question comes, I’m ready for it: “You’ve been talking a lot about human authorship of the Bible, but what do you say to 2 Timothy 3:16: “‘all Scripture is Godbreathed’?” (NIV) My answer is always the same: “Scripture may be inspired by God, but human beings authored it; they compiled and preserved it, and under the
also of ordinary people. While there have been common traditions about interpretation, there has not been any single correct or official interpretation. The Anglican love of reason has made it easier for us to deal with the discoveries of natural science than might otherwise be the case. Radical Protestants rejected natural revelation on the grounds that human reason is so depraved as to be untrustworthy. The natural order itself is fallen and no safe source of truth. I cannot find any good reason to treat the natural world as anything other than God’s good creation. Therefore, it is trustworthy.
The experience of the Church
The ultimate source of the Christian scriptures is the witness of the apostles themselves—that is, the testimony of the men and women who were witnesses to the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. The Church began to write down —continued on page 25
The context’s the thing
guidance of the Holy Spirit, humans decided which texts would belong to our Bible and which texts would not. Divine inspiration does not solve any of the questions of interpretation that we bring to Scripture.” Of course, that answer doesn’t satisfy my students, and it should not satisfy them. We spend the rest of the term struggling to understand the biblical texts we are reading. We engage in lively debates over what the texts might have meant in their original contexts and what they might mean in the 21st century.
[I]n the end, all of the agendas and questions we bring to the text may be transformed in the encounter with the Word of God.
Considering the contexts I encounter the Bible in a variety of contexts: as a professor at a liberal arts college, as an instructor in the diocesan School for Ministry, as a teacher of adult education in the parish, as a worshiper hearing the Word read, as a preacher preparing to proclaim the Word of God, when reading the Daily Office as a spiritual discipline, and as one of the sources of my ethical —continued on page 25
5
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
5/27/2005
1:37 PM
Pentecost 1, 2005
Page 7
Crosswalk
A people of
THE
BOOK . . .
Editor’s Note: Because we’re used to reading the Bible in a single bound volume, it’s easy to overlook the fact that the Bible is really a collection of 67 books (“biblia”), written at different times, in different places, under very different circumstances. It’s also easy to forget that the process by which some texts came to be included in Holy Scripture and others were not unfolded over the course of many centuries. In this article the Rev. Dr. Charles P. Sigel takes us on a journey through the process that established the canon of Scripture. The word canon comes from the Greek kanon, meaning reed or measurement, and refers to those books that are considered the authoritative Word of God.
The
developom e n t f the canon
By the Rev. Dr. Charles P. Siegel
The Old Testament The first “sacred” text: Deuteronomy The year was 621 B.C. Laborers in the temple had uncovered a book hidden away within the sanctuary’s interior. Once the authorities had determined that the book did indeed contain “the word of the LORD,” King Josiah of Judah made it the foundation of his religious revival (2 Kgs. 22, 23). In all likelihood that document was the core of our Deuteronomy, and it became the first “sacred” text (though not the first written document) in what at length would become our Bible.
The Torah About 200 years later (ca. 425 B.C.), the priest Ezra gathered the people together in the public square in Jerusalem and from morning till night read to them from what was called “the book of the Law.” The people were so moved by what they heard that they committed themselves to the LORD and so sparked another religious revival (Neh. 8, 9). That “book of the Law” from which Ezra read was probably the core of the Torah (Genesis–Deuteronomy). Thus, by 425 B.C. Israel had bound herself to Torah as “sacred text” and thereby was on the way to becoming “a people of the Book.”
texts” in Israel’s view. Moreover, since Ben Sira himself had mentioned both Isaiah and Ezekiel as ancient worthies, we may assume that, along with Torah (recognized as “sacred” text already in Ezra’s times), the prophetic witnesses were “canonized” by 200 B.C. if not earlier.
The “Other Writings” The final stage in what Christians call the canonical Old Testament came in A.D. 90. After the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, rabbinic scholars established an Academy at Jamnia (in Palestine) for the reorganization of Judaism and the study of both the scriptures and the rabbinic oral traditions. As part of their work, they reached conclusions on what the Hebrew scriptures should contain. Decisions were made in two areas. First, to include as “scripture” only those texts which were written in Hebrew and could be in some way or other linked to the ancient worthies. This decision effectively excluded all those documents that later came to be incorporated into the Apocrypha (14 texts still a part of the Roman Catholic Bible). The second determination concerned some Hebrew writings which up to that point had been in dispute such as Esther, Ecclesiastes, and The Song of Songs. The rabbis at length gave their approval to those documents and the Hebrew canon was finally closed with a total of 39 books (though arranged differently from our English versions.) The entire process of creating a “sacred” collection of Hebrew scriptures had taken more than 700 years.
The Prophets Around 180 B.C. Ben Sira composed his work entitled The Wisdom of Ben Sira toward the end of which he devoted several chapters to praising Israel’s heroes of the past. Among those persons are Isaiah and Ezekiel. Some 60 years later (ca. 120 B.C.) the Hebrew text of Ben Sira was translated into Greek by Ben Sira’s grandson. Several times in the prologue the grandson mentions “the law and the prophets,” suggesting that by his era “Law and Prophets” had become “sacred
6
The New Testament The first century: Laying the foundation Since the first believers in Christ were Jews, they already possessed “scripture” (our Old Testament). Thus, their concern was not to write new scripture, but to give new meaning to the ancient texts, by interpreting them in the light of Jesus
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
5/27/2005
1:37 PM
Page 8
Crosswalk
and how we got
THAT (2 Cor. 3:12–18). At first, it was primarily in preaching that Christians expressed this new meaning for these ancient texts (see the sermons in Acts). But by the end of the first century, a collection of Paul’s letters had emerged among Christians along with four Gospels. None of them was viewed as scripture, but all of them were cited by others to support the new interpretation that was being given to ancient texts. In fact, by the early second century writers such as the Apostolic fathers were citing these documents using the formulae “the lord says” (= the gospel) and “the apostle says” (= the epistle). One can see here the pattern which later marked the literary structure of our New Testament (gospels/epistles), a pattern already in place in the early decades of the second century. Note, however, that usually in these citations, neither Paul’s name or those of gospel writers was mentioned, a clear indication that the writings were being mined for appropriate quotations rather than being treated as scripture.
THE
The second century (A.D. 100–200): The age of challenge By the middle of the second century, a number of differing interpretations regarding the meaning of Jesus had arisen among Christians. Chief among these were the views of Marcion, Montanus, and the Gnostics. In addition, there had been an explosion of Christian writings (gospels, acts, apocalypses), all of them competing for acceptance by the Great Church. The kudzulike growth of documents and opinions regarding Jesus moved the Church to begin a sifting process, using (perhaps subconsciously) as its guide three criteria. Is the text preaching (the kerygmatic principle)? Does the writing or viewpoint take seriously Jesus’ call “to take up the cross and follow me (the martyrological principle)? Finally, is the text or opinion expressed being received throughout the Great Church (the principle of usage)? Making use of
ROAD TO THE CANON:
Some important dates 90 A.D. Hebrew canon established by this date. The process took more than 700 years. 200
By this time the Church had accepted 20 of our modern New Testament books as “sacred.” Tertullian was the first to use the designation “New Testament” to refer to the commonly accepted Christian scriptures.
367
In a letter to the churches, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, produced the earliest surviving list of 27 books exactly matching the New Testament canon.
397
The full complement of 27 New Testament books is confirmed at the Synod of Carthage. These have been accepted ever since by both Roman Catholics and Protestants.
Pentecost 1, 2005
WAY
these criteria (again, perhaps subconsciously), boundaries were drawn. What fell inside the boundaries was considered orthodox. What fell outside was deemed heretical. With these fundamentals in place, the Church, by the year A.D. 200, had reached consensus on what Christian books should be considered “sacred.” These included the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of Paul (excluding Hebrews), 1 Peter, and 1 John.
The third century (A.D. 200–300): The age of consolidation By 200 A.D. 20 of our New Testament books were firmly in place. Still in doubt were Hebrews, the minor “catholic epistles” James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, and (in some quarters) Revelation. In addition, there were also a number of writings that were still considered “authoritative” in some local churches (such as 1 Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, The Didache). During the third century, the sifting process that had begun the century before continued. In Gaul, Ireneaus (180) argued for a fourfold Gospel and won the day (thus securing the legitimacy of John’s Gospel, which up until A.D. 150 had been looked upon with suspicion by the Great Church). In the first decades of the third century, Hippolytus of Rome vigorously maintained the legitimacy of Revelation, while in Alexandria Origen championed the book of Hebrews. The minor catholic epistles remained in doubt throughout this entire period.
The fourth century (A.D. 300–400): The age of consummation In the year A.D. 294 the emperor Diocletian divided the Roman empire into two subdivisions, an eastern and a western realm. Over each of the two
areas he placed both a political and a military leader (two in the east and two in the west). Diocletian hoped that this arrangement would lead to greater stability within the empire. In fact, the opposite resulted. A number of conflicts erupted as the leaders in each of the two subdivisions vied for supremacy. By A.D. 313, when the dust of battle had settled, two leaders had emerged from the fray: Lucinius in the east and Constantine in the west. The two of them drew up a document (The Edict of Milan) that promised religious tolerance for all religions within the empire (including Christianity), both east and west. Ten years later (A.D. 323) the two Caesars were again at war with each other. Lucinius was routed and eventually put to death. Constantine emerged as victor and, in A.D. 324, made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, now united under one emperor, Constantine the Great— united politically and militarily, but not religiously. In the first decades of the fourth century, a bitter dispute broke out among Christians over the relation of Jesus to the Father. Was Jesus the first of God’s creation and not, therefore, fully divine, as Libyan theologian Arius insisted, or was Jesus —continued on page 24
7
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
5/27/2005
1:37 PM
Pentecost 1, 2005
P
Page 9
Crosswalk
B
eople of the
ook
Editor’s note: As a people who respect and value tradition and find joy in belonging to the Communion of Saints, we Episcopalians understand, perhaps better than many, the power the past can have in shaping our faith. In these two articles Dr. Lisa A. Unterseher takes a look at two periods of the Christian past—the time of the Church Fathers and the centuries of the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment—to connect them to our life today. Among the many legacies of the Fathers, a group of ecclesiastical writers in the early Christian centuries whose authority on doctrinal matters was widely recognized and respected, is an approach to Scripture that may have special relevance for the Church as it struggles today. And among the many legacies of the Reformers and Enlightenment thinkers are attitudes and preconceptions with regard to Scripture that have become part of our biblical DNA.
The [Church] Fathers know best our own day. Let us look briefly at some of their most fundamental assumptions about Scripture.
By Lisa A. Unterseher
T
he period between roughly 100 and 600 A.D. is known as the period of the Church Fathers, or patristic period. During these centuries, early Christians struggled with coming to understand in theological terms the reality of the risen Christ that they had experienced by the power of the Holy Spirit. Out of these struggles emerged the key dogma, or absolutely central tenants, of the Christian faith: the doctrines of the Incarnation and Trinity, as enshrined in the early ecumenical councils and in the central creed of faith, the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.). The early Church leaders—remarkable theological figures such as Irenaeus, Origen, the Cappodocians (Basil and the two Gregorys), Ambrose, Hilary, and Augustine—are known as the Church Fathers.
Scripture as tool Because the Fathers laid the theological foundation for the Church, the catholic tradition (including Anglicans, who consider themselves descendants of the original, undivided Church) has always looked to them as the teachers in understanding and interpreting the faith. Not only did these men help to formulate in formal, highly sophisticated philosophical and theological language the central teachings of the Christian faith; they were also thoroughly, daily immersed in Scripture (reading, study, meditation, preaching). Their approach to Scripture might shed some important light as faithful Anonymous. Portrait of Origen (c. 182-251). Location Christians still continue to not indicated. Copyright Art Resource, NY. Used with struggle to interpret the Bible in
8
permission.
1. The Church Fathers understood the Bible to be sacred text. While they did not ignore the historical context of the text, the Bible for them was not simply another piece of literature or history to be excavated—a common modern preoccupation. The Fathers’ primary interest was to understand God’s eternal truths as revealed in the biblical text. 2. Even though they took Scripture very seriously, they did not worship the Bible. They understood that Christians are not so much a people of the Book as people of the Word, the Incarnate Word. To be a Christian means to live ever more deeply into the mysteries of God as revealed in Christ. 3. Scripture, then, assists in helping us to live out these mysteries. Scripture is meant to nourish us in the faith. 4. Thus, Scripture never points to itself but always to God. The Bible is simply a tool or a means to lead us to God. 5. Scripture does this by using sacramental language that hides and at the same reveals God. The Church Fathers recognized the limitations of human language in trying to discuss the mystery of God. 6. Scripture assists us in the formation of a uniquely Christian way of life. Scripture is not about collecting all the “correct” information about God or assembling the correct set of morals or ethics. Instead Scripture, or rather immersion in it, shapes and transforms our lives and our very mindsets (see Romans 12:2). This requires a profound humility on the part of the reader to permit God’s truths to challenge and to transform him or her. 7. And, finally, perhaps more importantly, Scripture assists us in reaching our final destiny, which is union with God, according to Origen, the great thirdcentury biblical scholar.
Destiny calls Central, then, for a life of immersion in the Christian faith, the Fathers held, is the reading and interpretation of Scripture. In this they were guided by certain basic principles. 1. For the Fathers there was no Protestant Reformation principle of sola scriptura, or Scripture alone. While Scripture held an important place, the Bible was never the sole authority for the Church Fathers. 2. Scripture was interpreted in light of the Rule of Faith. The —continued on page 9
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
5/27/2005
1:37 PM
Page 10
Crosswalk
P
Pentecost 1, 2005
W
eople of the
ord
Approaches to the Bible——
History, baggage, and (surprise!) kinship By Lisa A. Unterseher
T
he current debates over the authority of the Bible are largely the grandchildren of the twin legacies of the 16th-century Protestant Reformers and their “high” doctrines of Scripture and the rational, historical approach of the 18th-century Enlightenment thinkers. The result has been in our own day a profound polarization over the way in which to interpret Scripture and, thus, its implications for theology in the contemporary setting.
The Bible as “paper pope” During the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, one of the great rallying cries of reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin was sola scriptura, scripture alone. Reacting against the excesses of the late medieval Church and inspired by the Renaissance impulse to return to original, classical sources, the reformers wanted to return to the original source of the faith, the Bible. By asserting the primacy of Scripture they sought to cut through what they perceived as centuries of overgrowth of traditions that had diminished the full glory of the gospel. As Anglican theologian Andrew Louth has noted in Discerning the Mysteries: An Essay on the Nature of Theology (1983), the Bible became now an arsenal for defense of the faith rather than a depository of the mysteries of the faith. Instead of submitting themselves to a human pope in Rome, the Protestant reformers now submitted themselves to the “paper pope” of the Bible. The succeeding generations of the Protestants, during what is known as the period of Protestant Scholasticism, took the primacy of Scripture one step further by crafting highly intricate systems of biblical authority, including “high” doctrines of inspiration and infallibility. With doctrines of Scripture now in place that insisted that the Bible was impervious to all errors—human or scientific—any attempt to undermine the authority of the Bible —continued on page 23 was perceived—and still is—as a threat undermining the Christian faith itself. But that’s only one side of the story.
The [Church] Fathers know best
continued from page 8
Rule of Faith was, in essence, an early version of a creed, with content similar to what for us today is the Apostles’ Creed. The early Rule of Faith contained the core of essential Christian belief: one God who creates; Jesus Christ born of the Virgin Mary; Christ who truly suffers and dies; Christ who truly rises again and will return in glory; and belief in the Holy Spirit—concepts which were worked out with greater theological precision in the Nicene Creed, the product of the ecumenical councils at Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381). 3. The Church Fathers recognized a need for an overarching framework in which to interpret the Bible. The Rule of Faith insisted that the one God who creates (in the Old Testament) is also the same God (in the New Testament) who redeems. Therefore, the Old Testament is inseparably linked with the New Testament; all of Scripture is a unity. 4. Because of this unity, the Church Fathers believed that an interpreter could trace similar themes and ideas across the books of the Bible and across the testaments. Or, to use a very fancy term, there was an intertextuality of the biblical text. One might, for example, read Mark 4:35–41, about Christ calming the storm at sea, and be brought back to Psalm 107, which speaks of God calming the storms and bringing his people safely to harbor. The Fathers interpreted Scripture with Scripture so that they might discern the mind or consensus of Scripture on a particular issue. 5. This intertextuality was crucial not only because it ensured the unity of Scripture but also because all of Scripture pointed to Christ. For these Fathers, Scripture was a rich, inexhaustible treasure chest, out of which one brings “what is
new and what is old” (see Matthew 13:52). Specifically, all of Scripture is designed to reveal Christ; Christ becomes the key to unlocking the whole of the Bible, including the Old Testament. 6. In order to interpret all of Scripture as pointing to Christ, the Fathers needed some kind of method. This method was known as allegory. For example, the story of the crossing of the Red Sea, while it was held to describe an actual historical event, was also seen as an allegory that reveals the profound spiritual realities of Christian baptism. Allegorical language, then, is a means through which God lovingly condescends to communicate with human beings. 7. Because of such figurative language, the Church Fathers recognized that Scripture contains many layers of St. Augustine, by Piero interpretation. There is no one, objective interpretation. della Francesca (c. 14201492). Museu Nacional de (Such, in fact, is a modern concern.) In his great work, De Arte Antiga, Lisbon, Principiis (On First Principles), Origen lays out a threefold Portugal. Copyright Scala approach to interpreting Scripture. One begins with the / Art Resource, NY. Used literal or straightforward meaning of the text but must with permission. probe deeper to discern the moral meaning. And one must dig deeper still to ferret out the spiritual meaning (that is, what does the text —continued on page 26 teach us about God?).
9
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
6/7/2005
10:02 AM
Pentecost 1, 2005
Page 11
Crosswalk
W a n d e r i n g s By Duncan C. Ely
WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE HAVE TO SAY?
The
Bible
Not all who wander are lost. —J. R. R. Tolkien We all find ourselves wandering—roaming or traveling without a settled course—from time to time on our journeys as Christians. Our families and our society teach us that our lives should be purposeful and full of direction, and that wandering implies being aimless. But if we look at our Old Testament heritage, we see that God encourages—even requires—us to wander. Led by Moses and Aaron, the Israelites wandered in the wilderness between their Exodus from Egypt and sight of their Promised Land. God sustained them with manna and water and was ever present during their wanderings toward God to receive the Ten Commandments and away from God to worship a golden calf. Seen in this light, our own wanderings become necessary as Sabbath times and can become periods of reflection and cleansing. Like the Israelites, we question, we find answers, we are afraid, we find peace, we become seduced by our own golden calves, we hear God’s will for us. “Wanderings” is a series of meditations to encourage us to make use of this wandering—this wilderness time—in a productive, reflective, cleansing way and to be open to God’s honing influences.” Look for other “Wanderings” in future Crosswalks.
Wandering through Scripture with an open heart I am not a fan of using the Bible for proofs. —Rabbi Jeremy Rosen Trying to discern God’s will is tricky business! We pray, think, worship, ask others, listen to what the Church tells us, and see what the Bible has to say. We might turn to the sources of Scripture, tradition, and reason/experience. Scripture in one or more of the many versions of the Bible is the primary source and might give a pretty straightforward answer—or it might not. Church tradition can also inform us. And reason/experience—or practical wisdom—can be helpful. We can and should use all of these tools to listen to our Creator’s voice. The danger comes when we think we already know what God wants and we go to the Bible to look for proof to back up our preconceptions. As a genealogist, I often help people discover their ancestors. I work hard at discovering the unknown by starting with the present and wandering back in time. I use primary sources such as birth, marriage, and death certificates, and other sources such as Bible, diary, church, civil, military, and additional records of the era. I uncover ancestors and their lives, generation by generation. I don’t always find the expected. Sometimes the surprises are pleasant and ancestors turn out to be really interesting people—governors, presidents, kings, and queens. Sometimes the surprises are less welcome—one long-lost ancestor I found had been hanged as a horse thief! But discovering the truth, making connections, and fleshing out names and dates so that they connect with real people is rewarding. What I call bad genealogy is a search based on the assumption that someone has a particular ancestor, and then looking for proof that such is the case. Sometimes this happens for easily understandable reasons: a family tradition that remembers famous people; a story told by a great-grandmother; a portrait hanging in the dining room. But that family tradition may have been wishful thinking, more of a family legend; great-grandmother’s story may have been about another family; and the dining room portrait may have been a present from an old family friend generations ago. Hoping to discover Revolutionary War soldiers and kings and queens and trying to force the historical evidence and genealogical documentation to that end will most often result in an incorrect line of descent. What I call bad theology is assuming that God wants us to take a particular position, believe in a certain “truth”; do one thing rather than another . . . and then looking for evidence to back that up. We may end up with pleasant surprises, but we may have discovered our will rather than God’s. Being a Christian is not easy. Being open to God’s will and surprises—wanted or unwanted—is hard. And discerning God’s will is downright tough. But trying to understand what God hopes for us can be rewarding too, as long as we work honestly and diligently at uncovering the unknown. God of the known and unknown, help us understand what you would have us do by freeing us from our will and open us to yours, so that, like your son, Jesus Christ, we can honestly say, “not my will, but yours.” Amen.
10
and Sexuality?
By the Rev. Dr. Theodore N. Swanson
I
n the discussions involving sexuality being held in many Church bodies today, appeal is made to the authority of Scripture. Thus, it is important to know what the Bible actually has to say about what we call sexuality. It is also important to understand that what the Bible says comes from a cultural context completely different from our own.
Sexuality is a modern word, for which there is no biblical Hebrew or Greek equivalent. There is no indication in the Bible of what we today would call sexual identity: heterosexual or homosexual. Sexuality is a modern word, for which there is no biblical Hebrew or Greek equivalent. There is no indication in the Bible of what we today would call sexual identity: heterosexual or homosexual. There are words and phrases to describe sexual activity, words for male and female, and, in addition, gender roles: roles expected of males, roles expected of females. Further, until the coming of the microscope, it was not known that conception occurred with the fertilization of an ovum, supplied by the woman, by a sperm cell, supplied by the man. The Hebrew word that is translated sperm in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible is the word zera‘ (seed, offspring), and conception can be described as a woman being “sown with seed.” The woman is simply the field into which the seed is sown, from whom emerges the offspring. It is the male seed which is the source of life.
Marriage and family in ancient Israel The basic social unit of ancient Israel was the extended family, the household, which lived together in a family compound. Authority rested in the senior male member, who would be the grandfather in a three-generation household consisting of himself, his wife or wives (polygyny was practiced), his sons with their wives and children, unmarried daughters, and slaves. Only as time passed did monogamy became the ideal, perhaps for economic reasons. Marriages were arranged, with economic advantage, not romance, the chief motivation. Marriage was community approval for a couple to live together, have sexual relations, and raise children—hopefully boys. As soon as a girl reached puberty she was eligible to become a bride; the husband was usually 18 or older. A contract was drawn up, specifying the bride price the groom would pay the father of the bride as compensation for the loss of his daughter. The first stage in marriage was betrothal, which could last for as long as a year, and which was as binding as the marriage itself. During this time the bride remained at home with her family with no opportunity for sexual relations. The wedding ceremony itself consisted of the groom and his friends proceeding to the house of the bride and escorting her to the home of the groom with singing and dancing. There were no religious —continued on page 11
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
5/27/2005
1:37 PM
Page 12
Crosswalk The Bible and Sexuality
Pentecost 1, 2005
continued from page 10
rites connected with the marriage; it was, in effect, a civil union, a contractual relationship. As soon as the bride entered the groom’s home, they were considered man and wife.
Biblical double standards The bride was expected to be a virgin; blood upon the sheet was taken as evidence of virginity (Deut. 22:13–21). Should the husband claim that his bride was not a virgin at marriage, but the evidence of the sheet show otherwise, he would be fined 100 shekels of silver, which would be given to the bride’s father, and she would remain his wife with no possibility of his divorcing her. If the woman were found not to be a virgin, the penalty was death by stoning. However, there was no requirement that the groom be a virgin.
Biblical standards for widowhood, adultery, divorce, rape—what we might call "double standards" today. A special institution within Israel was levirate marriage (from the Latin word levir, “brother-in-law”; Deut. 25:5–10). Should the husband die without fathering a son, the husband’s brother was to cohabit with the widow. The first son borne by the widow was to be considered the offspring of the dead man and his heir. Thus the dead man’s name was perpetuated, and the inherited land of the dead man would be preserved within the family. The classic example is the story of Judah and Tamar in Genesis 38. Prostitution existed, but prostitutes were not fully respected persons. A priest was forbidden to marry a harlot (Lev. 21:7). A priest’s daughter who became a harlot was to be burned to death (Lev. 21:9). The law forbade a parent to make a whore out of his daughter (Lev. 19:29). Money earned by harlotry could not be used to pay a vow in the temple (Deut. 23:18). The preference seems to have been for harlots to be foreign women. But a double standard prevailed: there is no law prohibiting an Israelite man from frequenting a prostitute, although, in the book of Proverbs, young men are warned against the practice. In the New
Testament, Paul vehemently declares that our bodies, which are members of Christ, should not be made members of a prostitute (1 Cor. 6:15–16). Adultery, which occurred only if a married woman was involved, was forbidden: it was transgression of the property of another man. If a couple was caught in the act, the penalty for both partners was death (Deut. 22:22; Lev. 20:10). If the woman was betrothed, but not yet married, and a man met her in town and lay with her, both were to be put to death by stoning, the woman, because she did not cry for help (which presumably she would have done if she were being raped), and the man for violating one who was already regarded as the wife of another man (Deut. 22:23-24). However, if this happened in the open country and the couple was caught, only the man would die on the presumption that it was rape and that there was no one to hear the woman’s cries for help (Deut. 22:25–27). If a man were to rape a virgin not yet betrothed, the man would be fined 50 shekels, which would in effect be the bride price, and the woman would become his wife for life; he would not be permitted to divorce her (Deut. 22:28-29). In Numbers 5:11–28 there is a ritual to be employed should a husband suspect his wife of adultery. But there is no ritual for a husband suspected by his wife of adultery with another married woman.
constituted a legitimate ground for divorce. The School of Shammai argued that only the discovery of a wife’s unchastity was a sufficient ground for divorce. The School of Hillel admitted less serious reasons, such as the wife scorching her husband’s food. In the Gospels Jesus treats divorce more seriously than Old Testament law does. In Mark 10:2–9, when asked by Pharisees about the lawfulness of divorce, Jesus refers back in time prior to the law of Moses, which the Pharisees cite, to the beginning of creation, quoting Genesis 1:28, “God made them male and female” and Genesis 2:24, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” To the quotation he adds: “So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Then privately, to his disciples, he adds: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries
another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:11–12). In Luke, Jesus’ teaching is given as: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery (Luke 16:18). In Matthew, Jesus states: “anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Mt. 5:32; . 19:9). Notice that in the second half of the three versions of this saying, only Mark says “if a wife divorces her husband. . . .” Since, in Jewish law, a woman could not divorce a man, it is often suggested that Mark’s version of the saying reflects the tradition’s encounter with the Greco-Roman world, where a woman could divorce her husband. Here is an example of Jesus’ teaching being —continued on page 20
The problem of divorce The prohibition of adultery is reflected in the New Testament also. Indeed, in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus extends adultery from the act to the thought: “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). In the Old Testament divorce is permitted, although it probably was not frequent. Only the man had the power to initiate divorce proceedings; he could do so at any time, and for any reason, with no obligation to provide for the woman’s support following the divorce, other than to give her a written certificate of divorce to permit her to remarry without being accused of adultery. If the woman was divorced from a second husband, she could not remarry the first husband (Deut. 24:1–4). In the first Christian century there was a difference of opinion between rabbinical schools as to what
Our first parents, Adam & Eve. From their story many “Christian” ideas about sexuality have been derived, perhaps most notably St. Augustine’s ideas that sexual desire is sinful and that infants are infected from the moment of conception with the disease of original sin. This anonymous rendition of Adam and Eve is an American folk art painting from the Ricco-Maresca Gallery, New York, NY. Copyright Ricco/Maresca Gallery / Art Resource, NY. Used with permission.
11
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
5/27/2005
Pentecost 1, 2005
1:37 PM
Page 13
Crosswalk
Whose
BIBLE Is It?
Book reviews
(This is not a trick question!) )
Jaroslav Pelikan, Whose Bible Is It? A History of the Scriptures through the Ages. Viking, 2005. Reviewed by the Rev. Canon Mark Clevenger
O
ne of the many joys of reading is that rare occasion when one can connect the words on the page with the voice of the author. When I was a seminarian, every once and a while, Professor Jaroslav Pelikan would make the trek up the hill from the Religious Studies Department to speak to those of us studying at the Divinity School. Even in an academic setting where every week seemed to bring another world renowned personality, Professor Pelikan’s visits were standing-room-only occasions. All of us seemed to know we were in the presence of a historic figure.
Strolling through scriptures Pelikan’s latest book, Whose Bible Is It? A History of the Scriptures through the Ages, does nothing to dispel that appraisal. It is a wonderful distillation of both Christian and Jewish thought regarding the Bible at the beginning of the 21st century. This is not to say, however, that this is a book for scholars alone. On the contrary, Pelikan has provided a very rare opportunity for anyone, with whatever level of learning, to get answers to questions of what Scripture is, where it came from, how it is regarded now, as well as the role it might assume in the future. It is brief, thorough, and voiced as if the reader were invited to take an introductory stroll up and down the
aisles of a well-stocked old hardware store under the guidance of a long-term employee who is as excited about the inventory now as he was 50 years ago. The love, respect, and humility show through.
Much of Christendom continues to rely on the comfort of unasked questions regarding their Bibles; so many are afraid that the path of knowledge leads down a slippery slope that ends with the loss of all religious certainty.
The truth will out If I were so bold as to suggest any changes to Professor Pelikan, it would be only that he consider the title “Whose Bibles Are They?” Just as they taught us in seminary, Pelikan rehearses the hodge podge of events and factors that contributed to the texts commonly referred to as “The Bible” today. In fact, of course, there are a variety of Bibles, with varying books selected for inclusion and a surprising variance in translations. Sadly, saying this can be problematic even now, in the 21st century. Much of Christendom continues to rely on the comfort of un-asked questions regarding their Bibles; so many are afraid that the path of knowledge leads down a slippery slope that ends with the loss of all religious certainty. “The truth will out,” though, eventually, for all of us, in this world or the next; and that truth will set us free—free to experience the richness of a relationship with the Creator of all things that is above and beyond the frail comfort afforded by a simplistic insistence that “the Bible says it, and that’s enough for me.” Why not sample a bit of the fruit of that truth now? Professor Pelikan’s book provides a great starting place. The Rev. Mark Clevenger is diocesan canon for congregations & mission.
“Here comes everybody”—Reimagining the Christian faith Alan Jones. Reimagining Christianity: Reconnect Your Spirit Without Disconnecting Your Mind. John Wiley & Sons, 2004. Reviewed by the Rev. Melvin K. Gray
M
y friends sometimes amaze me with their imaginative ways of providing pastoral support when they sense I am reaching the end of my rope. Recently I was kidnapped by a pack of wild ladies who whisked me off for a lunch hour of bowling and hotdogs—but that’s another story. Eight years ago two friends asked me: “If you could hang out with anybody in the world for a
12
few days, who would you pick?” Not knowing the context of the question, I quickly replied, “There are three people, and two of them died last year—Edwin Friedman and Henri Nouwen—the third is Alan Jones.” They went to work! It turns out that Alan Jones would be leading a seminar at the College of Preachers in Washington, DC, starting within the week. The seminar was full, with a waiting list, but I was a crisis case, and they had a credit card ready, so I was registered. A plane ticket was provided, the calendar was cleared at my parish in Houston, Texas, and off I went to spend time with Jones, the dean of Grace Cathedral, San Francisco, and talk about the importance of poetry and imagination in preaching. All this by way of caveat: as I review Alan
Jones’s most recent book, Reimagining Christianity: Reconnect Your Spirit without Disconnecting Your Mind, do not expect an unbiased viewpoint.
Exiting decadence, practicing art
The author describes his purpose early on: “I believe that the way out of our decadence is to recover the life of the imagination and to see the religious impulse as natural to us.” “This book,” he explains, “is about Christianity, its expression in symbols and stories, and how its practice can be redefined as art.” His concern is for people “who have an extremely uneasy relationship with religion, if they have one at all. I have often seen the light go out in someone’s eyes when they learn that I am a priest, simply because their
experience of religion has been of the hating or mindless sort. . . . These are the people to whom this book is addressed. . . . ” Jones speaks as well to believers—those of us who are still very much part of the institutional Church who share some of the same dismay when confronted by hateful or mindless expressions of Christianity. Part of the problem, Jones holds, is a tribal approach to religion—an approach shaped by fear, hemmed in by literalism (in what Walter Brueggemann terms a “prose flattened world”), seeking certainty rather than the mystery of faith. He longs for the kind of Church suggested by the phrase from James Joyce’s Finnigans Wake: “Here comes everybody”—a catholic, or universal, Church that does not yet exist. —continued on page 27
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
5/27/2005
1:38 PM
Page 14
Crosswalk
Pentecost 1, 2005
Engaging the Bible as narrative . . .
The story that changes lives By the Rev. Timothy Dombek
A
ny one of us who has grown up going to church (either the Episcopal Church or another denomination before finding our way “home”) remembers learning Bible stories in Sunday school: the Creation story (usually only one, not both of them), Adam and Eve in the Garden, the Tower of Babel (one of my favorites), Noah and the Ark, Abraham and Isaac, Jacob and Esau, and about 15 or 20 others—maybe more, depending on your teacher and the denomination. Some of our favorites were no doubt stories told by Jesus himself—the parables. Many of us know the stories from those Sunday school days pretty well and could probably tell them to another with great fidelity to the texts. Bible stories are one of the greatest gifts the Church gives to its adults and children, for humans are creatures shaped by stories.
The biblical narrative Little did we know that our Sunday school teachers were giving us a grounding in the biblical narrative—that God created the world, and all therein, and that God constantly and consistently pursues humankind with unconditional love and freely given grace. (We humans tend to be a little slow on getting that part; but God never gives up on us.) When we look at the Bible stories themselves, compiled from disparate parts of the ancient Near East, in multiple genres, with different writing styles and objectives, it is amazing to consider that a common narrative thread exists at all. For Holy Scripture is not a single book, but a hand-held library of books, a third —continued on page 19 of which Jesus and his disciples never had at their disposal!
Living the Questions, a 12-week DVD and Web-based small group program of Christian invitation, initiation, and spiritual formation from www.livingthequestions.com.
Faith is not a destination but a journey . . .
Reviewed by Nancy Boyle
F
aith is not a destination but a journey: So begins lesson one of Living the Questions, a new smallgroup program designed to provide an alternative to the evangelically oriented Alpha Course. When I first saw the advertisement for Living the Questions I was intrigued by the title as well as the presenters. Living the questions—of the Baptismal Covenant and beyond— for me is the Anglican way of faith The course is also advertised as “unapologetically progressive,” and I wanted to see what this meant. Certainly the format is current. It is presented as a 12-week DVD (I had to borrow a player from my grandson) and Web-based small-group program of Christian invitation, initiation, and spiritual formation.
No easy answers The authors are Jeff ProcterMurphy and David Felten, both United Methodist pastors with more than 40 years of local church ministry, who created the program to help
people wrestle with questions for which there are no easy answers but which stimulate exciting possibilities for practicing the Christian faith today. The introduction to the course says: “People know that at its core, Christianity has something good to offer the human race. At the same time, many have a sense that they are alone in being a ‘thinking’ Christian. What is needed is a safe environment where people have permission to ask the questions they always wanted to ask but have been afraid to voice for fear of being thought a heretic. Living the Questions explores beyond the traditions and rote theologies in which so many people and local churches seem to be stuck.” A resource for “seekers and ‘church alumni/ae’ alike,” its aim is to nurture discovery of “the significance of Christianity in the 21st century and what a meaningful faith looks like in today’s world.” Each session includes conversations with leading theologians, church leaders, sociologists, and biblical scholars, including Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, Bishop John Shelby Spong, and others. The presentations
are attractive and clear. The course format allows time to stop and discuss each one. The printed material provided to participants is excellent. There is also facilitator’s material, an orientation lesson, and session material, organized by theme, all on the Internet to be downloaded by the leader.
Journeying forth Some of the titles for the 12 weeks are: Thinking Theologically; Creativity and Stories of Creation Evil and a God of Love: The Place of Suffering; Lives of Jesus; Compassion: The Heart of Jesus’ Ministry; Out into the World: Challenges Facing Progressive Christianity. Again the titles intrigued me, and I was ready to be challenged by each one. Here are two excerpts from the session materials that caught my attention. In the 1920’s a highly publicized battle flared up between the mainstream church and what had become known as the Fundamentalists. . . . One of America’s great preachers, Harry Emerson Fosdick, preached the
sermon “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?’ in an effort to stir people to action. He was worried that if the mainline church didn’t do more to educate its people about the metaphorical and mythological origins of scripture, we would lose our ‘brightest and best’ young people. He was right. The theme of journey is a developing metaphor for people, allowing for diversity of experience, orienting people in a common direction. What elements of the concept of ‘Journey’ make a vital faith experience?”
Being a person on the journey, I look forward to participating in this course. Christian formation consultant and teacher Nancy Boyle is a member of Trinity Cathedral, Columbia.
13
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
5/27/2005
Pentecost 1, 2005
1:38 PM
Page 15
Crosswalk
Anglicanism today. . . Find it in The Windsor Report.
Have we remembered, forgotten, ignored, or resisted the 82nd Diocesan Convention mandate, presented in a resolution by St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, Columbia: … to persist in continually preparing the membership of the Episcopal Church in our diocese biblically and theologically to participate in the issues delineated in The Windsor Report and … to direct the Bishop and the Diocesan Executive Council to construct and establish schedules for forums that will allow for ongoing biblical and theological learning?
Using the report as a formation resource By the Rev. Dr. Philip Whitehead
A reminder The Windsor Report (WR) of the Lambeth Commission, established by the Archbishop of Canterbury largely in response to conflicts arising from General Convention 2003, examines and reports on the legal and theological implications of the election and consecration of an openly gay bishop in the United States, and on the authorization by a diocese of the Anglican Church of Canada of a public rite for blessing for same-sex unions.
The intent of the report WR was never intended to be a condemnation of the actions of particular provinces or dioceses of the North American church. Nor was it intended to pass judgment upon individuals. The Lambeth Commission’s chair, Archbishop Robin Eames, writes that the report “is part of a pilgrimage towards healing and reconciliation.” The purpose of the report is to understand the nature of the Anglican Communion—what it is and how it maintains unity and communion as each of its members attempts to interpret Christ’s “radical holiness and agape love” to which we are called in our diverse cultures. The intent of the report is to understand the Anglican Communion, to meet the challenge of maintaining its unity in the face of postmodern influences, and to define Communion in character with the ethos of historic Anglicanism.
Where do we begin? Let us begin where the bishop of our diocese has begun. Bishop Henderson writes in a statement issued February 16, 2005: “The Windsor Report is the finest thumbnail description of Anglicanism I have read.” We take this to mean that the
14
WR may be used as a valuable educational resource for Episcopalians in this diocese. Several congregations in the diocese are using WR as a teaching instrument for thinking historically, biblically, and theologically about the authority of Scripture and of the Church. Gatherings of clergy have done the same, inviting individuals to speak on certain aspects of WR and then to engage in open conversation. In response to the resolution of the 82nd Convention, opportunities for study and discussion of WR are already under way in Upper South Carolina. The May 14 Leadership Conference in Greenville, part one of the 83rd Diocesan Convention, offered a presentation and workshop on WR entitled “Identity, Grace, and the Human Condition (The Windsor Report).” The diocesan School for Ministry (see the related article on page 15) is offering, in both Midlands and Upstate locations, “What Is Anglicanism,” a course that includes a thorough overview of Anglican history, with emphasis on the American church, and an in-depth study of WR.
Suggestions for further response to WR, as congregations or individuals 1. Sunday morning or afternoon, or week night, discussion in which WR is summarized. Visit the diocesan Web site, www.edusc.org, to download study guides for personal or group use or for distribution to all church members as newsletter or bulletin inserts. Production of a Power Point presentation is also under way. 2. The diocesan Web site (www.edusc.org) is also offering an interactive feature that allows you to “Ask an expert” questions you might have about Anglicanism, the Episcopal
Church in the USA, The Windsor Report, and read the questions (posted anonymously, of course) of others, and answers to those queries. 3. The Rev. Dr. Philip Whitehead will be available on a limited basis for leading evening sessions in congregations to offer the opportunity for studying WR. Contact him at phw@sc.rr.com.
Topics and issues for discussion suggested by WR Here are some suggestions for using WR to stimulate biblical and theological topics discussion in your congregation: 1. Imagine and implement an adult session (ages 16+) that brainstorms around the question, What do the society and culture around us know about the Church as the Body of Christ in the world? 2. What are the essential guidelines for moral discourse? This is an incredibly important aspect of what WR is all about. In an age of blame and judgment, lines-drawn-in-the-sand, and traditional bonds of friendship giving way to enmity at the table, how do we return to the full, rich, comprehensive meaning of Communion as it is understood by the Gospel? (Note that the group appointed to produce WR is officially called The Lambeth Commission on Communion). 3. By what authority? (Discuss the following as sources of real or imagined authority in the Anglican Communion.) The Four Instruments of Unity: The Archbishop of Canterbury The Anglican Primates The Lambeth Conference The Anglican Consultative Council 4. On ecclesiology—What is the nature of the Church?
5. How do we understand the authority of bishops? 6. Now, let’s confront the Elephant in the Room—Forum topics: The authority of Scripture Interpreting Scripture—The Real Issue Scripture and Sex The nature of marriage Relationships vs. Winners and Losers 7. Hooker, Hookers, and Hookey—A conversation about absenteeism from adult Christian formation on Christ and culture. 8. Study and discuss the recommendations of WR. (See WR, page 90, for a listing with page numbers.)
References and recommended reading for discussion The appendix material in The Windsor Report: 2004, pp. 61–87. Borg, Marcus J. The Heart of Christianity, Harper Collins, 2003. Bryan, Christopher. And God Spoke: The Authority of the Bible for the Church Today. Cowley Publications, 2002. Cox, Harvey. When Jesus Came to Harvard, Houghton Mifflin, 2004. Thomas, O. C. & Wondra, E. K., Introduction to Theology, Morehouse, 2002. The Rev. Dr. Philip Whitehead, retired priest of the diocese, served for many years as rector of St. Michael & All Angels, Columbia, and is a regular on the faculty for the diocesan School for Ministry. Download The Windsor Report via our diocesan Web site, www.edusc.org. Visit the diocesan Web site (www.edusc.org) for an interactive Q & A on Anglicanism, ECUSA, and/or The Windsor Report. Follow the link on the home page and “ask an expert” to answer whatever questions you might have.
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
5/27/2005
1:38 PM
Page 16
Crosswalk
Getting the
SCOOP on
Scriptuat r. e. . The School for Ministry By Duncan C. Ely
A
s Christians, as Anglicans and Episcopalians, we struggle to discern God’s will for us generally as we journey through life and specifically as we encounter situations that require important decisions. So we turn to the Bible for answers. Here is how three students of the diocesan School for Ministry students use Scripture to guide them.
Ron Gregory I hope more people will look at Scripture in ways that will help us move forward in love and dialog, rather than get stuck in some fixed interpretation. Ron Gregory came from the Baptist church as a teenager and is now a parishioner at Christ Church, Greenville. He is a financial consultant who advises business owners. He has studied the Bible on several different levels and is familiar with different types of scriptural criticism. Originally he was what he says his parents would call a fundamentalist. Participating in a formal class offered by our diocesan School for Ministry allowed him to revisit Scripture and its message.
Revisiting Scripture For Gregory, studying Scripture has allowed him to be more inclusive. He was looking, he says, for a cohesive
journey back through the Scripture, so he enrolled in the School for Ministry to take Bible I and II with the Rt. Rev. Rogers S. Harris (retired Bishop of Southwest Florida and Assisting Bishop in Upper South Carolina) and Bible III and IV with the Rt. Rev. Charles Duvall (retired Bishop of the Central Gulf Coast and Assisting Bishop in Upper South Carolina). “I was really pleased with the way my School for Ministry classes worked out, although I really didn’t know what I was getting into,” he says. “All of us were there for the common purpose of exploring the Bible together in a structured Anglican setting.” Gregory explains that several factors combined to make the classes work: the instructors; the leadership; the open nature of the dialog and inquiry, which came from a variety of perspectives; the fact that everyone had some grounding in, and a level of comfort with, faith and Scripture. “The content of the classes really pushed everyone—students and instructors—to keep the broader picture in mind and do so in an in-depth study,” he remembers. A high point for Gregory was the study of Isaiah, which, he says, “really illuminated my understanding and allowed me to make connections and realize things I never saw before.” Gregory sees Scripture as “amorphous”: “Everyone has a copy of the Bible and can read it, but everyone’s perspective is so different.” According to Gregory, “That difference
is how we view the authority of Scripture.” He feels that the current controversy over the ordination of an openly gay man, the Rev. Canon Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire should be an opportunity and source for dialog and renewed study by people of diverse viewpoints. He points out that part of that opportunity should be bringing the human experience and thought process into the study of Scripture, rather than just accepting someone else’s viewpoint.
Marilyn Jenkins Scripture has authority because it is the Word of God. It is inspired by God and its authority is derived from its nature as a communication from God to the people of God.
Pentecost 1, 2005
Marilyn Jenkins, a native Nebraskan, is a lay person, but she may seek ordination to the priesthood through the Diocese of Nebraska after she retires from the Air Force in a few years. At present she is a Lieutenant Colonel and an Intelligence Officer stationed at Fort Gordon in Augusta, Georgia, and has served in many places including Germany, Greece, Iraq, Japan, and Korea. She attends Saint Paul’s in Augusta. Discussing her vocation with her vestry and with the Diocese of Nebraska prompted her to seek additional religious education, so she searched the Internet, found Upper South Carolina’s School for Ministry, and enrolled in classes. She took Bible I and II (Old Testament) from the Rev. Dr. Theodore N. Swanson, and Bible III and IV from Dr. Ginger Barfield. Both Swanson and Barfield are on the faculty at Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary in Columbia. “We students didn’t know what to think of Professor Barfield at first or even what to expect from her, since she was a Baptist. But she was a very good instructor and we all took a lot away from her classes.” Jenkins says that Barfield encouraged her students to look at passages of Scripture in context, using cultural, historical, and theological criticism rather than simply interpreting passages literally.
“All things necessary” Jenkins says she believes that the Bible contains “all things necessary” for salvation. “So I read the Bible in that context,” she says. “The biblical story doesn’t begin and end, but still continues,” she adds; “we still read the Gospel and talk about its relevance for us even after two thousand years.” “I do not believe there are things in the Bible one can interpret literally,” Jenkins says. She adds, “For me the —continued on page 22
The Rev. Rilla Holmes checks out her notes as the “Spiritual Formation and Theological Reflection” begins in the Upstate, at Advent, Spartanburg.
15
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
5/27/2005
Pentecost 1, 2005
1:38 PM
Page 17
Crosswalk Profile
BODY
P • A• R• T• S
Chapel Holy Spirit of the
at Still Hopes
families, and staff. Kinyon says, “I encourage people to The Chapel of the Holy get back to their Spirit at The South Carolina Episcopal home churches as Home at Still Hopes; P.O. Box 2959, much as they can. West Columbia, SC 29171; But, the fact that we 803.796.6490; www.sceh.org. have no steps for Chaplain: The Rev. Wayne Kinyon. people who need to use walkers makes One Still Hopes Drive, our chapel especially just off Knox Abbott Drive in West Chapel of the Holy Spirit, dedicated by Bishop Henderson in 1997 attractiive. So they Columbia, a short distance across the (photo by Pam Steude) come here for that reason.” Just slightly river from downtown Columbia’s and Thursday services and visiting less than half of the residents are amenities and services. residents. Lay readers usually led Episcopalians, with Methodists, worship on Sundays. Baptists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans In 1958 Dr. Jane Bruce In the mid-1990s work began on a following in that order. Guignard bequeathed the plantation separate chapel for the staff, residents, The Rev. Pete Cassidy, pastor at called Still Hopes, along with its lovely and families of Still Hopes, and in State Street Baptist Church, comes Victorian house, to Trinity Episcopal September 1997 Bishop Henderson every Monday afternoon at 3:00 p.m. Church (now Columbia’s Trinity dedicated the Chapel of the Holy Episcopal Cathedral) for the purpose of Spirit. Two years later Still Hopes called to do “Monday School,” a ongoing Bible study that starts with Genesis and serving as a place for senior ministry. In its first full-time chaplain, the Rev. goes right through to Revelation. When 1977 the Episcopal Dioceses of South Wayne Kinyon, who has been serving the cycle is completed the course starts Carolina and Upper South Carolina ever since. With Kinyon, Still Hopes over again. established Still Hopes as a non-profit received not only a priest who had Tuesday is a busy day at Still retirement residence. The current served as a vicar and rector but also a Hopes. This is the day that Chaplain number of residents in Still Hopes’s 25 board-certified (healthcare) chaplain. Kinyon rolls out the portable altar (a cottages, 35 apartments, and other “This job at Still Hopes combines the facilities is 200. However, this number responsibilities of a parish parson and a table on four wheels), complete with a will double in 2005 when an additional hospital chaplain,” says Kinyon. To cross and candlesticks, to make the 125 apartments will be completed. rounds of sections of Still Hopes, become a board-certified chaplain one For many years, residents of Still including the two Alzheimer’s/Dementia must graduate from college and Hopes worshiped in a room in the units, whose residents may be unable to seminary and be ordained. Then there main house which had been converted attend worship services in the chapel. is an equivalent to another 12 months into a chapel. During the early years of of study under a chaplain supervisor. The residents receive a 20- to 25Still Hopes, the Rev. James Kenneth minute worship service complete with The Chapel of the Holy Spirit is Morris served as the first part-time music, Bible readings, and Holy considered by the diocese to be an chaplain, from August 1980 until unorganized mission, meaning that it is Eucharist. Kinyon says, “Sometimes January 1987. The Rev. E. Hopkins neither a mission nor a parish; it is a we see more people on Tuesday (“Hop”) Weston followed Morris as chapel in a special setting. The Sunday mornings than we do on Sunday part-time chaplain, serving for 12 years, morning service congregation averages morning.” until 1999, mainly offering Tuesday about 50 people—residents, their On the second and the fourth Tuesday of each month at 11:15 there Chaplain Kinyon’s fantasy is to have choirs from churches is a devotional service in the chapel, which is usually not presided over by from the greater Columbia area or beyond come to Still an Episcopal priest but a minister of Hopes once a month, on a Sunday evening, for Evensong. some other denomination who rotates Interested choirs please apply!! Call the Rev. Wayne through on a schedule. The incentive Kinyon at 803.739.5033 or e-mail wkinyon@sceh.org. to these visiting ministers is the invitation to lunch at Still Hopes.
By Pam Steude
Who:
Where:
When:
16
There are no longer regularly scheduled Thursday morning services, as there have been in the past, except on special days such as the Feast of the Ascension. However, every quarter a memorial service is held to remember any person related to Still Hopes— staff, resident, friend, or simply someone on the prayer list— who has died in the past three months. Part of the Still Hopes chaplain’s job is to visit those in the hospital, as is true for any parish priest. As Kinyon says, “There is a rare time when we don’t have anybody in the hospital. It’s not unusual to have people in two or three or four different hospitals. And even if the person’s home church is at a distance like New York State, for instance, I, nevertheless, call there and say, ‘I know you can’t visit, but please put this person on your prayer list.’”
A moveable feast: Chaplain Wayne Kinyon and volunteer Bob Brooks from All Saints, Cayce, administer communion as they make their Tuesday rounds (photo by Pam Steude).
On Maundy Thursday as the Still Hopes Board of Trustees met for Eucharist before their meeting, a Daughters of the King banner was blessed by suffragan bishop from the Diocese of South Carolina, the Rt. Rev. William Skilton. At the same time six needlepoint kneelers made to go around the altar by Still Hopes resident Jack Williams were blessed by Bishop —continued on page 18
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
5/27/2005
1:38 PM
Page 18
Crosswalk
Pentecost 1, 2005
O
pinion—Thoughts on the Bishop’s Appeal
Editor's note: In April, Bishop Henderson issued an appeal asking that "each household in Upper South Carolina make an immediate gift of ten dollars for each member of the household for the purpose of financing the ministries presently eliminated from or significantly inhibited in our Statement of Mission 2005." "[T]hirteen congregations in our diocese have declined," Bishop Henderson explained, "to accept their fair share of financial support of the Statement of Mission for 2005. Some declined for reasons associated with the economy. Others specifically witheld support by action of the Vestry, and/or by giving parishioners the option of withholding support, as a means of expressing opposition to actions of General Convention 2003." The resulting shortfall is $411,891. Two writers, one clergy, one lay, share their thoughts on the Bishop's Appeal. (For an update on the Appeal, see page 22).
Are we l sing ur marbles?
On U$ING money as a weapon By the Rev. Eric Schnaufer
M
oney in our society is a powerful means of control. It is a favorite tool employed to manipulate people and nations. We use money to buy support and to punish our opponents. Money has long been a tool and weapon also used in the Church. We may shake our heads today when we read about medieval families buying
power and influence in the Church, including the papacy itself—and yet turn around and try to do the same today.
Buying and selling power by using money as a weapon . . . is a poor way to “speak truth in love.”
In April those of you on the mailing list of Crosswalk received a letter from Bishop Henderson concerning the current financial crises in the diocese created by 13 churches not accepting their full fair share of support for our common ministry together. In some of these churches there are extenuating circumstances that prevent them from being able fully to support the diocese financially at this time, but in many cases, failure to
support comes from people and congregations using money as a weapon to control. People can and should legitimately study, debate, and, when necessary, openly disagree on issues, making use of the open and democratic channels provided by our Church. Buying and selling power by using money as a weapon, however, is a poor way to “speak truth in love.” —continued on page 26
A letter to the Bishop
Three generations act from the heart
Dear Bishop Henderson:
W
e have received your letter of appeal and it has laid a heavy burden on my heart to see how devastating the lack of pledges is affecting our church. I
We have had passionate discussions in our household over the National Church and now your appeal letter. We have a broad range of opinions because the ages in our household of five span from 12 to 72. All except one are lifelong Episcopalians.
myself have not pledged but am tithing faithfully through the Minister’s Discretionary Fund. I feel that way I am supporting the church and leave it upon our minister to decide the best use of my contribution. We have had passionate discussions in our household over the National Church and now your appeal letter. We have a broad range of opinions because the ages in our household of five span from 12 to 72. All except one are lifelong Episcopalians. The eldest is very conservative in regards to the National Church and the situation has been very painful to her. I believe she is more fearful than anything else. She feels she will be personally held accountable when the time comes and questioned why did she support the actions. Unfortunately, the only tool she and others her age may have is their money. —continued on page 26
17
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
5/27/2005
Pentecost 1, 2005
1:38 PM
Page 19
Crosswalk
From the Bishop’s desk
continued from page 2
[W]hile the Bible is the record of God’s revelation, it is Jesus who is God’s revelation—the full and perfect manifestation of God.
What does the Bible mean to me? This question circumscribes a favorite method of studying the Bible and applying it in and to our lives. It is an effective method—but it must be utilized within a wider context. We ask the personal question only after we research and understand what the Bible, or a section thereof, means to the Church. And that involves even further information: what were the circumstances of the community of God when the particular scripture was written?—what specific issue (or issues) was/were being addressed?—and, therefore, what did it mean to the people who first heard it?—and what has the Church learned about this reading through 2,000 years of experience under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Reading the Scripture outside of these contexts easily leads to misunderstanding and, therefore, misapplication. The more we know about the Bible, its human authorship, and the circumstance of its origin, the more we know what the Bible means not only to the people of God corporately, but how to bring it to bear accurately upon our individual lives and how we live them. There is still another context in which any portion of the Bible must be read if one is to understand God’s Holy
Word—and that is the context of the entire work. The Old Testament covers a period of approximately 2,000 years. We are not surprised that during that extended time God’s people were advancing not just through stages of civilization, but also advancing in their knowledge and understanding of God. For example, the adventurous accounts of the life of David reflect conceptions of an angry God wreaking vengeance when His will was thwarted. But over the next 500 years, those conceptions gave way to a picture of God yearning over His people (see Hosea and “Second” Isaiah). Our Lord made corrections: “You have heard it said that you shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies.” Although many do it, it is inappropriate to pull verses (especially from the Old Testament) and use them, standing alone, as authority when they are inconsistent with a reading of the entire Bible.
The need to study God’s Word—Written and Living— is urgent, for the sake of the Church corporately and for Christians individually . . . . As Bishop Wilson expresses it: “[A]rtificial editing [of the Bible] . . . would mean the manufacture of a new religion. But the religion of the Christian is already settled in Jesus Christ. [Christian] faith is not in a book but in a Person. The Bible is a mosaic presenting the picture of Christ set off by its Old Testament background. Additions or subtractions are not helpful to the picture. This is not to say that you must gaze with similar
The Chapel of the Holy Spirit at Still Hopes
devotion at every stone in the mosaic, or that you are to count them all of equal significance. You can be a very good Christian if you never read some parts of the Bible (the lists of Joshua’s warriors, for example, or of David’s) but all are needed for the complete picture. . . . ”
Why do we call the Holy Scripture the Word of God? How do we understand the meaning of the Bible? These questions are answered briefly in the Catechism (Book of Common Prayer, pp. 853–854). They are also addressed, directly or indirectly, in this Crosswalk. Still other questions press upon us. What is the significance, in terms of biblical interpretation, of the fact that the Church existed prior to the canonization of Scripture (that is, before it was decided what books would make up the Bible)—and that it was the Church who, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, made those decisions? What deeper lessons from, and revelation about, God do we miss when we insist on a literal interpretation of all of Scripture (for example, when Jesus said, “I am the gate . . .”, or “I am the vine . . .)? What is the risk in searching for symbolic or historical meaning? How do we know when to apply which test: literal, symbolic, historical?
Get serious about it. The Bible has been studied by the best minds of the ages; and these questions, and others, have been addressed in countless works sufficiently numerous to fill many libraries. The need to study God’s Word—Written and Living—is urgent,
for the sake of the Church corporately and for Christians individually—which is why, in my second or third convention address—I urged a “return to holy basics.” I repeat that appeal. Get serious about it. (The Church is serious—that’s why the lectionary of the BCP provides for daily readings as part of our rule of life by a formula which, if followed, leads us through almost 100 percent of the Bible over a period of two years.) If your clergy are not providing appropriate opportunities for study, plead with them to do so; they are skilled teachers—and there are others available in every congregation. If references to the works of biblical scholars are desired, your clergy and/or the Rev’d Canon Phil Purser, my assistant for Christian Formation, will be delighted to provide them. Courses in our School for Ministry are available. Education for Ministry (EFM) is another highly effective method of study. The Collect for what is informally called “Bible Sunday” (Sunday closest to November 16, BCP, p. 236) collects together the need to study Scripture and, simultaneously, to grasp and cling firmly to the blessed hope that God has given us in the Living Word—the person of Jesus Christ our Savior: “Blessed Lord, who caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: Grant us so to hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which you have given us in our Savior Jesus Christ….” Faithfully,
Upper South Carolina VII
continued from page 16
Henderson. “We have a good altar guild and it’s very interesting because obviously people of this age bracket have some limitations. Some can’t lift; some can’t see very well, and so on. And they pair off and work as teams and they complement each other and get the job done. I could be the envy of many a rector for the quality of the altar guild I have,” Kinyon says. Kinyon has another group of worship helpers/volunteers who are lectors, Eucharistic ministers, and acolytes—mostly from outside Still Hopes from various Episcopal churches in the area. There is also a “non-traditional” ushers’ group composed mostly of women because women outnumber men 10 to 1 at Still Hopes. Also active at Still Hopes are the Daughters of the King, which meets the first Monday of every month, the Chapel Committee that is an advisory committee to Chaplain Kenyon, and numerous volunteer musicians, residents, and lay people from outside Still Hopes who help with worship services, including Chaplain Kinyon’s wife, Carolyn, who plays the violin, piano, and organ. The Chapel of the Holy Spirit has a 154-year-old organ on permanent loan from St. Luke’s, Newberry. Kinyon says, “We’re very blessed to have such a chapel as this. You’d have to look far and wide to find anything to match it.” Pam Steude, former editor of Crosswalk, is a member of St. Francis of Assisi, Chapin.
18
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
6/7/2005
9:33 AM
Page 20
Crosswalk
Pentecost 1, 2005
Engaging the Bible as narrative . . . continued from page 13 The Hebrew scriptures of the Old Testament were the scriptures that Jesus and his disciples knew, mostly from hearing them read in temple or house worship. The books that we know as the New Testament didn’t find their final form and shape until the fourth century. Even then several books that many late-first-century and secondcentury churches considered authoritative “didn’t make the cut,” so to speak (The Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, and the Epistle of Barnabas, for example). The Gospel of Thomas, discovered in the middle of the last century, probably was not included among the canonical Gospels for the very reason that it didn’t contain a complete narrative of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but was only a collection of a few stories about him and many of his sayings—several of which are found in the canonical Gospels.
Bible stories work better when told out loud than they do when they are simply read from the written page. It brings a whole new perspective to Scripture. . . . The sayings and stories of canonical and non-canonical gospels alike were first preserved orally, and recited to the community of faith long before they were ever written down. This is a key thing to remember when studying the Bible as narrative—that the stories work better when told out loud than they do when they are simply read from the written page. It brings a whole new perspective to Scripture to hear and ponder it as narrative and not just prose.
Five key areas How does one study the Bible from a narrative perspective, so that we can see how it works and understand what it means? A simple rule of thumb involves paying attention to five key areas of a particular story, a Gospel as a whole, or an epic story in the scriptures (such as the story of Abraham or Jacob, or the Joseph cycle): narrator, setting, plot, characters, and rhetoric. These are the five aspects.
Narrator Whose voice is telling the story? What is the storyteller’s point of view? What does the storyteller believe and what manner of address or storytelling technique is employed in the telling? These questions (among others) tell us about who is telling the story—the narrator. With this we begin to see the author’s point of view.
Setting Where does this story take place? What is the social world of the audience, what view of the cosmos is operating here, what is its temporal and spatial context? Like visiting the land itself, understanding the setting of a biblical story is critical. For instance, how does the fact that everyone mentioned in the Bible believed the earth to be flat affect some of the stories we read? Where is Jerusalem physically located in relation to Galilee? How does that have an impact on the story?
Plot The plot unwinds in a series of events whose sequence includes surprises, unexpected turns, and resolutions or conclusions. Think of the story of the woman with the flow of blood in Luke. She sneaks up behind Jesus, touches his cloak, and is healed. This story interrupts another story, that of Jesus going to heal the sick daughter of a leader of the synagogue—why does Luke do that? How does his nesting of these stories have an impact on the plot and overall plan of his telling of the Gospel story?
Characters There can be no story without characters—the most interesting element of biblical narratives, for we see ourselves in them so readily. What motives do they possess? What drives them? What role or place do they have in their culture or society? How do they relate to one another? And most important, what changes take place in them because of the action in the story? Think of the disciples after the resurrection. A rule of Bible study I learned years ago is to consider oneself as Peter in the Gospels, and in the Hebrew scriptures we should see ourselves as Jacob. How am I like Peter; like Jacob? A bit simplistic, perhaps, but certainly one step toward a
narrative analysis and understanding of the text. Never forget, either, that Jesus is a character in the story, too, and not above it. Compare Jesus in John and Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. Is this the same guy? Look it up.
Rhetoric Finally, there is the rhetoric: what does this narrative do to the listeners— or to the readers, in our case? What is the narrator’s goal for the readers of the story? How does the story persuade us? More important, what does the story persuade us to do? Think of the “first ending” of John’s Gospel: “But these [things] are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God, and through believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:30b). That seems pretty clear for John; did it work for your, dear reader? Look at the endings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke; what do these narrators want from us?
I love to tell the story I have found using the narrative approach to Bible study to be transformative in my life, as has been the discipline of learning to tell Bible stories by heart. These activities discourage literalistic and legalistic ways of seeing the scriptures and show them to be the ever-living, life-giving record
"The Storytelling Bishop," the Rt. Rev. Charles F. Duvall, delights a group with one of his lively Bible story renditions. Bishop Duvall, retired from the Diocese of Central Gulf Coast, living in Columbia and assisting Bishop Henderson with episcopal visitations in the diocese, has been a storyteller all his life. "Stories can make a point," he says, "that a didactic presentation cannot. And everyone, from six-year-olds to nonagenarians, can enter the story at his or her own level."
of human encounters with the God who pursues humans. Studying the Bible this way changes lives and lasts a lifetime, for the stories never grow old, only deeper in power and meaning. May the power of biblical narrative change the way you choose to live each day, as it has for me. Biblical storyteller Timothy Dombek is rector of St. James, Greenville.
SOURCES/RESOURCES FOR TELLING THE STORY Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel, by David Rhoads, Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie. The Art of Biblical Narrative (on the Hebrew scriptures), by Robert Alter. Thinking in Story: Preaching in a Post-Literate Age, by Richard Jensen. Keepers of the Story: Oral Traditions in Religion, by Megan McKenna and Tony Cowan.
19
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
6/7/2005
10:00 AM
Pentecost 1, 2005
Page 21
Crosswalk
The Bible and Sexuality . . . continued from page 11 adapted to a different culture, even within Scripture itself. Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 provide an “exception clause”: “whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.” The Greek word translated “unchastity,” porneia, can be used to refer to any kind of sexual intercourse prohibited by Jewish law; here it probably refers to the woman’s adultery. It is this Matthean form of Jesus’ teaching that has, in the past, formed the basis of legislation in the western world, with one person having to be the “guilty party” in order for the divorce to be granted. Other forbidden behaviors include incest; Leviticus 18:6–18 lists all those whose nakedness a man is not to uncover. Bestiality is forbidden to both men and women (Exod. 22:19; Deut. 27:21; Lev. 18:23); the penalty is death, including the death of the animal (Lev.20:15–16).
“Abomination” There is no biblical word for homosexuality (the word was coined in 1869). As stated earlier, there is nothing in the Bible of what we know today as sexual identity. What we do have is the description of or the prohibition of specific sexual acts involving the same sex: homoerotic behavior. In the Old Testament, such descriptions or prohibitions involve only males; there is nothing in the Old Testament that is said about what we would call lesbianism. Two similar stories in Genesis 19 and Judges 19 have been interpreted as examples of male homosexuality. Yet, to characterize the men of Sodom and of Gibeah as homosexual in orientation is
20
probably wrong. What is involved here is male rape, an expression of dominance to humiliate strangers or conquered foes. The two specific prohibitions in the Old Testament are in Leviticus: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (18:22) and “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them” (20:13). The word abomination (to‘ebah) is a word often used of cultic activity associated with the worship of foreign gods. The question has therefore been raised whether this prohibition is directed against a disapproved cultic activity, “temple prostitution.” Temple prostitution is prohibited in Deuteronomy 23:17–18, where both male and female temple prostitutes are named; Hosea 4:14 speaks of female temple prostitutes. These passages are usually taken as evidence of Canaanite fertility religious practices having persisted after the Israelite settlement of the land of Canaan, perhaps with such practices even being absorbed into the worship of Yahweh, especially in the northern kingdom. If the male temple prostitutes served men, not women (something not known for sure), perhaps Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 prohibit this cultic practice. Other possible reasons for prohibition of a man lying with a male are cited in later Jewish sources. One is that in this situation procreation is impossible, and seed is being squandered. Another is that gender roles are being transgressed. The role of the male in all areas of life was to be
dominant, aggressive; the role of the female was to be passive, submissive. If a man were to have sexual relations with another man, it would mean that one party would assume the passive role of a woman, disgracing his manly honor. (How much antipathy toward homosexuals in our own society is due to the perception that homosexuals transgress gender roles, some gay men being too effeminate, some lesbians too masculine. The epithet queer applied to homosexuals suggests this idea of the homosexual, male or female, transgressing gender roles.)
Paul—The GrecoRoman connection?
In the New Testament Jesus has nothing to say on the subject of homoerotic behavior, male or female. It is only when we turn to Paul that we find specific references to such behavior. A reason for this may be that Paul, a Hellenistic Jew born in Tarsus, a Greco-Roman city, was acquainted with the customs of the Greco-Roman world and carried out his ministry in that world among Gentiles. It is apparently of Gentiles that he is speaking in chapter 1 of Romans, when he declares that they should have known God, but had worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator. He goes on to say in verses 26–27: “For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” Paul mentions these practices as examples of his main indictment of Gentiles, that “they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images” (v. 23), that is, idolatry. He goes on in verses 29–31 to list 21 other consequences of idolatry. In Romans 2 and 3 Paul turns his attention to Jews, and asserts that they are no better off than Gentiles if they think they can be saved because of the law and circumcision. The point that Paul is making is that all—Jew and Gentile alike—are justified by grace through faith in Christ. What he says about homoerotic behavior is but part of a much larger argument.
What is the background against which Paul speaks? In the GrecoRoman world there was approval for some forms of homoerotic activity. In classical Greece, pederasty was accepted behavior. A boy, aged from 12 to 17, would be mentored by a mature adult male, usually, but not always, single. Plato saw this relationship, in which the older man would guide the youth to the philosophical level in which carnal needs were sublimated to the spiritual, as the embodiment of purest love. This “Platonic love” was seen as far superior to the physical love of a man for his wife. Yet, this pederastic relationship was not purely philosophical; there was an erotic element to it. Physical contact and caresses were present, involving the genital stimulation of the older partner, but not of the younger; indeed, it was deemed inappropriate for the boy to achieve sexual satisfaction. Anal penetration of the boy was never involved. In Rome, homoerotic relationships normally occurred between a master and a slave, something considered improper in Greece, where pederasty was between free citizens. Roman masculinity emphasized aggression, and penetration was a symbol of this, with the passive role always being taken by the slave. Some slaves and male prostitutes even assumed a feminine appearance, with long, wavy hair. Little is known of lesbianism in classical antiquity. Ancient sources have little to say about the life of women in general, and even less of their mutual sexual relations. Erotic verse was written in the seventh century B.C. by the female poet Sappho, who came from the island of Lesbos, from which the word lesbian is derived. Sappho is said to have led what we might term a “finishing school” for young women, educating and training them for social life, but nothing is known of the erotic side of this experience. Other information comes from vase paintings, which occasionally illustrate female erotic relationships. Two adult women are always depicted, never an adult woman and a girl. Male writers who say anything about female homoeroticism look upon it with disapproval. The fact that sometimes this would involve a woman’s taking an active, male role with the aid of an artificial penis was seen as a grave —continued on page 21 violation of gender
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
6/7/2005
9:34 AM
Page 22
Crosswalk The Bible and Sexuality . . . continued from page 20 roles, undermining the male’s privilege of penetration.
In the New Testament Jesus has nothing to say about homoerotic behavior, male or female. It is only when we turn to Paul that we find specific references to such behavior. There were criticisms of homoeroticism in the Greco-Roman world by the first century A.D. Homosexual prostitution was frowned upon. Sexual activity between two men or between two women was regarded as “against nature” for two reasons: first, that it did not lead to procreation; second, that it violated the natural role structure for males and females. First-century Jewish writings, which focus on male relationships, speak both of the crossing of sexual boundaries by men as being “against nature” and of the squandering of seed, which was regarded as the source of life. Paul also speaks of women and men who exchanged “natural” intercourse for “unnatural,” knowingly and deliberately flouting convention and transgressing gender roles. Homoerotic behavior is presented as a choice, as indeed it was in Greek pederasty. There is no recognition here of homosexuality as inborn sexual inclination, something not determined by choice. For Paul, marriage is the only acceptable venue for an active sexual life. He gives advice concerning marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, counseling the unmarried and widows against it in view of the “impending crisis” (v. 26), the parousia, the return of the Lord. Paul saw this event as imminent. Here Paul’s theology, rather than his cultural background, determined what he had to say. Yet he concedes that “it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (v. 9). 1 Corinthians 7 also illustrates Paul’s method: he depended upon the tradition, especially the tradition concerning what Jesus said, as far as he could; if that were lacking he depended upon the guidance of the Spirit of God.
Paul’s list of vices Perhaps special mention should be made of Paul’s list of vices in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolators, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers— none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.” The word translated “fornicators,” pornoi, refers to those who practice sexual activities prohibited in Jewish law; it does not refer to what we mean by “fornication,” sexual activity among unmarried partners. The NRSV translates the fourth Greek word in the list, malakoi, as “male prostitutes.” The Greek word means “soft, gentle,” but applied to males it can mean “effeminate,” and therefore could be used of men and boys who were the passive partners in homoerotic acts. Arsenokoitai is the next Greek term, translated “sodomites” in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). The word is made up of two elements: arsen, “male” or “man”; koite, “bed,” especially the marriage bed. This is the first time the word appears in Greek literature (it later appears in 1 Tim. 1:20), and its precise meaning is disputed. Does the word describe the active male partner in a homoerotic act? Is it Paul’s attempt to reproduce in one word the teaching of Leviticus concerning a man lying with another man? Does it describe anal penetration by a man of either a man or a woman? The fact that these two words, vague as they are, may have limited meanings, suggests that they should not be used to apply to any and all homoerotic behavior.
Sexuality—not the problem As the Church debates problem areas arising from human sexuality, it is worth reminding ourselves that sexuality itself is not the problem. Remember that chapter 1 of Genesis declares that “God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them” (v. 27). God immediately blessed them and uttered the first command found in Torah, the Pentateuch: “Be fruitful and multiply” (v. 28). That sixth day of creation ends
with the statement, “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good” (v. 31).
Indeed, the Bible celebrates the joy of sex. Read the Song of Solomon, which in Hebrew is entitled “Song of Songs,” meaning “The Best Song.” It is a celebration of human
Pentecost 1, 2005
SONG OF SOLOMON 4: 1-8 It is generally held that the Song of Solomon (or Song of Songs) is an anthology of originally oral compositions that were sung or recited at wedding celebrations. Christian tradition has seen in the Song of Solomon an allegory of the love of Christ for the Church. How beautiful you are, my love, how very beautiful!
sexuality. Indeed, the Bible celebrates the joy of sex. Read the Song of Solomon, which in Hebrew is entitled “Song of Songs,” meaning “The Best Song.” It is a celebration of human sexuality. It describes longing, passion, and courtship, aiming towards sexual union. In the cultural world in which the Bible was produced, the sexual energies described here were channeled into marriage. It is widely held that the love poetry of the Song of Songs was recited or sung at wedding celebrations. Sexual activity within this committed relationship is to be enjoyed. One question the biblical writers did not have to face was the question we face, whether to give approval to same-sex unions, where the couple commit themselves to live faithfully with each other. We need the guidance of the Spirit on that. The Rev. Dr. Theodore N. Swanson is adjunct professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary in Columbia, South Carolina, and at Evangelical Theological Seminary in Cairo, Egypt. This article is a shortened version of “The Bible and Sexuality,” a presentation by Dr. Swanson at the 82nd Diocesan Convention in October 2004.
Your eyes are doves behind your veil. Your hair is like a flock of goats, moving down the slopes of Gilead. Your teeth are like a flock of shorn ewes that have come up for the washing, all of which bear twins, and not one among them is bereaved. Your lips are like a crimson thread, and your mouth is lovely. Your cheeks are like halves of a pomegranate behind your veil. Your neck is like the tower of David, built in courses; on it hang a thousand bucklers, all of them shields of warriors. Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, that feed among the lilies. Until the day breathes and the shadows flee, I will hasten to the mountain of myrrh and the hill of frankincense. You are altogether beautiful, my love; there is no flaw in you. Come with me from Lebanon, my bride; come with me from Lebanon.
21
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
6/7/2005
9:34 AM
Pentecost 1, 2005
Page 23
Crosswalk
Getting the Scoop on Scripture . . .
continued from page 15
authority of Scripture is to understand the story of God and God’s people and that relationship, and pulling passages out of cultural, historical, and religious context to support a position on something is problematic.” Jenkins is faced with a dilemma and a decision to make: on one hand, she would like to retire from the Air Force in a few years and pursue a call to the priesthood; on the other hand, she is up for promotion and a tantalizing appointment, and has been happy in the Air Force. With her understanding of how to use Scripture, her abiding faith, her School for Ministry Bible classes, and her ongoing relationship with her spiritual director, she should be well-equipped to discern what God wants her Midlands instructor the Rev. Deacon Deedie Phillips puts do with her life in the years student Jim Neuberger on the spot in “Spiritual Formation and Theological Reflection.” ahead.
Jim Weston Scripture is the most important thing not only throughout Christianity but also throughout Anglicanism. Jim Weston, a retired physician and a parishioner at St. John’s, Congaree, does a lot of reading and studying both for his School for Ministry classes and on his own. Weston says that rather than changing him and the way he views scriptural authority, his classes have given him a better understanding of what Anglicanism is and what part the authority of Scripture plays in it. “Scripture, tradition, and reason/experience are important tools for making sense of God’s will for us, but without Scripture there is nothing,” Weston states. He feels that just reading the Bible literally is not enough, because it is impossible for the average person to read it, use it, and understand what it means.
Avoiding extremes When Weston finds contradictions in Scripture, he thinks that most of them aren’t that important. If you look back at the early days of the Reformation, you find they argued over so many points I now think are unimportant, such as the exact nature of transubstantiation
SCHOOL
FOR
MINISTRY INFORMATION
The School for Ministry of the Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina offers many opportunities for education, formation, and growth for both lay people and clergy. Its mission is “to inspire, equip, and empower the churches and the people to live out the Baptismal Covenant” and “to provide lay adult, diaconal, and priestly formation, education, and training to equip disciples to change lives.” Learn more at www.edusc.org, or e-mail the School, sfm@edusc.org. The courses on Scripture are: Bible I: The Story of God’s People A brief introduction to the genres of biblical literature and the history and process of canonization of Holy Scripture followed by a survey of the Pentateuch. Bible II: The History and Song of God’s People A survey of the histories, prophets and poetry of the Old Testament, with primary consideration of Joshua, Judges, I & II Samuel, I Kings, Nehemiah, Amos, Isaiah, the Psalms and Job. Bible III: Behold the New Has Come! A parallel survey of the synoptics as the life of Jesus and close examination of the Gospel of John with emphasis on the Incarnation and the revelation of God in the Christ. Bible IV: The Community of the Spirit. A survey of the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and the Revelation to John. When contemplating literal versus critical interpretation, Weston says that we have to remember the Anglican view. He feels that the Church’s Thirty-Nine Articles (BCP, p. 867) “are purposely vague because the authors wanted to avoid an extreme approach.” With regard to the controversy about the ordination of the Rev. Canon Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire, Weston says that both sides seem extreme and points out that the concept of via media or middle road is what makes Anglicanism unique, so avoiding extremes is one of the foundations of Anglican theology. Duncan C. Ely is a member of St. Philip’s, Greenville.
Breaking News continued from page 2 Paul Price leaves Gravatt after eight years’of service Bishop Henderson has announced the resignation of Dr. Paul Price as executive director of the Bishop Gravatt Center. Price has served Gravatt since 1997. During his time at the conference center Price worked especially to clarify Gravatt’s identity as an Episcopal conference center and camp and to foster increased use of Gravatt’s facilities by the diocese and the regional community as well. Although the most visible change during Price’s tenure was the replacement of the old camp dining hall with the new, modern Collett Hall, he, in fact, oversaw many facility improvements to meet the demands of increased camp enrollments as well as the purchase of two parcels of land—25 acres in all—to provide a buffer zone from rapidly encroaching development. In acknowledging Price’s resignation, Bishop Henderson said: “I am extraordinarily grateful for Paul’s commitment to Gravatt during the last eight years. We shall miss him.”
Upper SC follows up on Windsor Report resolution In response to a resolution adopted at the 82nd Diocesan Convention in October 2004, Upper South Carolina has established a variety of forums for “ongoing biblical and theological learning” related to the Lambeth Commission’s
22
Windsor Report. Catch the update on page 14 of this Crosswalk and visit the diocesan Web site, www.edusc.org, to download resources and participate in an online learning community created to answer questions about Anglicanism, ECUSA, and The Windsor Report.
Bishop ’s Appeal update Response to Bishop’s Henderson’s April 14 “appeal” asking communicants to help fund “entire categories of ministry” eliminated from the diocesan Statement of Mission as a consequence of reduced giving on the part of several congregations, has yielded $80,000 to date. Beneficiaries of this income will include Young Adult Ministries, World Mission, and Matthew 25 (outreach grants).
www.edusc.org Visit the diocesan Web site and check out our online forum on Anglicanism and The Windsor Report. You can pose a question using the "Ask an expert" feature or read questions and answers already posted. The site also offers downloadable resources for individuals and groups.
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
5/27/2005
1:38 PM
Page 24
Crosswalk Approaches to the Bible continued from page 9 The Bible “in context Enter the 18th-century Enlightenment, or Age of Reason, espousing a rational and scientific approach to religious as well as other issues and promoting a general sense of progress and perfectibility. In the same period during which we see Protestant Scholastics hammering out “high” doctrines of Scripture, we have also the Enlightenment thinkers, who believed that human reason could be used to combat ignorance, superstition, and tyranny. During the Enlightenment we see the emergence of a form of biblical study known as the historical-critical method. This approach emphasizes that the Bible must be studied within the historical, cultural, and linguistical contexts in which the biblical texts were written. Such an attempt is a noble one—and even a necessary one—in that it allows us to understand more fully and accurately the original biblical context, separated as we are from the original writers by cultural, social, historical, and religious differences. However, the same method carries with it certain theological presuppositions. These are for the most part the same assumptions that many biblical scholars—and clergy and laity—labor under today. 1. The historical-critical method emphasizes the original intention of the author of a biblical text. Thus, the Bible can be read like any other piece of literature. As a result, doctrinal beliefs and theology become increasingly subordinated to historical considerations. Consequently, there is a divorce of biblical studies from theology (and even spirituality), a trend that continues into our own day. 2. This modern method of biblical interpretation has also resulted in a tearing apart of the unity of the two testaments. By emphasizing the original contexts of the biblical texts, scholars of the historical-critical method recognize significant contextual differences between the Old and New Testaments. They insist that the testaments be studied separately. 3. This separation of the two testaments also gave birth to what is known in some theological circles as a “canon with a canon.” In other words, not all parts of the Scripture are equally valid; some books or portions of certain biblical books are more important than others. Or, to put the matter more sharply, not all parts of the Bible are equally authoritative. 4. With an increasing priority given to reason, anything in the Bible that seems to circumvent reason or natural science goes out the door. 5. Finally, the historical-critical method focuses on the literalness of the text, in the sense of the historical meaning, almost to the exclusion of the spiritual meaning. In other words, the Bible becomes largely a historical book that has to be excavated rather than a sacred text of eternal truths to be discovered.
Pentecost 1, 2005
Enlightenment assumption that things must be “proven” in order to be true. And to make things even more interesting we have the “hermeneutics of suspicion” camp which has appeared in recent decades. These campers insist that the Bible is not a particularly “safe” or edifying book because it has been used to victimize women, minority groups, gays/lesbians, and so forth. They tend to find their own “canon within a canon” by reading everything through their own particular ideological lenses.
Actually, the biblicists and modernists are two sides of the same coin. At the most elementary level, they are both literalists. . . . [A]t the end of the day, both biblicist and modernist are laboring under the same . . . assumption that things must be “proven” in order to be true.
The same old story? Perhaps this summary is an oversimplification of the modern dilemma over biblical interpretation. Nevertheless, this brief survey does highlight the fact that the current debate over biblical interpretation is not simply the product of contemporary culture but is rather deeply rooted in historical currents in evidence since the time of the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment. The issues raised by all “camps” in this debate are serious and central to controversies of our own day. However, these “camps” of biblical interpretation do not exhaust the various ways that Scripture has been interpreted over two millennia in the Christian faith. In fact, they don’t even come close. Lisa A. Unterseher is a member of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, Columbia. As Sister Catherine, n/CSL~B, she is also a member of the Companions of St. Luke~Benedictine, an Episcopal religious community.
“Modernists” and “biblicists” Here I would like to avoid the common labels of conservative and liberal because they carry so much emotional baggage. Rather, I would identify one camp as “modernists,” those who have openly, perhaps even uncritically, embraced the historical-critical method as the key to unlocking to Scripture, and “biblicists,” those who have recognized the theological dangers of the “modernist” camp and reacted by attempting to preserve the authority of the biblical text at all costs. The “modernist” method does have merit in that in forces us, for example, to understand that Jesus was not a good Protestant or 21st-century Christian but rather a first-century observant Jew. However, this “modernist” approach has tended to focus on a wooden, literal interpretation of the text and thrown out anything that appears to contradict reason or science. For example, they would reject the gospel claim that Jesus fed 5,000 with only a few loaves of bread and a few fish. And much more seriously, they tend to reject the central teachings of the historic Christian faith, such as the Incarnation, the miracles, and the bodily resurrection of Christ. That’s one camp. The "biblicists" have recognized the theological dangers of the “modernist” camp and reacted by attempting to preserve the biblical text at all costs. Actually, the biblicists and modernists are two sides of the same coin. At the most elementary level, they are both literalists. The modernist would dismiss a biblical account, such as a miracle, because God couldn’t possibly have done anything to circumvent natural law, while the biblicist would insist on the miracle owing to the very fact that the Bible recounts it, and so it must be true. Period. So the biblicist might spend a great deal of time trying to “prove” the Bible. But, at the end of the day, both biblicist and modernist are laboring under the same
Amy Grau / The Living Church. Used by permission.
23
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
5/27/2005
Pentecost 1, 2005
1:38 PM
Page 25
Crosswalk
The development of the Canon . . .
continued from page 7
“very God of very God,” which was the position of Athanasius, bishop of those 50 copies. The two Egyptian manuscripts include all 27 books that we Alexandria, and his followers. Because Constantine wanted his empire to be count as our New Testament. It seems very likely that those Egyptian manuscripts united in every way, including religiously, he modeled their content on the 50 copies Eusbius convened the Council of Nicea in A.D.325 drew up for Emperor Constantine. to deal with the Arian “controversy”— However we decide that issue, in A.D. What are the books of the Bible? though it should be noted that the dispute 367 Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria in his Well, that depends on whom you ask! raged on throughout the fourth century 39th Paschal Letter listed all 27 books and was not settled until A.D. 380 with contained in our New Testament as being The Jewish canon includes the 39 books of Hebrew Scripture the adoption of what we call the Nicene canonical (though with slight differences in known to Christians as the “Old Testament,” but appearing in Creed. Thus, in the area of promoting order). A little more than 40 years later in the our “Old Testament” in a somewhat different sequence. religious unity, Constantine was not western church, Pope Innocent I in a letter to Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, mainline Protestants, and altogether successful. the bishop of Toulouse listed all 27 books Anglicans add to these the 27 “New Testament” books written In another area, however, Constantine which we call our New Testament. Finally, in after the birth of Jesus. had greater success. At this time (A.D. 325) A.D. 420 Jerome did in the west what Eusebius Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea Maritima, was had done in the east. Jerome translated the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox include also in the serving as research librarian there with a Greek New Testament into Latin (a translation canon The Apocrypha—a group of books composed in Old library of 30,000 volumes at his disposal. known as The Vulgate), and (like Eusebius Testament times but excluded eventually from the Hebrew Among the many scholarly works he had before him) included all 27 books of our canon Scripture. composed was his Ecclesiastical History, the in his New Testament. Mainline Protestants follow Jewish tradition in rejecting The first true Church history stretching from Throughout the centuries there had been Apocrypha. Anglicans as well exclude these books but, with a the time of Jesus down to Eusebius’ own much scholarly debate on what should and what typical Anglican “both-and” twist, note, in the Articles of day. In Bk. III, 25, 1–7 of that work should not be included in a New Testament. Religion (1801), that the Church reads the apocryphal books Eusebius discusses the canon of the New Probably what made the greatest difference were “for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it Testament. In his analysis he establishes the actions of Eusebius and Jerome. In drawing not apply them to establish any doctrine.” three categories into which documents may up their canons, they were undoubtedly be grouped. First, those writings accepted instrumental in finalizing the development. Still confused? See the book review by the Rev. Canon Mark by all (four Gospels, Acts, 14 Pauline Clevenger on page 12. letters, 1 Peter, 1 John and, perhaps, Revelation) Second, those texts which are in Thus, we can say in summary that, by A.D. dispute (the minor catholic epistles, perhaps Revelation, as well as some others 200, the Great Church had agreed on 20 texts (4 Gospels, Acts, 14 Pauline letters, which eventually were deemed non-canonical). The third category consists of 1 Peter, 1 John). However, the full complement of 27 books was not securely in those texts that are rejected by the Great Church (all apocryphal gospels, all Acts place in both east and west until ca. A.D. 400, with the Synod of Carthage. bearing the name of an individual apostle). The last group he rejects on the basis What is truly striking in this whole process is how little of it was guided by of three criteria: the spurious texts are never cited by the earliest Christian writers; official councils, lists or decisions. Most of the developments occurred by accident their language and style are dissonant when compared to the writings that have or happenstance or by the vagaries of historical events to which the Great Church been accepted by all; none of the spurious writings is used universally throughout was compelled to respond. Anyone looking at the process from outside could the Church. easily conclude that the entire development of the canon rests on little more than Clearly Eusebius was among the most learned scholars of his time, and it is a series of fortuitous circumstances. Christians, however, are able to say (by faith, not surprising that Emperor Constantine turned to him with the request that not by proof ) that, despite appearances, God was present in the ferment, guiding Eusebius oversee the production of 50 copies of the scriptures for use in the the entire process so that: a) we have as our scriptures precisely those texts God church of Constantinople, the new capital of the empire that Constantine was intended us to have; b) they are all we need to sustain faith and life. building in the east. Unfortunately, we do not have any of those manuscripts preserved to us. But two of our oldest manuscripts produced in Egypt around The Rev. Dr. Charles P. Sigel is professor of New Testament, emeritus, at Lutheran A.D. 350 probably reflect in their content the texts that Eusebius included in Southern Theological Seminary in Columbia.
And so it goes
Blessed to be an Anglican . . .
continued from page 4
The inclusive nature and diversity insure that one group or another is always at risk of alienation. As I struggle with these issues, I recall materials on the Anglican Reformation—a period of incredible brutality. It begins in 1534 with Henry VIII as head of the Anglican Church. It doesn’t end until the Restoration of Charles II in 1660. The bloody feuds, fiery executions, and power struggles are intense. The Church lurches from Anglican to Catholic to Anglican to Puritan and back to Anglican again. Its survival is amazing. Only the scholarship of a few dedicated churchmen prevent its destruction. Their tireless work preserves the intellectual integrity of the present Church, as well as the liturgical purity of the early Church. In 1593 another milestone is reached. Richard Hooker begins to present his classic defense of Anglicanism, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. In the midst of ecclesiastical controversies he writes: The church should not be founded on tradition alone as the papists would say, or scripture alone as the puritans would say. Christian truth must be collaboration among all the sources of authority—scripture, tradition, and reason.
24
Scripture is primary. Nothing must contradict it. But scripture always needs to be interpreted, and interpretation is the work of tradition and reason. Tradition is the collective wisdom of the church over time. This wisdom should be heeded, except when contradicted by scripture or reason. Reason is our God given ability to discern what is true and good. It is more than pure rationality. It is thought, feeling and experience under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This concept of balance sets the Anglican Church apart from all others. We are not simply a scriptural or a traditional church. We are three-dimensional—we recognize the ability to reason. We can look back to where we have been, and forward to where we must go. We are part of the present moment. We are a dynamic faith. Thanks be to God. Larry Newton is a member of St. Simon & St. Jude, Irmo.
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
6/7/2005
9:35 AM
Page 26
Crosswalk Anglicans and the Bible
continued from page 5
that testimony when it became clear that the witnesses themselves would not live to see the return of Christ. Their memories of Jesus were certainly filtered through the resurrection. A close reading of the Gospels indicates that they had difficulty understanding who Jesus was. Jesus himself warned them to be careful about making assumptions either about him or about their own discipleship until they had seen the cross and experienced his resurrection. It was not until centuries after the writing of Scripture was complete that the Church proclaimed that God is three and one.
Anglicans will neither regard Scripture as just another book nor will they regard it as a dictated word from God. They will see its inspiration in its eternal message. Since the Church, the community of faith, wrote the Bible, decided which writings would comprise Holy Scripture, and defined orthodox belief on the basis of Scripture and experience, the authority of the Bible is the authority the Church gives it. The experience of the Church modifies the way we interpret Scripture. For instance, although the Bible suggests that Christians can handle snakes without ill effect, experience indicates those verses should not be understood literally. On the other hand, experience indicates that biblical injunctions about the place of women apply only to a particular time and place.
Waiting on the Spirit
the experience of the Christian community. We experience it as true. Not always as true in its record of history; the number of people who journeyed in the Exodus from Egypt sounds exaggerated. Not always true in matters of science; the six days of creation are theological and not scientific. Not always true in matters of medicine and sickness; what is called leprosy may be something else again and what is called demon possession we might call insanity or hysteria. The Bible must always be understood as a whole—that is, we must discover its total message rather than picking a verse or a chapter or even a writer as authority. Paul was a gifted missionary, theologian, and pastor. But if we combine his writing with the Book of James or the Gospel of John we have a much better understanding of the real message of the Bible and its authority for us. Anglicans will neither regard Scripture as just another book nor will they regard it as a dictated word from God. They will see its inspiration in its eternal message. The community itself will distinguish that which is eternal from that which is tied to a time or a place. What Amos said about justice endures. The Church does not decide that some parts of the Bible are true and some false; that would be presumptuous. However, reason suggests that when Jesus said that an offending eye should be plucked out he did not intend to be taken literally. The parables are fiction. Jesus made them up. They are not stories about real people although often they use a real event or circumstance as a beginning place. Because this is so they can have universal and eternal meaning. We can find ourselves in them. If we take the Bible seriously we shall know when it speaks with authority to us.
For Episcopalians, Scripture, tradition, and reason always function together. They are in a fruitful tension, like the
Because we live in a time and place where individual autonomy seems most important of all, it is difficult for us to understand that the Holy Spirit is God’s gift to the community. Individual revelations are to be suspected; it is much too easy for us to confuse what we want and what we think with some new revelation by the Spirit. It is as we bring our individual experiences to the community that the Church is able to discern the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And because we are accustomed to instant gratification, we are impatient with the Spirit and unwilling to wait for God’s purposes to be clear to all of us. Because this is true the community is constantly dividing. I know that women and people of color and gay and lesbian people have all waited a long time to be considered equal members of the Christian community. I also know that when the community does not move by consensus and agreement it makes its mission of reconciliation very difficult.
An eternal message The Bible is self-authenticating. I do not mean that the Bible speaks truth with authority because the Bible says it does. The Bible’s authority is ultimately in
Biblical Encounters . . .
Pentecost 1, 2005
mainspring of a clock. For Episcopalians, Scripture, tradition, and reason always function together. They are in a fruitful tension, like the mainspring of a clock. They work well when they are together. Unfastened they can easily be a jumble of words and ideas. The Church does not have a single infallible authority, neither an infallible pope nor an infallible Bible. It has, instead, the Holy Scripture, the experience of the community with the Scripture through the centuries, and the disciplined mind of the scholar and the common sense of the ordinary reader. We might hope that the collective wisdom and the memory of the whole community could be shared as each of us approaches the Bible and finds it to be the Word of God for us. The Rev. Thomas C. Davis is a retired priest of the diocese and former rector of Holy Trinity, Clemson.
continued from page 5
decision-making. Each of these contexts has its own set of questions, its own set of assumptions about how to approach and read the Bible. Each of these contexts has its own set of limitations, its own varieties of freedom. For example, when reading the Gospel in the Daily Office, I may focus on an image or a word that affects me deeply or speaks to my mood. When I read that same passage with students, whether in the college or church classroom, we will try to understand the language, the historical context, and what the Gospel writer might have been emphasizing. When preparing to preach, while I always do the historical work that I do in the classroom, I do it
under the guidance of another question, “What is the Word of God in this text for my congregation today?” In the college classroom, questions of what the Bible might mean for contemporary Christians are not the primary things we talk about. Instead, we learn about the historical background of the text and how its early readers understood it. Very often, I will introduce students to the way different communities have interpreted texts quite differently in the history of western culture. I might contrast Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, or different Christian interpretations of the sayings of Jesus. But invariably the questions about contemporary relevance arise and we
once again confront: “What would Jesus do?” Very often, their answers to that question are very different after learning something about the background and formation of the text. Over the years, I have come to realize that, however rigidly I try to compartmentalize the various contexts in which I read and interpret Scripture, the most interesting and challenging aspect of my encounter with biblical texts comes when the questions from one context break in on another. That discovery has led me to recognize that biblical interpretation almost always involves our attempts to force the text to fit our assumptions, our questions. Very often, we interpret the text “literally” so long as it supports our
preconceptions. We look for a figurative meaning when the text’s literal meaning becomes too difficult. The challenge for me and for everyone who wants to take the Bible seriously is to recognize that, in the end, all of the agendas and questions we bring to the text may be transformed in the encounter with the Word of God. Dr. D. Jonathan Grieser is a transitional deacon at Church of the Redeemer, Greenville.
25
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
6/7/2005
9:35 AM
Pentecost 1, 2005
Page 27
Crosswalk
On using money as a weapon . . . continued from page 17
Three generations act from the heart
As so often happens when governments try to use sanctions to force acquiescence, it is the innocent who are most hurt. This is true in our diocese as well. lmportant ministries have been gutted, with funding withdrawn from both program and outreach.
I am not sure any sermon or letter will convince her or anyone else in this mindset that they do not have anything to fear. Her sister is the same way and has not had communion since this all started. She now visits a Roman Catholic church to pray for her church. I believe they truly fear the situation. Money is withheld not so much to send a message as it is to not be a part of (or to support) decisions that are troublesome. In contrast, the youngest does not see why everybody is so upset to begin with and has a let’s move on attitude. She has requested her own pledge envelopes and is very faithful about it. In fact, as Sunday approaches if she doesn’t have the money she wants to put in her envelope she starts washing cars to earn some. She is a devoted Episcopalian and some of the very programs that are endangered may have aided her to have such a strong faith at such a tender age. Lastly, there are those of us in the middle, the 30-40 something’s. That is a good analogy . . . in the middle. I feel we basically are not sure. We hear the elders and the youth and balance in the middle. I think we agree there is a much greater picture than National Church issues, and embrace the agree-todisagree tendencies of the Episcopal Church. I personally don’t know what is right or wrong but more importantly I feel it is not mine to judge. I do not feel accountable for the actions of the National Church but I don’t want to support them either. I guess that is the core reason why I give to the discretionary fund now. I am not deciding the use of my money but trust the Lord will see that it is used for his will. It pained me to read your letter because I know it must have agonized you to have to write it. I am praying about your request but wanted you to know it is not as much about sending a message as it is about not knowing. I understand both my mother’s and my daughter’s feelings, as diverse as they are, but just don’t know the answers. It is truly the unknown. I appreciate you reading my letter and I hope I expressed myself well because I am not an eloquent writer but am speaking from the heart. I do have just one question from my household. We would like to know if all the money from the appeal letter will go to the missions cut or will some go to the National Church pledge which was also cut?*
What price must innocent people in and out of the diocese pay for any group to control the debate on human sexuality? What has happened to One Body, One Mission, Changing Lives in the name of Christ?
One Body . . . One Mission . . . Changing Lives??? What price must innocent people in and out of the diocese pay for any group to control the debate on human sexuality? What has happened to One Body, One Mission, Changing Lives in the name of Christ? In any congregation there will be differing opinions concerning issues facing the Church today—including the issues of human sexuality—but we must work hard to keep our common focus on our mission and ministry in Christ. To that end it is critical to continue to support the diocese including paying one’s full fair share for the mission of the diocese. Those of you who are doing so are to be commended for this faithfulness. I would encourage any of you who can, however, also to respond to the bishop’s appeal for individual support for the work of the diocese, from which we all receive great benefit in terms of training opportunities for ministry, parish development, youth and children’s work, and such costs as clergy health insurance. Ultimately, using money as a weapon will be self-defeating. When children take their marbles and go home because they don’t get their way, sooner or later other children find other ways to play together and those with their marbles are left alone by themselves. Everyone ends up losing.
continued from page 17
Faithfully, Lisa Wicks All Saints, Clinton
The Rev. Eric Schnaufer is rector of St. Peter’s, Greenville. *No funding from the Bishop's Appeal is designated for the National Church pledge.—Ed.
The [Church] Fathers know best . . . continued from page 9 8. The ultimate purpose of Scripture—all Scripture—is to draw a person closer to union with God.
The Fathers know best One of the most important lessons that Anglicans (and other Christians) might learn from the Church Fathers is the insistence that Scripture must be interpreted within the context of the larger Christian tradition and teachings. Tradition serves as a check-and-balance to private interpretations of the Bible. Further, we need to reclaim the Fathers’ insistence that all of Scripture is a unity so that we are not at liberty to pick and choose those passages that we like and discard those we don’t (thus creating a “canon within a canon”). We need also to reclaim the ancient Fathers’ insistence that the Bible is a sacred Book that reveals the mysteries of God as revealed in Christ; it is not simply a historical or literary work. All of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, seeks to immerse us in the eternal mysteries of God so that we might be transformed according to the truths of God, not by the standards of the world. Dr. Lisa A. Unterseher is a member of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, Columbia. As Sister Catherine, n/CSL~B, she is also a member of the Companions of St. Luke~Benedictine, an Episcopal religious community.
26
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
5/27/2005
1:38 PM
Page 28
Crosswalk
Pentecost 1, 2005
Here comes everybody . . . continued from page 12 “I want to recover Christianity as a work of the imagination, and the sense that God is the artist and poet of the world.” —The Very Rev. Alan Jones
Reconnect without disconnect
The subtitle Reconnect Your Spirit without Disconnecting Your Mind is apparently a motto at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco, where the open and inclusive environment is countercultural when compared to the most popular expressions of American Christianity. Many of us believe it is possible (in the words of John Dominic Crossan) “to accept my own religion with utter fidelity without having to negate the integrity of everyone else’s. Particularity is not relativity. It is destiny.”
Jones recognizes that some think he has wandered too far. “I really do believe that Christianity, as I have received it, has a fullness of truth, which I cannot find in other traditions. That conviction is humbled by the fact that many non-Christians are more Christ-like than many Christians.” For me, a Hindu, Gandhi, and a Buddhist, Thich Nhat Hahn, are much more Christlike than the hate-filled Christians who picketed my last parish in Lubbock, Texas, with “God hates fags” posters. At the heart of Jones’s plea for reimagining are three images: pregnancy (bringing in the new), suffering (inviting change), and communion (promising connection). These might also be described in terms of Mary and her baby (incarnation and presence), Jesus on the cross (creation and redemption), and the Holy Trinity (community of persons). In urging a creative focus on these three basic images, he refers to author and television presenter Alain de Botton’s definition of the three functions of Art
Interpreting Scripture . . . continued from page 4 fourth, and very contemporary, leg to the stool: Experience. Keeping that model of a stool before us, we need to remember that each of the three legs (or four, if you are a four-legged stool person) is of equal length and in a sense informs our understanding of the other legs. That is, each of the legs is of equal importance. For just as a stool would be lopsided and likely to fall over with uneven legs, so would the working out of our faith be on the wobbly side.
Read, mark, learn, digest
As Holy Scripture is in essence living (the Word of the living God), we might do well to see our interpretation of those sacred texts as the work of a relationship—a relationship that evolves and deepens over time—a work in progress, if you will. Walter Brueggemann has said it nicely: “Rather than proclaiming loud, dogmatic slogans about the Bible, we might do better to consider the odd and intimate ways in which we have been led to where we are in our relationship with the scriptures.” As we go about developing and exploring our relationship with God’s Word, the Collect of the Day for Proper 28 (BCP, page 236) is a fine prayer to keep at hand: Blessed Lord, who caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: Grant us so to hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which you have given us in our Savior Jesus Christ; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen. To be in a relationship means to be vulnerable. May each of us, individually and corporately, be vulnerable to God’s holy Word.
The Rev. Richard H. Norman, Jr., is rector of Church of the Redeemer, Greenville.
and Imagination: 1) “Feeling at Home Everywhere”; 2) A Cure for Loneliness; and 3) New Insights on Reality.
Living systems
Jones also refers to international business consultant Richard Pascale’s Surfing the Edge of Chaos: The Laws of Nature and the Laws of Business as providing an approach to “the Trinitarian quest for freedom in communion.” Pascale outlines four principles of living systems: 1) Equilibrium is death; 2) Innovation usually takes place on the edge of chaos; 3) Self-organization and emergence occur naturally; 4) Organizations cannot be directed, only disturbed. Jones concludes that although Christianity has often been affected by a tribal approach, new ways of imagining still hold out to us hope for renewal. In the epilogue, Jones gives some practical advice: First, decide where you are going to show up. Second, decide what to do with your time—focusing on the four basic
ON THE BACK COVER
relationships: God, the world, others, and self. In conclusion, I appreciate Jones’s ability to engage seekers and even despisers of Christ with a fresh approach that is unapologetic except in situations where Christians need to apologize. His gift for weaving together insights from a broad range of writers, on a broad range of topics certainly stimulates my imagination. And unlike some others who have called for Christianity’s renewal, including those in the Jesus Seminar group, Jones continues to have a great appreciation for creeds and tradition. Three other books that I especially enjoyed related to this topic are: Rubem A. Alves, The Poet, the Warrior, the Prophet (1990); Walter Brueggemann, Finally Comes the Poet: Daring Speech for Proclamation (1989); and L. William Countryman, The Poetic Imagination: An Anglican Tradition (1999). The Rev. Melvin K. Gray is interim rector of Holy Trinity, Clemson.
Artist’s Notes
Calligraphy by Diane Jones
W
orking with letterforms is a contemplative activity for me. Each day begins with a warm-up exercise of repetitive strokes laid down with careful precision and smooth rhythm. It is similar to repeating a meditation mantra or a centering prayer holy word. At first the strokes are merely straight or curved lines with no meaning; after a while, words and phrases take shape. By the end of my warm-up session, I have progressed from many small, repetitious finger movements to fast, whole-arm gestures. My entire body joins this dance of letters and the calligraphy becomes an expressive emotional statement. “[A]nd the Word was God” combines contemplative stroke action with quick, spontaneous letterforms. While writing the text of John 1:1–5 in the ancient hand of Textura, my attention focused on each stroke, letter, word, phrase and sentence. It was not only an exercise in letterforms and design, but also a practice of divine reading (lectio divina) as I wrote and
rewrote the verses, all the while reflecting on the meaning and becoming involved emotionally. It was with great joy and a deeper sense of understanding that I splashed the title “and the Word was God” over the body of the text in blinding white paint. The light truly shines in the darkness! Diane Jones practices calligraphy full time in her Sewanee, Tennessee, studio. She is an active member of Otey Memorial Parish Church. Contact her by phone at 931.598.0775, or by e-mail at dgmjones@bellsouth.net.
27
85061_Crosswalk.qxp
6/7/2005
9:44 AM
Page 1
Pentecost 1, 2005
Crosswalk The official publication of the Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina
Diocesan calendar
June
Calligraphy by Diane Jones. Artist's notes and contact information on page 27.
July
Aug.
5
Bishop’s visitation to St. John’s, Winnsboro
4
Diocesan House closed.
Bishop Henderson on vacation
7-9
BACAM (diaconate), Gravatt
10
Bishop’s visitation to All Souls, Columbia.
6
Adult Youth Leader Training (place TBA)
7-10
Province IV Synod 2005, Kanuga
13
School for Ministry celebration, All Saints, Clinton
13
Adult Youth Leader Training (place TBA)
11
Ordinations, Trinity Cathedral, Columbia
17
Bishop’s visitation to St. David’s, Columbia
12
Bishop’s visitation to St. Thomas, Eastover
21
Diocesan Executive Council meeting, All Saints, Clinton
16
Diocesan Executive Council meeting, St. Luke’s, Newberry
24
Bishop’s visitation to St. James, Greenville
16-19
Cursillo #102
26-31
EYE (Episcopal Youth Event), Berea, Kentucky
19 26
Sept. 11
Bishop's visitation to Holy Cross, Simpsonville
14-17
Bishop's residency, Piedmont Convocation
15
Diocesan Executive Council meeting, All Saints, Clinton
Bishop’s visitation to St. Mary’s, Columbia
18
Bishop's visitation to Incarnation, Gaffney
Bishop’s visitation to St. Philip’s, Greenville
23-25
Jr. High Fall Retreat, Gravatt
Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina 1115 Marion Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201
DEADLINE for next issue of Crosswalk: August 1 Send submissions to phill@edusc.org, photos to photos@edusc.org, items for the diocesan calendar to jprice@edusc.org.
Nonprofit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Permit No. 848 Columbia, SC