Bishops' Blog

Cadavers and Jellyfish

Imagine this not so fictional scenario. A recovering evangelical becomes an Episcopalian.  His former tradition seemed now like restriction, a form of faith suffering from a kind of sclerosis, while the latter’s emphasis on love bespeaks generosity and vitality. The doctrinaire vs. the experiential can seem so.

But lately I have found myself thinking about endoskeletons, which in our case involve bones.  You quickly realize that bones, which provide structure, do not inhibit movement, but rather make it possible.  The alternative to bones is in fact the jellyfish, which in its own way is inert. Every tradition has to understand which of the more extreme alternatives it is prone to. We Episcopalians run minimal risk of rigor mortis, but of the blobular we need to keep an eye out. But in-between, as the golden mean, are bones as the condition for definition, flexibility, and mobility.

The bones I speak of are, of course, the doctrines of the triune God, and of the Christ, in the creeds, the atoning death, the bodily resurrection, salvation by faith, grace over works, sin and forgiveness, and the Kingdom of God. These need in each age to be rearticulated, and then applied so as better to understand ourselves, our time, and our world. Think of doctrines as bones, enabling flex of thought, and why they matter become self-evident.

If bones are doctrines in the Body of Christ, the Church, then how far can we take the metaphor? Further, but not too far! Prayer as the nervous system, the sacraments as blood, (as from His side), the differing gifts and callings as the muscles and sinews (Ephesians 4): these could be an answer. Of this more developed physiology we can well give a deeper account of  the reality, and the summons, of love.

+GRS

What the Pope Should Have Said (and Perhaps Meant)

   In a recent question-and-answer session recently with students in Singapore, Pope Francis made remarks about the relation of Christianity to other religions which have ignited a  firestorm. Before considering what he said, we should point out that he was not speaking from the cathedra of official (and for Catholics infallible) doctrine. Still, any remarks made by the Holy Father are significant.

       Here are some of the things he said: 1. All religions are roads to God. 2. All believers are children of God. 3. Religions are all like languages describing their road differently. Now Pope Francis can fairly be criticized for making these comments without sufficient explanation. As a result he left his remarks open to misunderstanding, and of a various kinds. I hasten to add that he also had the goal of fostering appreciation and friendship with other religions, which is a noble goal.

       Christians believe that their teaching is final, both in the sense that if cannot be exceeded, and because it confirms  the true ‘end’ or goal of both creation and the human being. This is what the New Testament means when it says that ‘finally’ God sent his Son (so John 1, Colossians 1, Revelation 1 (and the defeat of death and hell), etc. As such, with respect to both truth and salvation, it is not one religion among other (though as a matter of sociology or history it is obviously so). I doubt the Pope meant to deny this finality, the heart of the Creed (and so of Catholic dogma),) but he did indeed leave himself open to this interpretation. He has great pastoral gifts, but theological care, not least in the great tradition of Catholic theology, matters too.

    My goal here is to take a second step and say in what sense the Pope’s comments could be taken as helpful.  First of all, all creatures are of course children of their Heavenly Father- the Gospel means to lead they back to Him! And it so happens that comparing religions to languages has been a fruitful way in the last few decades to think about different religions (my own teacher, George Lindback, helped to make this popular). The point is that languages are enough alike for us to know that they are all languages. But their grammars are different, as a result of which they enable us to say things in each that you cannot say in the others. This difference is important. Religions do have goals, or ends, for human life. But these ends are distinct- Sunyata and Nirvana and heaven in Islam are not the same as the Kingdom of God as understood by Christians.

     We may wish to make comparisons, but these are inevitably difficult and inexact. One could say that all believe in the same God, but only if one also says that believers, in speaking of Him, are significantly in error (as they believe about us!)  Evan among Christians and Muslims, who have a number of things in common (believe in creation, the one God, the end), the question of believing in the same God is complicated. No less an authority than Thomas Aquinas said, first, that we do believe in the same God (since there is only one God!), and then that we do not (since we have crucial disagreements in understanding Him).  Again, these nuances matter, since in them is, on the one hand, ground for conversation, an, on the other, the imperative, for us, of the fundamental affirmations of the Lordship of Christ and His atoning death. These are central to our essential ‘stand of faith.’ Francis’ charity is good, but parsing the difference which do, and do not, constitute something essential, is necessary as well.

Peace,

+GRS