Targuman Rotating Header Image

Anglican

In Pennsylvania it’s the year of the Bible

I guess I have been a little more absorbed in Penn State matters than I realized, because somehow I missed this little tidbit. On January 24 our General Assembly unanimously passed House Resolution 535 declaring this year the “Year of the Bible” in PA. Needless to say, atheists reacted. This evening I received the letter from our bishop, Nathan Baxter, which brought this and the atheist’s billboard to my attention. I think his letter to be worth repeating. This is the billboard to which +Nathan refers:

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
Recently the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed Resolution 535 proclaiming 2012 the “Year of the Bible”. In some circles of our community this has been very controversial.  One of the most active protests has been made by American Atheists and Pennsylvania Non-Believers. Among their points of contention is that the Bible is the primary source of validation for all the major social ills of our history. To dramatize this point they hired a billboard dominated by a depiction of a very negroid featured black man wearing a large neck manacle, with the Biblical text “slaves obey your masters” in smaller print. The billboard was in a predominantly African-American community in Harrisburg. This caused another type of protest by citizens of that community and the city (my op-ed, while not printed by the newspaper, is available here).

 

A representative from the American Atheists was interviewed shortly thereafter on local Public Television, and his anger with Christianity and the Bible was palpable.  While his interpretation of the scripture texts was without regard for or knowledge of context, I was amazed that his literal knowledge of scripture seemed equal to persons who have been nurtured in a fundamentalist tradition. His vitriolic reaction to callers who differed with him, sometimes devolving into personal attacks, caused the host to question his behavior.  As the conversation continued it was revealed that he had indeed grown up in a very fundamentalist, literal Christian tradition and in an unguarded moment intimated something of the hurt to him and his family.

 

I have no question that the best of our democracy, the inspiration for our rich artistic and cultural life, and also the historic movements to correct social and political injustices (which were often based upon misuse of scripture), have all been directly rooted in the Bible and Jewish and Christian Faiths.  The Founding Fathers, even those who were Deists or non-practicing Christians, clearly found the Holy Scriptures a base of inspiration for their work.  Like Jefferson regarding slavery, they also often found themselves conflicted between their political values and the Judeo-Christian values they sought to exploit in the political and economic compromises made to establish the Constitution. Besides the historic record of the Bible and our particular religious history as the inspiration for our democracy, there are independent sources such as Alexis de Tocqueville, the young French researcher who visited and wrote about the phenomenon of American Democracy. I doubt that there would be the strength of our democracy without the religious heritage which so greatly influenced our ideals, including a call to respect the religious faith (or non-faith) of others.

 

Having said the above, there is no question that the misuse of religion, particularly Christianity, has deeply hurt and even destroyed many.  As I listened to the angry, bitter representative of American Atheists, my heart hurt for the pain he felt, the betrayal he clearly experienced and his estrangement from the God with whom he continues to invest his life’s energy to deny and debase. But his anger, and that of many, is more rightly directed to us…the Christian Community.  Whether progressive or conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical or mainline—whatever our doctrine or tradition, in our efforts to “Love God with all our heart mind and strength” (cf. Mark 12.30) we too often have not Loved or shown a Godly respect for our neighbor.  I believe the most difficult promise we make in the Baptismal Covenant is “…respecting the dignity of every human being.”  This is especially true within our denominations and congregational communities.  When we differ on theological or political views how do we treat one another in our differing?  When persons are struggling with conflicts of Faith and their personal experience or need, do they sense from us our judgment or grace? Do we know how to speak truth with Love, knowing that Love is the only truth—for it instructs all other truths? Jesus’ chief command for the Christian community is found in John 15: “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another…by this shall the world know you are my disciples because you have love one for another.”  Love (or the Greek word “agape”) does not mean agreement with one another or even warm affection for one another. It does mean seeing the other as someone loved by God; and that truth informs and shapes the character of life, even our conflicts, in Christian community.  Without it we destroy one another, the integrity of the Church, and create spiritually wounded souls who, in their pain and anger, may never be reconciled again to the God of Love— until, I pray, they come to the nearer presence of God, who takes away not only the sins of the world but also the sins inflicted by the Church.

+Nathan

 

Can one be “de-baptized”?

DSC_3943Apparently thousands of French would like to be and one man is taking the Catholic Church to court. This NPR piece is interesting to me not so much for the trends (more people are not just leaving the church but wanting to remove all trace of connections to the church) but for the theological questions it brings up.

“One can’t be de-baptized,” says Rev. Robert Kaslyn, dean of the School of Canon Law at the Catholic University of America.

Kaslyn says baptism changes one permanently before the church and God.

“One could refuse the grace offered by God, the grace offered by the sacrament, refuse to participate,” he says, “but we would believe the individual has still been marked for God through the sacrament, and that individual at any point could return to the church.”

I am sure my protestant and Catholic friends will debate this far more eloquently than I. If one can “refuse the grace offered by God” then what is the permanent change that Kaslyn believes in? Would this be the case for purgatory, that such an individual is now and forever “marked as one of Christ’s own forever” whether they like it or not? The benefit of baptism would be that they get eternity to “work out their salvation”? Or what? I am beginning to think that I really am more ignorant than I realized regarding the theology of baptism…

 

Happy Reformation Day

Cross at SunriseWhile there are some Episcopal priests who inexplicably insist that the Anglican tradition and the Episcopal Church are not part of the reformed tradition, it is undoubtedly true. So I wish you all a happy Reformation Day. (Ironically, at least as I encounter the colleagues I mentioned in the first sentence, I never knew of this special day as a Presbyterian. It was only when I began worshipping in Anglican and Episcopal churches that I became aware of this day.)

The 39 Articles of Religion, while now relegated to status as “Historical Documents” in the Book of Common Prayer, are clearly Protestant in character and doctrine.1 See these examples from the Articles. Fairly reformed, don’t you think?

Article X: Of Free-Will

The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

Article XI: Of the Justification of Man

We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

Article XII: Of Good Works

Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s Judgement; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith; insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

Article XIII: Of Works before Justification

Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea, rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

Article XXII: Of Purgatory

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

Article XXVIII: Of the Lord’s Supper

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

For this day then I encourage you to read the 39 Articles and see for yourselves whether the Anglican tradition is Protestant and Reformed.

 
  1. Given what is going on in TEC it is not surprising, though disappointing, that it is difficult to find links to sites that simply provide the information. Many are aligned with one “side” or the other in the current Anglican Meltdown. That reminds me of the old Steve Taylor song, Meltdown at Madam Tussauds. []

Fitting reminder from Morning Prayer

Morning Prayer.

Rom. 12: 9- 21 (NRSV)

9 Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good;Wall Street Cross 10 love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor. 11 Do not lag in zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve the Lord. 12 Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in prayer. 13 Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers.14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. 18 If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 No, “if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

The Word of the Lord.

Thanks be to God.

 

Was Jesus’ Baptism Private?

This past Sunday was the first Sunday after Epiphany and the celebration of the baptism of Jesus. Unless I misheard (which is possible) I believe I heard our priest assert on Sunday that Jesus’ baptism was private. I know that there are some apparent inconsistencies between the Gospel accounts and there is no explicit mention of crowds (but see my comment below), however I do not take silence to mean private.

The relevant passages (in canonical order):

Matt. 3.1 In those days John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness of Judea, proclaiming, 2 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” … 5 Then the people of Jerusalem and all Judea were going out to him, and all the region along the Jordan, 6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
… 13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. 14 John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. 16 And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.”

Mark 1.4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.  5 And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.  … 9   In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.  10 And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him.  11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”

Luke 3.21   Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened,  22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”

What we do find, consistently stated in all of three accounts, is that “all the people” of Judea and Jerusalem were going out into the wilderness to be baptized by John. In Luke, the passage read on Sunday,1 Jesus’ baptism follows directly on the statement that “all the people were baptized.” I suppose we could try and argue that these are discrete events, but why? The texts seem to have in mind the regular activity of people coming out to be baptized by John and that at some point Jesus did the same. When we consider Matthew’s account we also have the statement that Jesus wanted to be baptized “to fulfill all righteousness” and presumably serve as an example for his followers. That would imply witnesses.

I asked a moment ago why one would argue that Jesus’ baptism was private, counter to the general sense of the texts. The reason is (presumably) to defend private baptism, a practice largely set aside by the reformation and even Vatican II (as I understand it, though I could be wrong) discouraged baptism outside of the Sunday celebration of the Eucharist. If Jesus was baptized privately then presumably that is an appropriate precedent. Now I can think of exceptional circumstances when a private baptism might be deemed necessary, however it is intended to be a public statement of faith and an affirmation of the community to welcome and uphold the one baptized. If this is done privately then all of this is lost.

So what surprised me and the reason I post it here is that in the many debates I had in college about baptism with my Catholic and Baptist friends I never heard anyone suggest that Jesus’ baptism was private. Have you?

 
  1. The narrative structure has this after John has been arrested, but I am not convinced that the narrative is linear. []