Targuman Rotating Header Image

Anglican

BBC on Growing Anglican Rift

I am watching BBC America news right now (and why on earth do we not simply have BBC international news?!) and they just ran a story on the conservative Anglican leaders meeting in Jerusalem this week prior to the Lambeth Conference and some have some rather dramatic comments.One story is here and video clip is here .

(They also just had John Green from the Pew Forum talking about their recent report and repeated the incorrect statements from their previous survey about people changing “faiths” when in fact they are chaning denominations.”)

 

Where is the Anglican Communion Going?

No one is sure yet. But this week the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) is meeting in Jerusalem prior to the Lambeth Conference which is meeting in mid-July. The Pew Forum just ran an informative and helpful piece setting the issues into a demographic context.

One of the major flashpoints in the ongoing conflict in the Anglican Communion centers on a recently married and openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson. Robinson was consecrated as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire in 2003, an event that helped convince several conservative Episcopal churches in the U.S. to look for alternative spiritual leadership. These breakaway parishes are now under the oversight of several African bishops, including Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria. That country officially is the second largest province in the Anglican Communion by membership but probably the first in terms of active members.

Now that the Anglican Communion is majority African, and the vast majority of African Anglicans are theologically conservative, there is a real question as to whether the historical ties of the Anglican Communion are strong enough to counter the forces that seem to be pushing the church toward schism. The Lambeth and Global Anglican Future conferences could soon provide an answer.

Take a look at the changes that have occurred over the last hundred years. The short of it: Britain and America are becoming irrelevant to the Anglican Communion.

Figure 1

 

BMW makes a car out of cloth and inspires a man of the cloth.

I stumbled across this video today of an amazing concept car by BMW. The idea is simple: the strength and support of a car is not in the skin/sheetmetal but in the bracing underneath it, so why not use something other than metal? GINA has a plastic coated lycra fabric as its skin and the results are amazing. You need to see the video to get a sense of this. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to see this make production? I think so.

So at the bottom of the post where I found this story was an auto-generated post titled:Flexible: BMW and Ecclesiology. The end of the video will explain where this post comes from, but the gist is,

The GINA then became a metaphor for how BMW as a company even thinks about cars…or thinks about thinking. For those of us trying to re-think forms and structures in church settings, this little story is a great example of how long-established paradigms could be replaced by faithful innovation.

Uh, maybe.

 

Almost a sermon… “Faith”

Last week I blogged with some thoughts about faith in preparation for the sermon I was to preach today. Except I was wrong. I was celebrating (leading the service to non-Anglicans and Catholics) but not preaching. Which was fine because the sermon preached was excellent. But so that there is no waste I will share what I had prepared here.

Proper 5, Year A

Hosea 5:15-6:6
Psalm 50:7-15
Romans 4:13-25
Matthew 9:9-13, 18-26

Therefore [Abraham’s] faith “was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Now the words, “it was reckoned to him,” were written not for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification. (Rom. 4:22-24) — Amen.

If you are a regular NPR listener you may remember a few months ago that the notion of “faith” hit the news when the results of a recent Pew survey were announced. The survey showed that “more than a quarter of adult Americans have left the faith of their childhood to join another religion or no religion.”1 There was much discussion at the time about what these results were saying about Americans and our religious convictions. It turns out that we are still a remarkably religious nation, especially when compared to our European cousins. But even as all the news reports talked about this report on “faith” it missed the fact that this was not about faith at all. Rather it was about religion, the set of beliefs that one confesses or espouses and the actions and modes of worship that one engages in as a member of a religious community. For instance, although there was a decline in those raised as Catholics and Methodists who said they remain in those traditions, a large percentage of those same people identify themselves as Christians, albeit now in an evangelical setting. They have not “switched religions” but have simply moved to a different expression of the same religion, Christianity.

What our readings today present us with is the very foundational question of “faith.” I have to admit that I find this topic perhaps only slightly less challenging to preach than the nature of the Trinity. There are all sorts of passages in the Bible that talk about “faith,” each with a slightly different angle or perspective on this fundamental concept.

Hebrews 11 tells us famously that, “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Several years ago I had a student in a class on religious thought and he expressed a frustration with this definition of faith. “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for.” To him, “hope” was merely wishing, like “I hope I will win the lottery,” but faith, he argued had to be something more secure. (This student, by the way, is now finishing up seminary.) “Hope” in this context, however, is not about wishing or wanting something to be true even while knowing that very likely is not. Rather this kind of hope is the expectation of something that has not yet fully come to fruition. Our Christian faith is when we act upon these beliefs.
Faith is belief plus action.

Consider our readings this morning. In Paul’s letter to the Romans he refers to Gen. 15 where we are told that Abraham believed God “therefore his faith ‘was reckoned to him as righteousness.’” You remember the story, God had promised Abraham that his children would be endless in numbers and they would inherit all of Canaan, yet he was extremely old and his wife Sarah was barren, unable to have children. In Genesis 15 God reaffirms his promise to Abraham.

1 After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, “Do not be afraid, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” 2 But Abram said, “O Lord GOD, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?”

Abraham points out the obvious to God, that he has promised him children to be his heirs and yet he had none. Notice that Abraham is willing to question God, to challenge God on his promises. This is not the subject of this sermon, but here is a bonus point: we are allowed to challenge God, to remind him, and therefore ourselves, of what God has promised to us. And when we do, like Abraham, we will hear God affirm his promises again in our lives.

4 But the word of the LORD came to him, “This man shall not be your heir; no one but your very own issue shall be your heir.” 5 He brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” 6 And he believed the LORD; and the LORD reckoned it to him as righteousness.

This is the faith that Paul tells us is counted as righteousness. It is important to realize that Abraham’s “belief” is not simple intellectual assent to a concept. But Abraham believes that God will make his descendants (rather than Eliezer of Damascus’) as numerous as the stars and thus does not pursue the “adoption” of Eliezer. In this case the “action” based upon belief is ceasing an activity. Abraham believed God’s promise to him and so acted accordingly. This is faith worthy of righteousness. Abraham of course goes on to have a few more missteps but his entire story is in fact, one of faith. When God first calls out to Abraham he tells him simply, “get up and go to the land that I will show you…I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.” Abraham heard God and believed that he would indeed bless him and so he got up and went, with no further assurances than God’s word. Faith is not simply believing something to be true, it is acting upon it as well.

In our Gospel this morning we find two stories, each about a person’s faith in Jesus’ ability to heal. The synagogue leader takes a great risk, knowing that his position within his community and synagogue would likely be ruined by associating with this crazy preacher was driven by the necessity of his child. But he also acted on his belief in Jesus’ power to save. “My daughter has just died; but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.” Did you notice what he said? His daughter was dead. Not just ill or feeling woozy. And yet we know he believed that Jesus could bring her back so he ran to him and said, “lay your hand on her and she will live.”

On his way to see the child a woman who had been ill for 12 years, sick with a hemorrhage, a flow of blood, which meant that for her to touch someone she would make them ritually unclean, reached out and touched the fringe of Jesus’ garment. Why? Because she believed in his power to heal her. She said to herself, “If I only touch his cloak, I will be made well.” There is no wishful thinking here, only the conviction that Jesus could heal her. “I will be made well.” She believed in Jesus and she acted on that belief and she is healed. Jesus reassures the woman who touched his garment, “‘Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.’” And instantly the woman was made well.”

Faith is belief plus action. It is not some abstract, esoteric knowledge to which we give intellectual assent. It is the firm conviction of God’s love and power and our response to that belief. If we merely say the creeds and confess Jesus as Lord and Saviour, but it never causes a change in our lives or the way we act then is it really faith? As James tells us, “faith without works is dead.” Had the woman simply said, “I believe that Jesus can heal me,” but was too meek or timid to reach out and touch him, she would not have been healed. Such a belief, no matter how strong one “feels” it, is not transformed into faith until one acts upon it.

In a moment we will recite the creed together, the creed that begins, “we believe.” How will this belief lead you to action this day, this week, in this life? If we believe that God created the heavens and the earth, how shall we now act? If we believe that Jesus came down from heaven for us and for our salvation, how shall we now act? If we believe in the forgiveness of sins and the resurrection of the dead, how shall we now act?
Faith is belief in action.

Bonus quote:
“Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.” — Saint Augustine

 
  1. Poll Finds a Fluid Religious Life in U.S. []

Defining “faith”

Yesterday I posted this:

I always wrestle with this, not so much the concept but the definition. I am preaching on June 8th and the readings are Hosea 5:15-6:6, Romans 4:13-25, and Matthew 9:9-13, 18-26.

So I ask, what do you all think of this ultra-simplistic definition of faith?

Faith = Belief + Action

This led to some very good and constructive comments. Michael Halcamb and Alex Lampros (“SHC,” let’s hope his not yet created blog is as engaging as this comment!) both tackle the question of definition of “definition,” as it were. Michael suggests that I still need to define the terms “belief” and “action” and Alex’s appropriation of Sextus Empiricus questions the very value of definition and is right, in my mind, that it can lead to an infinite regression. I think, however, all but Bob MacDonald miss the context of my definition. Or perhaps Alex gets a part of it as well when he says

There is a time and place for it! I don’t think that any definition will be sufficient to grasp faith, which leads to a question of adequacy. Adequacy is relative to context. Some situations demand a definition of a higher degree of adequacy. In other situations, much can be said for keeping things short and sweet!

But no one seemed to consider the context of the service and the readings listed above. So, when Bob asks “What is believing? What is Action?” My answer is and will be the examples from the readings of the day. In the case of the Gospel it is the combined story of the woman with the hemorrhage who touches his tsitsit “in faith” and is healed and the man whose daughter healed.

To consider the woman, she “said to herself, ‘If I only touch his cloak, I will be made well.’” When she does, Jesus’ response to her is “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.” Thus I think I would define her “belief” as the conviction that if she did X she would receive Y and her action would doing something based upon that conviction. The faith that made her well then was the belief in Jesus’ healing ability brought to life by acting upon it. Had she merely held to this belief without ever reaching out to touch his tsitsit then she would not have been healed. What good is that? How does that improve her and we might even ask if she truly believes it if she is afraid or unwilling to act upon her belief.

Now as Bob points out, one of the passages is Rom. 4 and in that passage Paul invokes the famous reference of Abraham’s faith in Gen. 15:6 where we are told that Abraham “believed the LORD; and the LORD reckoned it to him as righteousness.” Even in this case I would argue that Abraham’s “belief” is not simple intellectual assent to a concept but that he believes that God will make his descendants (rather than Eliezer of Damascus’) as numerous as the stars and thus does not pursue the “adoption” of Eliezer. In this case the “action” is ceasing an activity. It is important to note as well that Abraham’s taking of Hagar and producing an heir with her is not going against that belief in God’s promise since Ishmael was Abraham’s descendant. God simply had not made it clear to Abe in Gen. 15 that it would be the product of a union with him and Sarah.

In all of this I am keenly aware that “belief” could be viewed as an awful lot like “faith.” This is where I would introduce a definition of a term, “belief.” I alluded to it a moment ago, that “belief” is an intellectual assent to a concept, such as I believe that my car can achieve 60 MPH. I have faith when I am driving and accelerate past 55 to the (legal limit) 65. Maybe not the best analogy, but perhaps it is useful.

Finally, any conversation on “faith” and the Bible must reference Heb. 11:1 and in fact, during Lent I posted a long thought piece on that passage and further elaborated on it in this post referencing the sacrifices of Cain and Abel.