ἀγάπη, agapē
When in early Spring 1984 I decided to "go for it" and change everything about my life situation by being true to my Southern heritage, turn down a call to be rector of a Pennsylvania parish, and apply for the vacant pulpit at Trinity, Apalachicola, the second thing I did, after writing to Bishop Duvall, was, on my next trip to Florida to teach one of my courses at the University of West Florida, call on him at his diocesan headquarters, in Mobile, Alabama at the Time. We had a good meeting, interview both ways (this had to please both of us and I was as much in control as he), and then the archdeacon, Sam Hardman, took me for lunch and a longer chat.
Some years later, Fr Sam commented to someone that "there are two priests in the diocese whom I do not understand: Jack Wilhite and Tom Weller", and I appreciate not being understood, especially along with Jack Wilhite, a hero. But the thing I recall about that Spring 1984 afternoon lunch conversation, other than taking a real liking to Fr Sam, is that during our visit, he asked me "How do you feel about criticism?" I guess I lucked out, because I told him, "I don't like criticism any more than anyone else does, but the issue isn't how I feel about criticism, it's how I handle criticism, how I deal with criticism".
Sam later told me that this conversation was one of the things that had gotten me the pulpit, that on reporting back to the bishop, he'd told the bishop that except for Tom Weller, every priest whom he asks that question says "Oh, I love criticism", which is a lie, and a rather barefaced lie at that.
It probably didn't hurt either, that both Sam and I were retired U S Navy officers, Sam a 30-year Navy captain, me a 20-year Navy commander.
But, Criticism. In scrolling down to read through the "comments" below news reports, essays, opinions and other posts, one of the ugliest and most ungracious things I see is in the nature of "if you don't like it here, leave". It's always wrong, always unhelpful to the conversation, as senseless as mindless road rage, because it conveys the view that negative criticism is not welcome or appropriate; when, in a free country (after all, we are pretty much free on most things), there are always opposing sides on any issue, and the freedom to be and express opposition is a vital part of the deal.
Why am I "here" this morning? Because from Time to Time (I nearly always capitalize Time, because Time is all I have, my only asset, but it's very tentative, and I see it slipping away much too fast), people ask me Why do I stay in the Episcopal Church if I don't like the Creed and other Theological stances of the church? My answer is close to the twelve disciples' response in last Sunday's gospel when Jesus asked them, "Will you also go away?".
The Nicene Creed (the Baptismal Covenant with its creed and promises is much more suitable for Christians to say and hold in mind) is a "hard saying" for me because the Nicene Creed has me recite things about Jesus the Son's relationship with God the Father that are beyond human knowing; that suggest that God is a human construct; that the Holy Spirit was not in on the compilation of the Nicene Creed in which people hurt and killed each other over it; that the Truth of God is not something that can be decided by human vote or human concurrence; that the details that were fought over obviously worried the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Fathers far more than they interest or bother me, or, indeed, most any modern Christian. So, I stand and say it, I do not go tacet or cross my fingers at any point, for the same reason that Bishop Spong says he says it: like many of our hymns, it's lovely, and I let it be part of my love song to God.
Further, I confess, there are other issues, other things with the church. Which is basically why I had this, my +Time blog, taken down as a link on the parish website: in my blog I do not speak for the Episcopal Church, only for myself as a lifelong member, free in our relatively democratic and thinking institution (Seek The Truth, Come Whence It May, Cost What It Will).
To be specific, one of our Collects for a Sunday (Proper 15, we just recently prayed it), says "Almighty God, you have given your only Son to be for us a sacrifice for sin and also a example of godly life". In that we pray it, lex orandi lex credendi, it expresses our theology. I subscribe to the theology that Jesus came to be for us an example of godly life, which is precisely ἀγάπη, agapē, the love we promise to live toward others in our Baptismal Covenant:
- Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?
- Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
But, although Christ dying for our sins is a key theological element throughout our liturgy and, lex orandi lex credendi, integral to our theology, I do not subscribe to Anselm's satisfaction theory of atonement, that Jesus' crucifixion was necessary to atone for human sin; or that it was part of a loving God's plan of salvation. The notion of sending God, living as Jesus a human being (true man), intentionally to suffer and die horribly by Crucifixion to smooth over a supposed issue between God and mankind, is barbaric; and, furthermore, dismisses Almighty God's attribute of Grace - - all so as theologically to rationalize for human understanding, the Crucifixion of the Messiah; when the suffering and death of the Messiah is fully rationalized by the Resurrection in which God deigns to show us how much God loves us by returning to us no matter how cruelly we treat God - - a reasonable, humane, godly theology that turns itself directly upon us by challenging us to love our fellow human beings in exactly the same way as God loves us: anyway, nevertheless and notwithstanding.
So, with issues, why do I stay in the Church? Because I was born and bred into it and it is part of me. Because I can theologically reflect into it. Because I do not have to check my brain at the door: we are a thinking people's church, we have no mandatory dogma ordering what we must believe. Because no question or challenge is off the table. Because everyone is welcome, without exception. Because if I don't like something I can rebel, disregard, even defy, as I do. Because it's a faith system that makes sense to me and in which I can be intellectually comfortable. Because I love the people who worship with me, especially including those who disagree with me. And anyway, "Lord, to whom would I go? You have the words of eternal life".
TW+
Top: the life of St Anselm told in 16 medallions in a stained-glass window in Quimper Cathedral, Brittany, in France
+++++++++++++++++++++Cur Deus Homo
Main articles: Cur Deus Homo and Satisfaction theory of atonement
Cur Deus Homo ("Why God was a Man") was written from 1095 to 1098 once Anselm was already archbishop of Canterbury[32] as a response for requests to discuss the Incarnation.[197] It takes the form of a dialogue between Anselm and Boso, one of his students.[198] Its core is a purely rational argument for the necessity of the Christian mystery of atonement, the belief that Jesus's crucifixion was necessary to atone for mankind's sin. Anselm argues that, owing to the Fall and mankind's fallen nature ever since, humanity has offended God. Divine justice demands restitution for sin but human beings are incapable of providing it, as all the actions of men are already obligated to the furtherance of God's glory.[199] Further, God's infinite justice demands infinite restitution for the impairment of his infinite dignity.[196] The enormity of the offence led Anselm to reject personal acts of atonement, even Peter Damian's flagellation, as inadequate[200] and ultimately vain.[201] Instead, full recompense could only be made by God, which His infinite mercy inclines Him to provide. Atonement for humanity, however, could only be made through the figure of Jesus, as a sinless being both fully divine and fully human.[197] Taking it upon himself to offer his own life on our behalf, his crucifixion accrues infinite worth, more than redeeming mankind and permitting it to enjoy a just will in accord with its intended nature.[196] This interpretation is notable for permitting divine justice and mercy to be entirely compatible[167] and has exercised immense influence over church doctrine,[164][202] largely supplanting the earlier theory developed by Origen and Gregory of Nyssa[115] that had focused primarily on Satan's power over fallen man.[164] Cur Deus Homo is often accounted Anselm's greatest work,[115] but the legalist and amoral nature of the argument, along with its neglect of the individuals actually being redeemed, has been criticized both by comparison with the treatment by Abelard[164] and for its subsequent development in Protestant theology.[203]
Source: Wikipedia. Kindly pardon that I did not go through and erase the footnote numbers.