Flickr - Latest Photos
Doublespeak
What's another word for heresy? Progressive orthodoxy.
My bishop is retiring next month, Bishop Joseph Sprauge, and in his weekly column in our conference newspaper he writes:
"The notoriety attached to me in some quarters in regrettable. Some of the things written and said issued more from hearsay and false assumptions than truth. Those often strident contentions were embarrassing, to say the least. Yet, I rejoice in the unequivocal support of those who have experienced my faith in Jesus Christ first hand, have witnessed my episcopacy up close and personal, and know experientially both my progressive orthodoxy and radical ortho-praxis."
This is the man who said,
"I affirm unequivocally that Jesus was fully human, fully divine. My Christology "from below" interprets the deity of Christ, unique and normative, as resulting from a radical trust relationship in and through which the very heart of God, the essence of deity, was made fully manifest in Jesus of Nazareth."
And here's the entire controversial chapter from his book.
If Jesus' divinity results from a radical trust relationship, that means he freakin' earned his divinity by trusting God. Thus, we can earn salvation by "radically trusting" God too!
This is how bad theology hurts you.
He thinks he's "progressively" orthodox because he'll say he can affirm that Jesus is fully human and fully divine, but it means what he wants it to mean. And he can do this because it's all just metaphors anyway. Without getting in discussions of postmodern language theory (cause I'm ignorant on that) I say that Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human, or God is Triune, might be a mystery, but it's not a metaphor. To paraphrase Flannery O'Connor, if it's a metaphor, then to hell with it.
"While I believe (trust ultimately and absolutely) the historic affirmations of the Christian faith, and have stated so on numerous occasions, I am persuaded that much of the faith language in Scripture, the creeds and historic dogma is apophatic; that is, symbolic, metaphorical language that seeks to point to the mystery and wonder of God and God's preeminent revelation in Jesus the Christ, and should not be taken literally. To do so violates the very nature and intent of said language. And, even runs the risk of the heinous sin of idolatry."
If you affirm the Chalcedon explanation of Jesus' divinity and humanity, then you are a literalist. Possibly even an idolater. And - the worst sin of all - you are not progressive.
I certainly sympathize with his antiliteralism. But a story where
everything's a metaphor is what's generally called "fiction." There's a
point in this kind of theology where the Bible becomes indistinguishable
from a novel, and frankly, on that level there are better novels out
there.
Do you think Sprague should have been tried for heresy and found
guilty?
The only thing I like about Sprague is that he was the only one brave enough to speak out unequivocally againt war in Afghanistan and Iraq, although he did not do so from a solid theological foundation. For some of my thoughts on United Methodist bishops, see:
http://theivybush.blogspot.com/2004/07/1-out-of-2-aint-bad.html
Yeah. This is a problem. What is revealed can only be metaphor. Yuck.
But how can metaphor be incarnated? I understand the imposition of
"concrete" revelation. As a liberal-ish baptist, I have trouble with
creeds because I want people to work things out on their own...work out
your own salvation and all that. I am not one for fencing off the
theological community with some body else's metaphors. But what your
bishop is suggesting is a sign that my own "pastoral" desires are skewed.
In the attempt to allow people to work things out for themselves, to meet
with God, we lose the Tradition, the identity of what makes
Christianity...well...Christianity. So, how then do we proceede?
Tripp, I think there is a difference between lay people struggling to
understand and work out their beliefs, which would hopefully someday
conform to what the Church teaches, and the bishop, who is "to guard,
transmit, teach, and proclaim corporately and individually the apostolic
faith as it is expressed in Scripture and tradition, and as they are led
and endowed by the Spirit, to interpret that faith evangelically and
prophetically."
Adoptionism (loosely, believing Christ earned his divinity at some point in his life, as Sprague does) is not the apostolic faith as it is expressed in Scripture and tradition. So, yes, I think he should have been found guilty. There has to be a fence around our interpretations, lest we stray so far from our faith we've abandoned it.
What's the name of the heresy for not believing in the bodily resurrection of Christ? He's not on board with that one, either.
Maybe it's an aspect of original sin that we try to be like God by trusting
in language rather than Deity. Language cannot help but put God in a box,
which never works. Language can always be misunderstood by anyone,
especially a true believer in something else.
Ask any poet. We can only
accept mystery and do our best with language.
A couple of observations:
1. If you have to label it "progressive" then there's something you have to hide. It's sort of like labelling a steaming pile of poo "fragrant." It really begs the question.
2. There are two sorts of linguistic legalism: the kind that enshrines only one set of forumulae and the kind that eschews any. The one fails to acknowledge the diversity in orthodox theological terminology. The other fails to appreciate that God chose to communicate in words, that words do refer to real objects, and the God meant something when he spoke.
I say, try the bishop for heresy. It's the least we can do for the man, given his apparent penchant for foisting on the hapless all this academic doublespeak.
Clifton D. Healy [chealy5@yahoo.com]