what I did tonight instead of studying:
in response to this post:
http://lastprotestantdinosaur.blogspot.com/2007/10/basics-of-welcoming-liturgy.html
We kind of jumped him. He started deleting them at first but I rescued them:
-------------------------------------------------------------
lunaedraconis said...
i think frey has it pretty much right. i'm not saying that change can never be good (quite the reverse; i consider myself educated, generally liberal and receptive to *good* new ideas, and a scientist; can't be these things and entirely mired in tradition as well). but you, OP, are not only in the process of cutting out what it means to be episcopal in your congregation, you're also getting rid of the christianity in your congregation by going against certain really vital doctrinal points, like, oh, i dunno, the basic ideas that the bible is inspired? that jesus was born of a virgin? that the trinitarian elements are male? it is people like you who make me shudder for the theological and moral future of ECUSA, and who force me to align myself with the more conservative voices in the anglican communion rather than simply sit back and watch this disintegration occur.
October 13, 2007 6:51 PM
Shay said...
Yet more amusement from the church of Peter Pan...
for a cradle Piskie, whose father was one, whose grandfather was one, whose great-grandfather was one, whose great-great grandfather was one...time to take OUR property and get the hell out of here.
October 13, 2007 6:54 PM
lunaedraconis said...
also, you're not just christian, OP. you're an episcopalian priest. our denomination has practices of worship that set us apart from other christian denominations. among those: we are a liturgical denomination. our worship is based on the book of common prayer. getting rid of these elements means that we purge our episcopalianness.
October 13, 2007 6:55 PM
lunaedraconis said...
sorry for the spam, OP. but i'm honestly wondering, why bother with christianity at all? why not be neopagan or something that affords you the "freedom" you seek?
October 13, 2007 7:05 PM
Courtney said...
"Most telling, they universally focus on atonement theory and as such they excise most retelling of Jesus' jubilee ministry. Why did Jesus die, because of who he was and what he did! Our current prayers make it seem like an abstract 'plan of salvation' which I think is sick."
Sick? Of all the absurdities in this post, this one takes the cake. The Eucharist and "atonement theory" are the heart of Christianity, because redemption is the goal of the Church, not "inclusion" and "welcoming" as you mistakenly believe. Jesus's ministry was significant because he revealed the Father; he came so that "whoever believes in him may have eternal life." He came to "seek and save the lost," not stroke their egos. As for the Eucharist and those boring "theological" prayer, Christ himself said that "whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life." The Eucharist isn't given to the Church because it tells us how nice Jesus was, it's given because Christ died and rose again and bought our salvation. Period. The way to Christ isn't "affirmation," its repentance.
Shorten the readings? Revise "boring" prayers? Let nonbelievers receive communion? You've lost sight of the fact that following Christ demands something of us -- spending five minutes reading the Bible rather than two is the least of your worries. If all your suggestions were to take affect, your liturgy wouldn't even be Christian. I can only pray that the ECUSA and Anglican churches in general won't follow your lead.
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
I would like to remind BLS that we also have EOW, and a long tradition of editing and changing our liturgy every 40 years or so. Those changes have come from innovators working from the bottom up more than the top down. We need to experiment. Indeed, the three churches that use the welcoming practices I talk about are three of the fastest growing, most vital and generous congregations in the Diocese of Chicago.
October 13, 2007 7:37 PM
Courtney said...
Nice deletion of dissenting comments! What a model of inclusive dialogue!
lunaedraconis said...
OP...i am genuinely trying to be noninflammatory in my dialog here. but if you delete the comments of people who disagree with you, that's...not particularly christian or inclusive.
October 13, 2007 7:42 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
What fascinates me about this last group of posts (beside the wonderfully scholarly one on parthenos which I really appreciate) is that folks aren't actually making plausible arguments beside appeal to the past and an over over over simplified notion of what it means to be an Episcopalian. For me, the BCP gets in the way of Evangelism. If you want a good old Rite 2 church fine. We also need other churches focused on the vast majority of Americans who are looking for a church home. I am sorry, but I think our Good News message is bigger than the BCP, bigger than atonement theory. My goodness what heat a little questioning generates. BTW,when I was ordained I swore to uphold the bible as "containing all things necessary to salvation." I did not swear that is was the literal word of God or inspired, whatever that means. The book is the primary way that I know Jesus. That is why it is important to me. As for the person who questioned why I am still a Christian, I would say the majority of Christians are not focused on these silly dogmatic debates and in fact disbelieve or do not relate to the things you call crucial. Once again, merely insisting that it is central is not a very convincing argument. And I am a cradle Episcopalian too. So playing the "I was here first card is fairly petty."
October 13, 2007 7:47 PM
lunaedraconis said...
okay, please, could you elaborate what you think the good news of christ *is*, if it isn't that he died for our salvation and that he was resurrected on the third day, etc.?
October 13, 2007 7:49 PM
lunaedraconis said...
i can assure you, as well, that i am certainly *not* a cradle episcopalian, and if i sounded superior i apologize.
October 13, 2007 7:53 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
Thanks for that constructive question! I believe that in Jesus God healed the divide between humanity and God. Jesus was and is humanity reconciled to God, in harmony and unity with God. Wherever Jesus went the Kingdom of God was present in healing, including, truth telling, hope giving, justice and mercy etc. Jesus was a threat to the powers that be and so they conspired to kill him and they succeeded. However, God did not let death and oppression and injustice have the last word and the God raised Jesus from the dead. The resurrection sets us free from our fears of separation from God so we can lead lives like Christ however flawed we remain, especially through the corporate expression of church. That is salvation enough for me and that is how I have experienced Jesus in my life. Resurrection for me is central.
October 13, 2007 7:56 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
Boy this is tricky to get responses lined up the right people. TO KATE- the problem with the Gloria is the HORRIBLE music and the less then inspiring words. We have whole world of fantastic hymns out there that help me contemplate our God more than the Gloria. I am just telling folks what works for me and has worked in my congregations on this one. It is not a big theological point
October 13, 2007 8:02 PM
lunaedraconis said...
ok, but whence the divide/separation between man and God? why did it take place? why is it bad? how can you conceive of unity and reconciliation, the happy, good-news parts of christianity, without also admitting to what makes them necessary--our original sin?
October 13, 2007 8:03 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
For BLS - again it is not bizzarre to be thinking about the clock. From my perspective it is a matter of respecting peoples time and their lives outside of church. Using discipline in worship helps people schedule their lives which, at the end of the day, is the most important theater of faith, not worship. If you are praying and studying and striving all week long the hour on Sunday is just a corporate refueling stop. I often think it is like those old hot wheel tracks where the car picked up energy from a pair of spinning wheels and was shot along the track, running out of energy again right before it got to the wheels. That is what Sunday does for me.
October 13, 2007 8:08 PM
Courtney said...
I appreciate your concern for evangelism -- and having been raised a nondenominational evangelical involved in Christian ministry, I am familiar with the ins and outs of "what can we do to appeal to people?" And the answer is that Christ calls people, and when they hear and see Him, they answer. You are blessed to be in a denomination that has held on to many of the ways people worshiped in the past. Why is the past important? Why should it mean anything? First of all because people from every generation throughout time have something to contribute to the search for the truth and to the life of faith.
Like your evangelical brothers, your attempt to free yourself from all historical ties and simply find what "appeals" to people as they are right now, is fatally misguided. You want to address "the vast majority if Americans" and newcomers or "seekers" -- which is admirable. But focusing solely on what people are "looking for" or what they "want" completely bysteps the fact that as a Christian and an Episcopalian you have something very specific and very real to give them, simply by virtue of being both of those things! People are looking for radically different things, for good and bad, admirable and selfish, genuine and misguided reasons. People very often want the wrong things, which is the whole point of the Revelation -- that we can be shown what we ought to want, truly and wholeheartedly. Namely, Christ. Paul said he was to be "all things to all men" -- but not by abandoning his deeply held faith which for him (and 2,000 years of Christian believers) also meant "doctrines." Doctrine is important in the life of a believer because believing the true things about Christ and about our redemption and about how we ought to live is how we learn to know Christ. Doctrines and theology (how did you ever get through divinity school without seeing this?) are part of how we know God and thus, when united with love, are transformative. Doctrine is essential to the faith and essential to Christian truth -- something that all Christians should be concerned about, whether they live in the 3rd century or the 21st.
Overall I think that your suggestions for the Anglican church are abysmal not because they're "new" but because they excise those things most essential to the faith -- Christ's salvation, and teaching Christians to strive for truth and right living by conforming to something given to them. This requires letting go of our own desires and pursuing His. Where do we find His desires, His truth? In the Bible, and in the teaching of the Church. "To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." John 6 "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
It depends on what you mean by original sin. I understand it as our willful tendency to turn away from an ever present, available and loving God. Yes there is something deep in us that just can't accept our loving God. It seems to me to be all tangled up with being independent beings who feel threatened by dependence of any kind. I love the term theonomy when used in contrast to autonomy.
October 13, 2007 8:11 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
Courtney, you are reading a great deal into my words. The 'past' is not uniform. It is full of choices and options. Aquinas himself labeled vicarious atonement a 'theory,' meaning it was one way a person MAY understand the saving work of God in Jesus. Once again I invite you to explain why virgin birth is important beyond that it has been held in the past. I can't see why it is important personally. Finally, if my blog causes you heartburn feel free to stop reading it. : )
October 13, 2007 8:15 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
Courtney, I suggest a lovely little book called The Nature of Doctrine by Linbeck (sp?) Meant a lot to me. And BTW, I aced Divinity School.
October 13, 2007 8:16 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
Hey John Clay, that is really a brilliant post! I love it. If I haven't been clear, and this is the last I will say on the matter - I think Mary was Jesus' mother and the state of her virginity doesn't seem to matter much. For me, Mary is important because she was one of the first, if not the first, Disciple - the person who responded to God's call with risk taking, whole hearted and whole-bodied faith. If we changed our references to her to blessed Disciple Mary - which I have done in the past I would be thrilled and more edified frankly. All the other stuff just seems like Greek speculation to me.
October 13, 2007 8:22 PM
lunaedraconis said...
reverend (may i apostrophize you thus?) i agree with your description of original sin, and also with your understanding of the need for reconciliatio. i guess what i don't get is why you feel you can just toss out parts of the story that you disagree with or don't like? important parts, even, like the virgin birth?
in some ways, i understand you when you say it's important for the church to be more accessible, but what is the point of a more accessible church that is no longer actually christian?
October 13, 2007 8:22 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
The church has always held that their are things pertaining to salvation and things that aren't within the tradition. (There are fancy Greek terms for this but I can't recall them right now). I am an adult and so I think hard about what works for me spiritually and as a pastor I listen to what matters to other folks. As I wrote above to Courtney the tradition is actually pluriform and there have always been significant disagreements in faith, starting with St. Paul's letters. I try to give reasons for what I think we need to leave behind - I think I did a post on my objections to atonement theory in September. The church is always testing the spirits (1 John) to see what leads to grace and truth. This blog is an attempt to do that in a very limited way. Folks of good will like you I will always respect your faith choices even if they don't work for me and they don't hurt people. I would never go for temple prostitution as suggested above.
October 13, 2007 8:29 PM
Frey said...
Rev. Jarrett, I apologize for my earlier comment, which was an outburst and probably deserved deletion! I hope you'll accept something more civil from me.
You seem to be working off a definition of "necessary belief" which equates to "what I find useful," or making your own interpretation the measure of faith.
To make this clear, let's switch it around and ask what reason there is for *not* believing in the Virgin birth? The only reason to find it "unlikely" is to assume that either A) Jesus was only a man, and a miraculous birth would make him more than a man, so it must be rejected or B) even if Jesus was divine, of one substance with the Father, you simply decide to believe contrary to the "democracy of the dead" (tradition) that he was conceived by natural means. You cannot examine Mary's hymen. You can't even know Mary existed apart from the testimony of Scripture and tradition. In either case, you are making an assumption - A) that it is "not necessary" to [your personal understanding of] salvation for Jesus to be divine, or B) that the testimony of the Fathers has no claim to truth if it interferes with [your interpretation of] salvation.
The question, therefore, is what gives one the authority to use his own standard and definition of necessary belief? In the same way that you deny the necessity of the virgin birth, I might deny the necessity of Christ's birth, death, or salvific work (however understood) as a means of reunification with God. A lot of people follow through on this, and have no qualms excluding Christ from the picture. There must be some point, however, where a theological opinion stops being a Christian one, let alone Episcopalian. If any given man and his private opinions are the standard of this definition, there is no shared definition at *all*.
October 13, 2007 8:35 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
Gosh, I must have ADHD or something. I can't seem to get all my ideas out in one response. For folks who are not familiar with the Episcopal tradition you may not understand how we do 'authority.' For some churches, everything you need is in scripture (sola scriptura), for some it is in scripture and tradition. For Episcopalians it has always been in those two things and in REASON. This is our classic three legged stool - scripture, tradition, reason. I try to use this tradition and it seems to be a source of annoyance for folks who want the bow tied more neatly. See a great thing about the three legged stool is that nothing gets to be paramount, nothing gets to replace the final authority - God. All of our doctrine and such is so much groping in the dark. Check out Karl Barth on this front!
October 13, 2007 8:38 PM
Kate said...
I was thinking less of the music (there are multiple settings for it, you know! I'm familiar with three that have been composed by parish choirs and are only used in those parishes) than of your remark that it is "impenetrable dogma." What about it (in your experience or to your understanding) is so impenetrable or/and dogmatic? You also said something in your comment I'd be grateful if you'd expand on, that it's "less than inspiring." Why is it so uninspiring? More to the point, what are the feelings or thoughts that should be inspired?
Also, while I'm at it (sorry, I didn't realize that so many people would be descending on the blog or I would have asked all my questions the first time I posted), why is the Collect for Purity "extraneous crap"?
What would you edit the Communion Prayers to read? What is the jubilee ministry, and what is so abstract about the theory of atonement set forth? Is there a necessary division between the atonement and jubilee?
If Mary wasn't a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, who was his father? If she wasn't really a virgin and the wise men didn't really come, why are these metaphors useful or/and necessary?
Sorry for all the questions; it's just so rare that I find someone who is educated and willing to engage in dialogue that I have to leap at the chance when it comes.
[this is Kate, btw. I'm not sure of the name that will be posted.]
October 13, 2007 8:40 PM
Courtney said...
Indeed, the past is not at all uniform! Which is the point of why the past is so important, because doctrine develops not merely because people have new ideas, but because they fight over them, to determine which ideas are true! If you merely preferred another way of understanding Christ's redemptive work (re: atonement theory) that would be one thing. And btw, I know what Aquinas teaches about the atonement, because in fact Catholic theology is rich in the various ways that our salvation in Christ is worked out. But the essential point of the atonement is that we don't simply follow Christ's moral teachings, nor do we simply believe in him. (Both these statements may be found in the Bible, but must be interpreted by ...doctrine! the wider picture.) Instead, the atonement indicates that Christ's death was a sacrifice, we could never have merited salvation on our own or by our own initiative.
That, as I said, is one thing, but the Virgin birth is absolutely essential to Christian faith precisely because Jesus is both man and God. He received his human nature from Mary and was miraculously conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit" (I'm assuming you still recite that boring old creed in your services?), and without either of these part he couldn't have been our Mediator. Your Christian brethren spent upwards of 500 years developing this doctrine -- you might want to read Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" on the supreme importance of this point (or maybe you read it in divinity school and found it lacking? Several of Athanasius' heretical contemporaries no doubt would agree with you!)
And since we're starting a book club, I'll recommend both John Henry Newman's "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" and Jaroslav Pelikan's lecture "Development of Christian Doctrine." Obviously there's nothing I can say to convince you when you think that your own ideas can supersede hundreds of years of debate about these very essential items of the faith. Moreover, you see no problem in leading other people down foreign paths even though you're an ordained minister in a historically rich and "clerical" denomination. But this is the fatal Protestant assumption (and having been raised a Protestant, I can say this with all the love I have for the people who taught me my faith) -- that we are beholden to no one but God, not the Church, not other Christian thinkers, not the faith of the Church as it developed for several hundred years, as Christians strove to find the truth, a truth that couldn't contradict all the true Christian teaching in the past.
In any case, I think you'd be surprised how many people responded to a different appeal, the appeal to leave their own desires behind and conform to something that sometimes bothers them, sometimes enrages them, sometimes confuses them. Without belief in a truth that makes us uncomfortable and "brings division," as Jesus said, we're simply following our own way and losing out on the fullness of becoming a part of Christ's united body.
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
Frey, thank you kindly for your response. My response (above) about the three legged stool might be an answer to your point. On another level you really have put your finger on it though... Asking the practical question, Does this work for me? seems to be at the center of the discussion. Indeed, it is the question I am trying to insert into the dialogue in my church. Honestly, logical arguments did not make me a Christian - the experience of the Saving Love of God in Jesus reached me, held me and has set me on a journey of wellness. Dogma had no role. The passing of the peace at a monastery conveyed for me the reality of Jesus and I finally let him back in. I can make the best arguments I can but at the end of the day I am just one voice to be taken or left. Thank God we have so MANY types of churches so folks who need different gateways can reach God. For me, doctrine is about telling the story of God in Jesus, but we always need to remember that it is a human telling of things are ultimately mystery and ultimately God's. This is why there are so many BOOKS, jeez louise in the Christian tradition. : )
October 13, 2007 8:48 PM
lunaedraconis said...
reverend, let me second courtney's last post and offer my own experience as a convert from hinduism to episcopalianism--complete with what you call atonement theory. it wasn't easy for me to make this leap of faith, but i did because i had no other choice. for those who wish to convert to christianity, there is a straightforward set of beliefs they have to subscribe to. it's true that some denominations have a little extra fluff to them, but there are essential articles of faith that one has to accept in order to be called christian. otherwise, one is definitionally not christian. i am still unclear on why it seems that anyone can pick and choose whatever they please for the sake of inclusivity.
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
Wow Kate, I don't no if I can cover all those bases. First, the collect for Purity was originally a prayer said by the priest in the sacristy before worship. Cranmer moved it into the liturgy proper as a symbol of the Priesthood of all believers. I admire that move on his part in the 16th century. At the present I just find it dull and repetitive and we might as well just do the confession at that point. The Gloria to me is like 'the creed junior.' I just don't find it to be good poetry. It is a super jumble of images that distract me more than center me. And most of the blue hymnal settings are horrible. I thought I was done with the Mary stuff -see above - but I love "who was his father" question. Biologically, I don't know. The only Father he talks about is God the Creator, his abba. That is the parental relationship in his life, but as an adoptive father myself I must say that does not imply biological connection! It does however connect to Jesus' saying about us all leaving our families to be faithful to God. Challenging stuff!
October 13, 2007 8:58 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
Hey Luna, thanks for sharing about your background I would love to hear more about that. Would you please list the exact definition of what a Christian must believe? Love Kindness, do mercy and walk humbly with your God works for me. Also, why is worship FOR Christians? It really is for everybody wherever they are in their journey of faith.
October 13, 2007 9:01 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
Good night folks! Thanks for the workout! You may not believe this but I have taken your points to heart and will continue to sit with them.
October 13, 2007 9:03 PM
lunaedraconis said...
reverend, i'd like to just say this for comic effect--frey, courtney and i are all eighteen-to-nineteen-year-old girls, converts to the higher-church end of things. we're friends, and the reason we all descended on you at once is that one of us found your post. we apologize profusely for any rudeness on our part.
lunaedraconis said...
i'm sorry! to clarify, it was actually kate who found your post (she is also a friend and our age, but she is actually a cradle something, not a convert.)
ETA:
October 13, 2007 9:14 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
How wonderful that you have each other and have found a way of faith that means so much to you. I too have a deep high church thread in my heart. Indeed the assumption that I am a evangelical was funny to me. I do take your comments seriously and I am always open to the fact that I could be wrong. At 40 I have accumulated a lot of empirical data on that front! Like Queen Elizabeth 1 I have a abhorrence of judging "any mans' (or womans') heart."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Upon rereading... I was really rude! And definitely sarcastic. And rude. And he was nice, besides the deleting of posts early on, so I am ashamed.
ETA: http://www.stmaryspr.org/?q=node/84
My favorite part, however, is how all the comments are dated "October 13"! Happy 10-13 Day!!!
http://lastprotestantdinosaur.blogspot.com/2007/10/basics-of-welcoming-liturgy.html
We kind of jumped him. He started deleting them at first but I rescued them:
-------------------------------------------------------------
lunaedraconis said...
i think frey has it pretty much right. i'm not saying that change can never be good (quite the reverse; i consider myself educated, generally liberal and receptive to *good* new ideas, and a scientist; can't be these things and entirely mired in tradition as well). but you, OP, are not only in the process of cutting out what it means to be episcopal in your congregation, you're also getting rid of the christianity in your congregation by going against certain really vital doctrinal points, like, oh, i dunno, the basic ideas that the bible is inspired? that jesus was born of a virgin? that the trinitarian elements are male? it is people like you who make me shudder for the theological and moral future of ECUSA, and who force me to align myself with the more conservative voices in the anglican communion rather than simply sit back and watch this disintegration occur.
October 13, 2007 6:51 PM
Shay said...
Yet more amusement from the church of Peter Pan...
for a cradle Piskie, whose father was one, whose grandfather was one, whose great-grandfather was one, whose great-great grandfather was one...time to take OUR property and get the hell out of here.
October 13, 2007 6:54 PM
lunaedraconis said...
also, you're not just christian, OP. you're an episcopalian priest. our denomination has practices of worship that set us apart from other christian denominations. among those: we are a liturgical denomination. our worship is based on the book of common prayer. getting rid of these elements means that we purge our episcopalianness.
October 13, 2007 6:55 PM
lunaedraconis said...
sorry for the spam, OP. but i'm honestly wondering, why bother with christianity at all? why not be neopagan or something that affords you the "freedom" you seek?
October 13, 2007 7:05 PM
Courtney said...
"Most telling, they universally focus on atonement theory and as such they excise most retelling of Jesus' jubilee ministry. Why did Jesus die, because of who he was and what he did! Our current prayers make it seem like an abstract 'plan of salvation' which I think is sick."
Sick? Of all the absurdities in this post, this one takes the cake. The Eucharist and "atonement theory" are the heart of Christianity, because redemption is the goal of the Church, not "inclusion" and "welcoming" as you mistakenly believe. Jesus's ministry was significant because he revealed the Father; he came so that "whoever believes in him may have eternal life." He came to "seek and save the lost," not stroke their egos. As for the Eucharist and those boring "theological" prayer, Christ himself said that "whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life." The Eucharist isn't given to the Church because it tells us how nice Jesus was, it's given because Christ died and rose again and bought our salvation. Period. The way to Christ isn't "affirmation," its repentance.
Shorten the readings? Revise "boring" prayers? Let nonbelievers receive communion? You've lost sight of the fact that following Christ demands something of us -- spending five minutes reading the Bible rather than two is the least of your worries. If all your suggestions were to take affect, your liturgy wouldn't even be Christian. I can only pray that the ECUSA and Anglican churches in general won't follow your lead.
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
I would like to remind BLS that we also have EOW, and a long tradition of editing and changing our liturgy every 40 years or so. Those changes have come from innovators working from the bottom up more than the top down. We need to experiment. Indeed, the three churches that use the welcoming practices I talk about are three of the fastest growing, most vital and generous congregations in the Diocese of Chicago.
October 13, 2007 7:37 PM
Courtney said...
Nice deletion of dissenting comments! What a model of inclusive dialogue!
lunaedraconis said...
OP...i am genuinely trying to be noninflammatory in my dialog here. but if you delete the comments of people who disagree with you, that's...not particularly christian or inclusive.
October 13, 2007 7:42 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
What fascinates me about this last group of posts (beside the wonderfully scholarly one on parthenos which I really appreciate) is that folks aren't actually making plausible arguments beside appeal to the past and an over over over simplified notion of what it means to be an Episcopalian. For me, the BCP gets in the way of Evangelism. If you want a good old Rite 2 church fine. We also need other churches focused on the vast majority of Americans who are looking for a church home. I am sorry, but I think our Good News message is bigger than the BCP, bigger than atonement theory. My goodness what heat a little questioning generates. BTW,when I was ordained I swore to uphold the bible as "containing all things necessary to salvation." I did not swear that is was the literal word of God or inspired, whatever that means. The book is the primary way that I know Jesus. That is why it is important to me. As for the person who questioned why I am still a Christian, I would say the majority of Christians are not focused on these silly dogmatic debates and in fact disbelieve or do not relate to the things you call crucial. Once again, merely insisting that it is central is not a very convincing argument. And I am a cradle Episcopalian too. So playing the "I was here first card is fairly petty."
October 13, 2007 7:47 PM
lunaedraconis said...
okay, please, could you elaborate what you think the good news of christ *is*, if it isn't that he died for our salvation and that he was resurrected on the third day, etc.?
October 13, 2007 7:49 PM
lunaedraconis said...
i can assure you, as well, that i am certainly *not* a cradle episcopalian, and if i sounded superior i apologize.
October 13, 2007 7:53 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
Thanks for that constructive question! I believe that in Jesus God healed the divide between humanity and God. Jesus was and is humanity reconciled to God, in harmony and unity with God. Wherever Jesus went the Kingdom of God was present in healing, including, truth telling, hope giving, justice and mercy etc. Jesus was a threat to the powers that be and so they conspired to kill him and they succeeded. However, God did not let death and oppression and injustice have the last word and the God raised Jesus from the dead. The resurrection sets us free from our fears of separation from God so we can lead lives like Christ however flawed we remain, especially through the corporate expression of church. That is salvation enough for me and that is how I have experienced Jesus in my life. Resurrection for me is central.
October 13, 2007 7:56 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
Boy this is tricky to get responses lined up the right people. TO KATE- the problem with the Gloria is the HORRIBLE music and the less then inspiring words. We have whole world of fantastic hymns out there that help me contemplate our God more than the Gloria. I am just telling folks what works for me and has worked in my congregations on this one. It is not a big theological point
October 13, 2007 8:02 PM
lunaedraconis said...
ok, but whence the divide/separation between man and God? why did it take place? why is it bad? how can you conceive of unity and reconciliation, the happy, good-news parts of christianity, without also admitting to what makes them necessary--our original sin?
October 13, 2007 8:03 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
For BLS - again it is not bizzarre to be thinking about the clock. From my perspective it is a matter of respecting peoples time and their lives outside of church. Using discipline in worship helps people schedule their lives which, at the end of the day, is the most important theater of faith, not worship. If you are praying and studying and striving all week long the hour on Sunday is just a corporate refueling stop. I often think it is like those old hot wheel tracks where the car picked up energy from a pair of spinning wheels and was shot along the track, running out of energy again right before it got to the wheels. That is what Sunday does for me.
October 13, 2007 8:08 PM
Courtney said...
I appreciate your concern for evangelism -- and having been raised a nondenominational evangelical involved in Christian ministry, I am familiar with the ins and outs of "what can we do to appeal to people?" And the answer is that Christ calls people, and when they hear and see Him, they answer. You are blessed to be in a denomination that has held on to many of the ways people worshiped in the past. Why is the past important? Why should it mean anything? First of all because people from every generation throughout time have something to contribute to the search for the truth and to the life of faith.
Like your evangelical brothers, your attempt to free yourself from all historical ties and simply find what "appeals" to people as they are right now, is fatally misguided. You want to address "the vast majority if Americans" and newcomers or "seekers" -- which is admirable. But focusing solely on what people are "looking for" or what they "want" completely bysteps the fact that as a Christian and an Episcopalian you have something very specific and very real to give them, simply by virtue of being both of those things! People are looking for radically different things, for good and bad, admirable and selfish, genuine and misguided reasons. People very often want the wrong things, which is the whole point of the Revelation -- that we can be shown what we ought to want, truly and wholeheartedly. Namely, Christ. Paul said he was to be "all things to all men" -- but not by abandoning his deeply held faith which for him (and 2,000 years of Christian believers) also meant "doctrines." Doctrine is important in the life of a believer because believing the true things about Christ and about our redemption and about how we ought to live is how we learn to know Christ. Doctrines and theology (how did you ever get through divinity school without seeing this?) are part of how we know God and thus, when united with love, are transformative. Doctrine is essential to the faith and essential to Christian truth -- something that all Christians should be concerned about, whether they live in the 3rd century or the 21st.
Overall I think that your suggestions for the Anglican church are abysmal not because they're "new" but because they excise those things most essential to the faith -- Christ's salvation, and teaching Christians to strive for truth and right living by conforming to something given to them. This requires letting go of our own desires and pursuing His. Where do we find His desires, His truth? In the Bible, and in the teaching of the Church. "To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." John 6 "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
It depends on what you mean by original sin. I understand it as our willful tendency to turn away from an ever present, available and loving God. Yes there is something deep in us that just can't accept our loving God. It seems to me to be all tangled up with being independent beings who feel threatened by dependence of any kind. I love the term theonomy when used in contrast to autonomy.
October 13, 2007 8:11 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
Courtney, you are reading a great deal into my words. The 'past' is not uniform. It is full of choices and options. Aquinas himself labeled vicarious atonement a 'theory,' meaning it was one way a person MAY understand the saving work of God in Jesus. Once again I invite you to explain why virgin birth is important beyond that it has been held in the past. I can't see why it is important personally. Finally, if my blog causes you heartburn feel free to stop reading it. : )
October 13, 2007 8:15 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
Courtney, I suggest a lovely little book called The Nature of Doctrine by Linbeck (sp?) Meant a lot to me. And BTW, I aced Divinity School.
October 13, 2007 8:16 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
Hey John Clay, that is really a brilliant post! I love it. If I haven't been clear, and this is the last I will say on the matter - I think Mary was Jesus' mother and the state of her virginity doesn't seem to matter much. For me, Mary is important because she was one of the first, if not the first, Disciple - the person who responded to God's call with risk taking, whole hearted and whole-bodied faith. If we changed our references to her to blessed Disciple Mary - which I have done in the past I would be thrilled and more edified frankly. All the other stuff just seems like Greek speculation to me.
October 13, 2007 8:22 PM
lunaedraconis said...
reverend (may i apostrophize you thus?) i agree with your description of original sin, and also with your understanding of the need for reconciliatio. i guess what i don't get is why you feel you can just toss out parts of the story that you disagree with or don't like? important parts, even, like the virgin birth?
in some ways, i understand you when you say it's important for the church to be more accessible, but what is the point of a more accessible church that is no longer actually christian?
October 13, 2007 8:22 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
The church has always held that their are things pertaining to salvation and things that aren't within the tradition. (There are fancy Greek terms for this but I can't recall them right now). I am an adult and so I think hard about what works for me spiritually and as a pastor I listen to what matters to other folks. As I wrote above to Courtney the tradition is actually pluriform and there have always been significant disagreements in faith, starting with St. Paul's letters. I try to give reasons for what I think we need to leave behind - I think I did a post on my objections to atonement theory in September. The church is always testing the spirits (1 John) to see what leads to grace and truth. This blog is an attempt to do that in a very limited way. Folks of good will like you I will always respect your faith choices even if they don't work for me and they don't hurt people. I would never go for temple prostitution as suggested above.
October 13, 2007 8:29 PM
Frey said...
Rev. Jarrett, I apologize for my earlier comment, which was an outburst and probably deserved deletion! I hope you'll accept something more civil from me.
You seem to be working off a definition of "necessary belief" which equates to "what I find useful," or making your own interpretation the measure of faith.
To make this clear, let's switch it around and ask what reason there is for *not* believing in the Virgin birth? The only reason to find it "unlikely" is to assume that either A) Jesus was only a man, and a miraculous birth would make him more than a man, so it must be rejected or B) even if Jesus was divine, of one substance with the Father, you simply decide to believe contrary to the "democracy of the dead" (tradition) that he was conceived by natural means. You cannot examine Mary's hymen. You can't even know Mary existed apart from the testimony of Scripture and tradition. In either case, you are making an assumption - A) that it is "not necessary" to [your personal understanding of] salvation for Jesus to be divine, or B) that the testimony of the Fathers has no claim to truth if it interferes with [your interpretation of] salvation.
The question, therefore, is what gives one the authority to use his own standard and definition of necessary belief? In the same way that you deny the necessity of the virgin birth, I might deny the necessity of Christ's birth, death, or salvific work (however understood) as a means of reunification with God. A lot of people follow through on this, and have no qualms excluding Christ from the picture. There must be some point, however, where a theological opinion stops being a Christian one, let alone Episcopalian. If any given man and his private opinions are the standard of this definition, there is no shared definition at *all*.
October 13, 2007 8:35 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
Gosh, I must have ADHD or something. I can't seem to get all my ideas out in one response. For folks who are not familiar with the Episcopal tradition you may not understand how we do 'authority.' For some churches, everything you need is in scripture (sola scriptura), for some it is in scripture and tradition. For Episcopalians it has always been in those two things and in REASON. This is our classic three legged stool - scripture, tradition, reason. I try to use this tradition and it seems to be a source of annoyance for folks who want the bow tied more neatly. See a great thing about the three legged stool is that nothing gets to be paramount, nothing gets to replace the final authority - God. All of our doctrine and such is so much groping in the dark. Check out Karl Barth on this front!
October 13, 2007 8:38 PM
Kate said...
I was thinking less of the music (there are multiple settings for it, you know! I'm familiar with three that have been composed by parish choirs and are only used in those parishes) than of your remark that it is "impenetrable dogma." What about it (in your experience or to your understanding) is so impenetrable or/and dogmatic? You also said something in your comment I'd be grateful if you'd expand on, that it's "less than inspiring." Why is it so uninspiring? More to the point, what are the feelings or thoughts that should be inspired?
Also, while I'm at it (sorry, I didn't realize that so many people would be descending on the blog or I would have asked all my questions the first time I posted), why is the Collect for Purity "extraneous crap"?
What would you edit the Communion Prayers to read? What is the jubilee ministry, and what is so abstract about the theory of atonement set forth? Is there a necessary division between the atonement and jubilee?
If Mary wasn't a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, who was his father? If she wasn't really a virgin and the wise men didn't really come, why are these metaphors useful or/and necessary?
Sorry for all the questions; it's just so rare that I find someone who is educated and willing to engage in dialogue that I have to leap at the chance when it comes.
[this is Kate, btw. I'm not sure of the name that will be posted.]
October 13, 2007 8:40 PM
Courtney said...
Indeed, the past is not at all uniform! Which is the point of why the past is so important, because doctrine develops not merely because people have new ideas, but because they fight over them, to determine which ideas are true! If you merely preferred another way of understanding Christ's redemptive work (re: atonement theory) that would be one thing. And btw, I know what Aquinas teaches about the atonement, because in fact Catholic theology is rich in the various ways that our salvation in Christ is worked out. But the essential point of the atonement is that we don't simply follow Christ's moral teachings, nor do we simply believe in him. (Both these statements may be found in the Bible, but must be interpreted by ...doctrine! the wider picture.) Instead, the atonement indicates that Christ's death was a sacrifice, we could never have merited salvation on our own or by our own initiative.
That, as I said, is one thing, but the Virgin birth is absolutely essential to Christian faith precisely because Jesus is both man and God. He received his human nature from Mary and was miraculously conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit" (I'm assuming you still recite that boring old creed in your services?), and without either of these part he couldn't have been our Mediator. Your Christian brethren spent upwards of 500 years developing this doctrine -- you might want to read Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" on the supreme importance of this point (or maybe you read it in divinity school and found it lacking? Several of Athanasius' heretical contemporaries no doubt would agree with you!)
And since we're starting a book club, I'll recommend both John Henry Newman's "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" and Jaroslav Pelikan's lecture "Development of Christian Doctrine." Obviously there's nothing I can say to convince you when you think that your own ideas can supersede hundreds of years of debate about these very essential items of the faith. Moreover, you see no problem in leading other people down foreign paths even though you're an ordained minister in a historically rich and "clerical" denomination. But this is the fatal Protestant assumption (and having been raised a Protestant, I can say this with all the love I have for the people who taught me my faith) -- that we are beholden to no one but God, not the Church, not other Christian thinkers, not the faith of the Church as it developed for several hundred years, as Christians strove to find the truth, a truth that couldn't contradict all the true Christian teaching in the past.
In any case, I think you'd be surprised how many people responded to a different appeal, the appeal to leave their own desires behind and conform to something that sometimes bothers them, sometimes enrages them, sometimes confuses them. Without belief in a truth that makes us uncomfortable and "brings division," as Jesus said, we're simply following our own way and losing out on the fullness of becoming a part of Christ's united body.
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
Frey, thank you kindly for your response. My response (above) about the three legged stool might be an answer to your point. On another level you really have put your finger on it though... Asking the practical question, Does this work for me? seems to be at the center of the discussion. Indeed, it is the question I am trying to insert into the dialogue in my church. Honestly, logical arguments did not make me a Christian - the experience of the Saving Love of God in Jesus reached me, held me and has set me on a journey of wellness. Dogma had no role. The passing of the peace at a monastery conveyed for me the reality of Jesus and I finally let him back in. I can make the best arguments I can but at the end of the day I am just one voice to be taken or left. Thank God we have so MANY types of churches so folks who need different gateways can reach God. For me, doctrine is about telling the story of God in Jesus, but we always need to remember that it is a human telling of things are ultimately mystery and ultimately God's. This is why there are so many BOOKS, jeez louise in the Christian tradition. : )
October 13, 2007 8:48 PM
lunaedraconis said...
reverend, let me second courtney's last post and offer my own experience as a convert from hinduism to episcopalianism--complete with what you call atonement theory. it wasn't easy for me to make this leap of faith, but i did because i had no other choice. for those who wish to convert to christianity, there is a straightforward set of beliefs they have to subscribe to. it's true that some denominations have a little extra fluff to them, but there are essential articles of faith that one has to accept in order to be called christian. otherwise, one is definitionally not christian. i am still unclear on why it seems that anyone can pick and choose whatever they please for the sake of inclusivity.
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
Wow Kate, I don't no if I can cover all those bases. First, the collect for Purity was originally a prayer said by the priest in the sacristy before worship. Cranmer moved it into the liturgy proper as a symbol of the Priesthood of all believers. I admire that move on his part in the 16th century. At the present I just find it dull and repetitive and we might as well just do the confession at that point. The Gloria to me is like 'the creed junior.' I just don't find it to be good poetry. It is a super jumble of images that distract me more than center me. And most of the blue hymnal settings are horrible. I thought I was done with the Mary stuff -see above - but I love "who was his father" question. Biologically, I don't know. The only Father he talks about is God the Creator, his abba. That is the parental relationship in his life, but as an adoptive father myself I must say that does not imply biological connection! It does however connect to Jesus' saying about us all leaving our families to be faithful to God. Challenging stuff!
October 13, 2007 8:58 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
Hey Luna, thanks for sharing about your background I would love to hear more about that. Would you please list the exact definition of what a Christian must believe? Love Kindness, do mercy and walk humbly with your God works for me. Also, why is worship FOR Christians? It really is for everybody wherever they are in their journey of faith.
October 13, 2007 9:01 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
Good night folks! Thanks for the workout! You may not believe this but I have taken your points to heart and will continue to sit with them.
October 13, 2007 9:03 PM
lunaedraconis said...
reverend, i'd like to just say this for comic effect--frey, courtney and i are all eighteen-to-nineteen-year-old girls, converts to the higher-church end of things. we're friends, and the reason we all descended on you at once is that one of us found your post. we apologize profusely for any rudeness on our part.
lunaedraconis said...
i'm sorry! to clarify, it was actually kate who found your post (she is also a friend and our age, but she is actually a cradle something, not a convert.)
ETA:
October 13, 2007 9:14 PM
The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel said...
How wonderful that you have each other and have found a way of faith that means so much to you. I too have a deep high church thread in my heart. Indeed the assumption that I am a evangelical was funny to me. I do take your comments seriously and I am always open to the fact that I could be wrong. At 40 I have accumulated a lot of empirical data on that front! Like Queen Elizabeth 1 I have a abhorrence of judging "any mans' (or womans') heart."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Upon rereading... I was really rude! And definitely sarcastic. And rude. And he was nice, besides the deleting of posts early on, so I am ashamed.
ETA: http://www.stmaryspr.org/?q=node/84
My favorite part, however, is how all the comments are dated "October 13"! Happy 10-13 Day!!!