Authority

Fr. Jake and [Fr?!] Al, have gotten into a neat little exchange about authority. The argument is that Episcopalians are comfortable with ambiguity and paradox. Our confusions are small problems. We don't always need to get things perfectly right. We're happy to offer both sides to an issue or a theological dispute. Aside from believing in tea and cake ["cake or death!"], there's probably not too much we'd insist on, as long as the search was sincere and genuine.

I'd be a little more precise. I like +Frank a lot, and I think he gets far too many cheap shots from the angry and dispossessed, but he's not a philosophical thinker. But neither are most of his critics.

First of all, our lives aren't a matter of "here's a problem. Believe in x,y, and Z, and, voila, your problems disappear." Instead, the answers we seek are found in the lives of people, in our daily, ordinary practice, rather than in theology. God allows our answers to be right before us. They are not found aphorisms, platitudes, bumper-stickers or commands.

Granted, for some, life is so challenging that following directions is the best thing they can get from the church. And if my parishioners want that, I have plenty of advice. Sometimes they won't get what they want to hear. But most of the time I can just listen, and people figure out their lives on their own. I think of the Episcopal church as a "listening" church, and for the last 25 years, it's been listening to Gay people. There are plenty of places in scripture where this is exactly the kind of spiritual practice individuals are supposed to have. People are made in the image of God, and by listening to them, we have a clearer understanding of what and who God looks like. Whal Al misses is not that we have a "cavalier attitude" but that we have decided to focus on practice first. And when the tradition is wrong, we change our minds. What are you supposed to do?

Granted, I'm not much for calling myself a "heretic," although I think it's like of like calling some people "Republicans" or "fascists" or other kind of conversation stopping names. Like Jake, I have heterodox views.

As an aside, I do enjoy accusing my enemies of heresies. I love calling reasserters - those who oppose the ordination of +Gene Robinson, "Donatists," for example. I take great joy in calling Southern Baptists, "Gnostics." Occaionally, I'll call Roman Catholics "Semi-Pelagian," although I, myself, have, on alternate Thursdays, held semi-Pelagian views.

I've been accused of anti-nomianism, but those deep-thinking academics haven't studied linguistics, semiotics or cultural anthropology. Because it's really really hard to be truly antinomian. I've tried, but I'm constantly bounded by language and culture. I might be liberated in Christ, but I'm not liberated enough to slam-dunk or convince Myra, that hot Philipina salsera with the great smile and smokin' body, to give me her number. If any heresy could give me that, sign me up!

...sorry. Just caught in a little fantasy there. I promise I'd reconsider the heresy. After the first date. Then back to orthodoxy. I repent of name calling.

Whenever I hear the word "authority," I get this feeling in my head that is something like "may be I should have stopped at that one bottle of wine, and not continued with those three shots of Jagermeister and two vodka gimlets." Which is how I'm feeling right now, after reading Al. He has very long theological posts. I prefer drinking, usually.

Look, I was doing pastoral care.

His mom was dying and he'd just lost his job.

He really wanted me to do shots.

Sometimes pastoral care requires these things.

Now Al KNOWS that authority is a complex issue. That is why he's not a fundamentalist. That's why he's become a Roman. The Roman church has thought a lot about authority. They understand that often authority requires a myth to sustain it. Good for them. They have lots of ways to establish authority. And in the end it's a "you either believe me or you don't."

Now if you really want to understand authority, please do two things. First, read Bruce Lincoln. Authority usually requires a stage, and a suspension of thinking.

He defines authority is "an effect characteristic of strongly asymmetrical relations between speaker and audience, predisposing the latter to defer to the discourse of the former in ways that are often quite uncritical." You might also check out the Tavistock Institute. This book has some good essays, for practical work. I digress.

But I want to make a couple remarks.

Jake's position is an accurate description of the way people live lives, especially those who have many choices. It's not merely a moral position. Paradox, change, ambiguity are real aspects of lives. When we die, perhaps we might face a more severe reality. Then we we'll make a decision based upon that. Al, and other conservatives, simply can't live this way. My suspicion, given the evidence around me, is that God handles, in his actual existence, ambiguity and paradox quite well. As human beings are finite, I have little expectation that we experience God's eternal life except as bounded, cultural beings. So "absolutely determinative" is a description of one's life in God, but not a absolutely accurate for God's life in all of creation. We simply can't know this, except for ourselves, our lives and our communities.

Second, I have not read a clear description of what "authority" means and what obedience requires. The evangelical tradition includes a critical engagement with tradition - so obedience might mean engagement and not agreement. Instead, scripture and the church fathers are sources of authority and wisdom, but they are not "authoritative" in the way that trivializes free will, or damns people for being faithfully wrong.

Claiming that anything is authoritative is not a call to stop thinking. Alas, Al is not an evangelical, so this idea isn't quite useful. Instead, various mind bending techniques to force the modern world into a 2nd century world-view.

But who is listening to this discussion? Not many of the people I know. We've already identified the "revisionists" - which includes: those who change their minds when there is new evidence; babykillers; gays; open communion practioners - and the reasserters, who are identified by their cleanliness, perfect haircuts, and wide smiles. They're usually right about most things, and they'll remind you of this. Don't fret fellow revisionists: when we're wrong, a glass of whiskey will always make thins wrigt agn [hic].

But then there are those who simply don't care about what the church says about anything. They go slutting about, eating twinkies, wearing fur and driving SUVs. Then there are those who think that God says things like "God helps those who help themselves."

Ok, maybe I'm just redescribing bad revisionists and bad reasserters.

My cat, for instance, really doesn't care. He is right now pawing my leg. The evidence indicates that sweet Tolly, [pic below] is a buddhist in the Therevada tradition, so I don't think he will add anything to discussion. But would God damn this cute cat to hell? I don't think so. And on whose authority? the Episcopal church has nothing determinative to say about my cat. That's for sure.

And as far as scriptural authority, my cat has far more authority in this house. Much more than the pope or Joel Osteen, or any fundamentalist. And although Al insinuates that fundamentalism is in the imaginations of we revisionists, a cursory look at world politics reveals that the of fantasy of an idealised past is powerfully compelling.

My cat has not shared with me his view about scripture, even though, in frustration, I've asked him several times. Instead, he kills moths. So they can be reincarnated.

BTW, why can't we all just be a little heterodox? Why not non-heretical heterodoxies? Yesterdays heterodoxies are today's orthodoxies, saith the great Schleiermacher. Heresies tend to stay the same.

I am sympathetic to Al. It has been little frustrating being in a church where imperfection and fuzzy boundaries are the norm. It does sometimes seem like we're a bunch of amateurs [but the root of amateur is to love, right?] in the face of the big biz operations of Joel Osteen, Pat Robertson and the Roman Catholic church.

I'm content that that the Episcopal Church might be the ONLY self-consciously Christian denomination that can be liberated to proclaim the liberal gospel that was spawned by the biblical humanism of the evangelical movement. The magnanimous gospel. The generous gospel. The gospel based on thankfulness and joy. This will become more formally part of our identity.

As the conservatives form their own congregations, the Episcopal church will become a haven for people who have been abused by fundamentalism and Roman Catholicism and its image of a cruel and punishing God, but don't want to give up the Gospel and Christian spirituality. It will be a small church, but a powerful witness. "Salt" as it were.

Now I know that Al thinks that bad theology means a declining church. But this is incorrect. Perhaps if he looked at the market, the entry of women into the workforce, capitalism and low birthrates, he would understand the numerical decline [but the spiritual invigoration] of the church . Alas, he's convinced that people first evaluate theology, when in fact, they go to a church based on how attractive the pastor is, the quality of the music, the cleanliness of the bathrooms, and if there is enough parking. Only Unitarians and reasserters care deeply about the theological consciousness of their members. Episcopalians just don't see why their gay friends should feel guilty about their faithful boyfriends. Now, I would love it if people were more serious. But he shouldn't blame the Episcopal church. The market has trivialized all forms of reverence, committment, loyalty and trust.

The Episcopal Church has taught me this: Here's scripture; here's the Trinity; here's Jesus. Now go live your life. The truth has set you free.

So go hang-gliding. Go dancing. Do something wonderful for someone today. Plant a garden. Feed your cat. Take some asprin. [?!]. Reverently.

Look, I have a hangover.

Comments

[bls]

Amen.

[David Huff]

Fr. Salty wrote: The Episcopal Church has taught me this: Here's scripture; here's the trinity; here's Jesus. Now go live your life. The truth has set you free.

I love that! Sorta sounds like an Episcopalian version of the Buddhist saying, Before enlightenment chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.

[Jake]

Thanks for the chuckle, and lowering my blood pressure a few notches.

Think the dog and I will now take a leisurely walk.

[Samuel]

Great post. Loved Fr.Jake's post too.

[mason terry]

Fr. Salty wrote: Jake's position is an accurate description of the way people live lives, especially those who have many choices. It's not merely a moral position. Paradox, change, ambiguity are real aspects of lives. When we die, perhaps we might face a more severe reality. Then we we'll make a decision based upon that. Al, and other conservatives, simply can't live this way.

Fr. Salty, I have noted that you and I agree more often than not on issues, but I am mystified by the way you use the notion of ambiguity and your readiness to say that Al Kimel and conservatives can’t live that way.

First, you seem to say that Fr. Jake’s description of ambiguity is “how most people live lives” and is “not merely a moral position”. If I understand your statement, it describes the way you believe things happen to be. The virtue of your observation is that it urges caution and humility in making judgments and engaging in courses of action because they entail risks. We can never be certain of outcomes. If this were all that Fr. Jake was saying, then we would be lead to conclude that that he was urging us to show humility and caution.

But if I read Fr. Jake rightly, his use of the concepts of paradox and ambiguity implies more. By the way he uses the concepts as a tactical device--a way of minimizing and dismissing his opponent’s argument without really addressing it—he turns virtue into a vice. It would be better to address the opponent’s position by showing how the opponent has neglected to address or take into account the full range of issues. It might even be more charitable to acknowledge the deep pain that having to choose between two or more incommensurable goods poses for most of us. This choice, I submit, is anything but an ambiguous one!

But how far does Fr. Jake wish to extend his use of “paradox and ambiguity” and to what? You imply that those who can live with ambiguity are somehow morally superior to those who cannot! That must include Fr. Jake! As I mentioned to him, one might conclude that he is insincere about his use of the concept because he is not at all ambiguous or uncertain about those positions to which he is deeply committed. He loathes both Pat Robertson’s recent comments about assassinating Pres. Chavez and Archbishop Akinola’s anti-gay positions. He can’t accept the view, he said, that “the bible said it, I believe it, that ends it". In these and other positions, he showed no trace of ambiguity. However, I doubt his lack of ambiguity on these commitments makes him somehow less morally worthy or astute.

[Paul]

The problem I see with those who invoke "the Authority of Scripture" to condemn those actions of the Episcopal 2003 General Convention that they find distasteful is that they are forced to pick and choose textual passages to support their positions while avoiding those passages that they would prefer not to care about. They don't, for example, claim that wearing poly-cotton clericals should disqualify one from becoming a bishop. But that's a Levitical proscription as well. I have yet to hear a coherent justification for the method of their choosing that is better than Jake's "ick" factor.

Even Professor Gagnon, whom I am told is the theological heavy-hitter of the Reasserter set (and thanks, saltyvicar, for the definitions; if only we now had etymologies), discounts Lev. 18:19 as no longer applicable based solely on modern contemporary mores. So why can't we similarly approach Lev. 18:22 and its progeny?

If this be "ambiguity", then we need to find other principles to look to to help us make choices. Unless your choices are random, then there must be reasons for acting. If our choice is to put on blinders and stab at untranslatable texts (no one alive knows exactly what "malakoi" may have meant in first-century contexts), and take them as gospel, then we are overlooking the Gospel. Or so I read Jake.

And mason terry, if you read back over Jake's prior posts you will see that he has "addressed the opponent's position" many times; he no longer does it every day and like many of us appears to be getting tired of feeling a need to do so.

I guess that being a "revisionist" may not be such a bad thing. The Gospel commands us to look, and to look again (Mark 13:33-37), and God asks that his prophets write the vision (Hab. 2:2). Re-vision must therefore be good, and we should spread the word.

[John wilkins]

Hi Mason. actually I have no problem with Akinola and Robertson havine their own views. I simply don't think I'll be condemned for not sharing them. Where do we go from there? Look, I think Akinola is a hateful bigot. Alas, I don't think he's going to hell, as I think is faith is sincere. I don't get that kind of charity from Akinola and his ilk. He thinks I'm really dangerous. I just think his views are... inaccurate. I think its OK to be wrong. If he would only allow that he could be wrong. thus, I'm erring on the side of ambiguity.

[Annie]

I can't remember enjoying a post more. I'm so glad that you cleared up this business of authority in scripture for me, among other things.

[Bruno Finocchio]

Bravo!
and a bit of the hair of the dog (or cat, as the case may be)
and remember the old Episcopal saying
"Where ever two or more are gathered in His name, the is sure to be a fifth"
Peace Brother
Bruno

[Dave C.]

I left the Episcopal Church because it seems to me that currently the only point of belief that will allow for complete welcome is a belief that a committed homosexual relationship is a blessed thing. It seems not to matter what the view of Scripture is, as long as you agreee that it allows homosexual behavior. It seems not to matter whether you believe Christ was sinless, born of a virgin, died and arose or not, as long as you believe that he would have blessed homosexual relationships.

In short, the "Here's scripture; here's the Trinity; here's Jesus" can mean something, nearly everything, or almost nothing at all, and that's o.k. unless you also happen to believe that Scripture, the Trinity, and Jesus do not allow us to sanctify homosexual relationships.

[John Wilkins]

Dave, you can believe or not believe. What we liberals say is that the church should be agnostic about orientation, and focus on the real center of the faith. That would be Jesus. You're picture of liberals is one painted by conservatives.

[mason terry]

Paul—

You indeed point out a crucial problem in the way some approach Scripture when they invoke it in these unfortunate debates. You ask some very good questions. Those who reach for Scripture first to decide a question often appear to have no guiding principle or principles in how they pick and choose. Your citation of the Holiness Code in Leviticus is a good example. Mentioning that you understand that Prof. Gagnon discounts the Holiness Code “based on contemporary mores”, you asked why his approach can’t be extended to Lev. 18:22? Continuing, you asked a very crucial question: “If this be "ambiguity", then we need to find other principles to look to to [sic] help us make choices. Unless your choices are random, then there must be reasons for acting.”
I agree. Indeed, that’s the rub. Are there any such principles?

That being said, I suggest that both sides in this debate may be missing the mark and if they are looking for “principles” they are looking for fool’s gold. Both sides are presupposing different, but equally inadequate approaches. Looking to the Scriptures in hope of finding the conclusive and definite answer to every doctrinal, moral or theological dispute is not a fruitful approach. On the other hand, neither is the approach that posits the existence of some abstract set of principles (based, perhaps, on natural rights and law—like brotherhood, liberty and equality) which should be used to guide interpretation of Scripture. Rather, the church’s practical moral reasoning should be guided Christologically by the image of Christ but I will not test your patience by explaining what that entails here.

As a result of critiques, among others, of the Post-modernists of the existence of universals and the rise of hermeneutics of suspicion, many in our time are skeptical about the existence of some body of universals. They are suspicious of claims grounded on some lofty, high-minded principle. What principles others invoke are too often guided by unconscious cultural and economic biases. What we ate for breakfast (to paraphrase Justice Holmes) determines the principles we invoke.

Thus, to continue to Insist that we must search from some principle or principles (whatever they may be) sends us all on a fool’s errand and continues to beg the question. No set of abstract universal principles exists through which we can interpret Scripture.

Fr. Salty—

The point was not whether you did or did not agree with Archbishop Akinola or what you think of him. In using Fr. Jake’s assertions about Akinola and his rejection of a particular view of Scripture, I was not suggesting that you agreed with him or didn’t. I frankly did not know. What I hoped to show was that, despite the way Fr. Jake applauded the PB’s use of the concept, there exists no ambiguity in Fr. Jake’s views on Akinola and on the particular view of Scripture he mentioned. To use the concept of ambiguity the way he did was disingenuous.

[Jake]

To eliminate certain options of where to draw the line does not rule out the possiblity that one is still ambiguous as to where that line should be drawn, or if it is even possible to drawsuch a line.

Using the term "ambiguous" as synonymous with "uncertain," it is possible to hold a position tenaciously while still being open to the possibility that your position does not encapsulate absolute truth. If this is disingenuous, I plead guilty, but am not inclined to repent.

[John wilkins]

I think that we liberals are fighting for the right to be wrong about some things, and that includes the salvation of those formerly excluded. Jake is correct in moving the issue from "ambiguity" to a lack of absolute certaintly.

[Alcuin Bramerton]

Feminist theology is about more
Than the use of vibrators
In liturgical dance.

Feminist theology is about
The sexist silliness of saying
That God is a cosmic senior citizen
With hair on his chin
But not on his pussy.

Feminist theology's goals
Are to interrogate
The social construction
Of black womanhood
In relation to the African American experience
And ask if "womanist theology"
Might be a more gender-neutral term
Than "feminist theology" -
And more ladylike?

And feminist theology is about
The employment discrimination
Involved in asserting
That 3.5 billion clitorises
Disqualify the human beings
Attached to them
From being priests of Christ
And from the fringe benefits
Which being priests of Christ brings
In terms of pretty dresses
And pensions.

Apparently,
If you are the proud possessor
Of a penis,
You can pray better.

Feminist theology
Questions this dogma.

And feminist theology
Questions other things,
Such as why it is the case
In many churches
That there is so little
Handbag space
Provided on the High Altar,
And why most medieval
Easter sepulchres
Are not fitted with bidets.

These are live issues
For the female faithful
And they cannot be swept under
The kitchen sink.

It is not easy
To deliver a sermon in church
While you are doing the ironing.

It is true that you could
Get a man in
To do the ironing.

But that would mean
That the man would miss the sermon,
Or do the ironing
Down at the pub.

Or, more likely,
Mow the lawn instead
While laughing loudly
At football jokes
And peeing on the lavatory seat.

Men make such hopeless priests.

[Bill Carroll]

Isn't a large part of the issue about whether authority is unilateral and vested in a person by virtue of office or bilateral/multilateral and granted to the person in view of trusting relationship and mutually discerned gifts? Some folks will not be comfortable unless there is a hierarchy prepared to give unambiguous answers to disputed questions. Anglicanism as I have known it has been more comfortable without the ability to make neat and tidy resolutions. Apparently, elsewhere in the communion, this has not been the case. Which view of Anglicanism should prevail and why?

[redeemed]

Bill, there is also some folks who will not be comfortable unless there is a heirarchy prepared to give unambiguous rulings to disputed actions. Here, the same parts of Anglicanism that don't want neat and tidy resolutions to questions has become more and more comforable seeking neat and tidy resolutions to actions in other seemingly unrelated situations and circumstances. Because of both situations and circumstances, can Anglicanism prevail and how? Authority indeed!

[Erin]

So go hang-gliding. Go dancing. Do something wonderful for someone today. Plant a garden. Feed your cat. Take some asprin. [?!]. Reverently.

Beautiful words!

This is really tangential, but have you seen the movie Harold and Maude? The spirit of this passage reminded me very much of how I felt watching that movie. (It has some things to say about authority, too...)