Several years ago, I was
leading a workshop on New Member Ministry in a North East Diocese when I made a
comment about formation of new church members.
I referred to the Nicene Creed as a summation of Episcopal/Anglican
Doctrine. To my surprise, a Canon of the
Diocese interrupted me and said, “I don’t agree with what you just said.” I became an Episcopalian and then a Priest
because you can be an Episcopalian and believe whatever you want to
believe.”
Since I was not quite
clear where the Canon was coming from, I said, “How do you square this with a
church with a liturgy where every Sunday in almost every congregation we say
the Nicene Creed?”
“Oh,” the Canon replied,
“that is just there because it is a part of our history.”
I paused for a moment and
then said, “Well, you are wrong on this.
We have a section of the Prayer Book that has ‘historical documents’ in
it. The Creed is in our Eucharistic service
as a summary of the Church’s teaching.
“Well,” said the Canon
“You have a right to your opinion just as I have a right to mine.”
Now I had several
responses that I could have given to this dismissal of my statement, but I
thought for a moment and realized that if the Canon actually believed
everything I had just said was a matter of opinion then nothing I could add
would make any difference. I went back
to talking about how to better welcome new folks. I have, however, never forgotten this
encounter because of the way that objective truth was negated by a person’s
subjective opinion.
As all Episcopal clergy
should know, of course, the Nicene Creed was placed in our Prayer Book liturgy,
before the sermon in early Prayer Books and after the sermon since 1979, so
that any individual sermon would be proclaimed in the context of the Church’s
wider teaching and doctrine. I know this
fact because scholars who have studied the Prayer Book liturgy have documented
the editors’ intentions on the matter. I
had the privilege of doing my theological study during the publishing of the
Prayer Book Studies which laid the framework for the 79 Book of Common
Prayer. So I read every one of the
Studies.
The placement of the
Nicene Creed as well as the use of the Apostles Creed in Baptism and the
placement of the Creed of Athanasius in the 79 book served a two-fold
purpose. First, they affirmed the
Anglican Principle that only the Doctrinal positions of the undivided Church of
the first three centuries could have universal authority among “catholic” (note
small “c”) Christians. As our
theologians have often said, “We are a Creedal Church not a Confessional
one.”
Second, the presence of
the Creed serves as an on-going connection to our apostolic origins as a living
presence in today’s Church. This second
reason is based on the Anglican attitude toward Tradition. Again, most of our clergy would know that the
three sources of authority in our community (as attributed to Hooker) are
Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.”
Over the years, I have
often heard leaders in the Episcopal Church appeal to this “three-legged stool”
as our authority which allows them to explain what modern “reason” has to teach
us. In doing this I usually note two
things about their attitude. First is
that Reason (which meant for our forbearers “logic” or philosophically or
scientifically information) seems always to be the most
important leg of the stool. So, for
example, what we “know” today about gender and human sexuality triumphs
anything the Scriptures have to say on this matter. Hooker
actually said it quite differently. He
said that the first authority is the Scriptures, then “What cannot be proven by
the warrant of Scripture” should then be referred to Tradition. And “What cannot be proven by warrant of
tradition” should then be referred to Reason.
This is why we should never really refer to a “three-legged stool” since
Hooker, who is our authority on this matter, clearly had a hierarchal view of
these values.
Second, anyone who listens
today to what many of our leaders have to say about these matters must know that
“Tradition” has almost no value whatsoever for them especially as it comes to
what the Church has taught in the past. Quite
the contrary, when many of our leaders use the word ‘tradition’ they mean it in
the same negative way one may speak of those who say “we never did it that way
before” use the expression to veto any new or innovative ideas. Tradition as it has to do with what vestments
you may wear or what altar hangings you might put in place for Lent is fine,
but Tradition in teaching is a constraining and confining arbitrary restriction
to what Reason has come to understand.
Now let me contrast this
attitude to what Archbishop Michael Ramsey said on this topic. “Traditionalism is the dead weight of the
past; worshipping the past just because it is the past. Tradition is the living presence of those who
have going before. It is the vote by
those who are no longer present with us but who will be with us in the world that
is to come.” I have always thought that
this idea of the vote “of those who have gone before” is a wonderful way to
express the importance of Tradition. So
when a parishioner asked of his Eastern Orthodox Priest, “Do I have to believe
the Creed?” The Priest replied, “Oh my
goodness no. You do not have to believe
it. You get to believe it. The Creed, like the Church itself is God’s
gift to you.”
So when some leaders argue
that we should remove the Nicene Creed from the Eucharistic liturgy to make us
more inclusive and relevant to non-members, I see this argument as just one
more expression by folks today who believe that we present living humans have a
superior view of all things that have gone before. I have found that when visitors, especially
non-Churched people, visit a Church, they expect it to have a form of liturgy,
a Holy Book that we would read and expound, and a set of beliefs that we
hold. I would expect this of either a
Jewish service or a Muslim service.
Inclusiveness as an argument for not having these things is at best condescension
and at worst folly. It demands that we
surrender our identity in a way that most visitors would never ask or
understand. It is in the final analysis
one more argument against tradition by those who have long ago lost any regard
for it.
Of course, I have a right
to my opinion, but this is not my point.
My point is that I do not refer to myself as a minority in the
Church. Sure, I understand what
conservatives in the Church mean when they say this. Many times I have voted on a Diocesan level in
the minority. I have certainly as a Deputy
to General Convention frequently voted in the minority. I have often found myself marginalized by
so-called “Inclusive” people. Yet, none
of this convinces me that I am a minority.
They simply convince me that in today’s rapidly declining Church,
strongly influenced by the secular spirit of the age, and certain of the
rightness of every position on social and political issues that I am out voted at
this moment. Then I say the Creed and
remember that I have voted with the overwhelming majority with
whom I have on-going fellowship, if the All Saints Day Liturgy and the Creed
are correct. By the way, I have Progressive
friends who also say the Creed with integrity and belief. Not all Progressives
dismiss the Creedal affirmation of Doctrine as mere Tradition or worse, as the
Canon did, as opinion. So, even if I
have voted differently on an issue, we have already voted on the
essentials. That is what has, is, and
will in the future hold us together.
We have cast our vote,
indeed our lives, with Peter, James, John, Matthew, Paul, Mary, Mary Madeline, Perpetua,
Felicitas, Justin Martyr, Francis, Claire, Patrick, Augustine, Augustine of
Canterbury, Cranmer, Hooker, Brooks, Hines, and a heavenly host of those known
and unknown who have already voted.
No comments:
Post a Comment