Wright vs. Orombi

Two Bishops, two very different ways of approaching the world. In this article Wright spends thousands of words essentially saying that the Bible is complex, we can’t go back to modernity, truth is hard to get at and both sides are probably wrong. Then in this interview, Wright can’t deign to answer yes to a question that I would think could be answered simply:

CT: Do you agree with the content of the Sudanese statement?

TW: What they have done in their statement is simply reaffirm what the Anglican Communion has always taught and what the historic churches in Christendom have always taught. It is sad that these things need to be reaffirmed – clearly they do. So for millions of Christians around the world all that they have said is ‘we are still believing what we have always believed’. So it’s not exceptional.

Wright does accept that homosexual sex is sinful, and yet he can’t seem to just say that. I think this is because it would be too much of a sop to conservatives, and he has to be seen bashing both sides equally. So if one party puts forward a great error and the other defends settled truth, you have to seek some sort of middle ground that accommodates sides both I guess. We have the Unitarian example in New England to see how churches die when they give in to serious error, but Wright seems content to just keep “grappling” and “wrestling” with the text as souls perish.

On the other hand, as a breath of fresh air, we have Bishop Orombi. This good Bishop has apparently had enough of grappling and trying to figure out what the final act of the play looks like. He seems to be committed to that ancient idea of truth – how quaint – quite apart from contours and gestures towards tentative thoughts on a subject. Orombi can actually get to the point:

In every case, homosexual practice is considered sinful – something that breaks our relationship with God and harms our wellbeing. It is something for which one should repent and seek forgiveness and healing, which God is ever ready to do. Not only is Scripture to be taken seriously, but it is to be obeyed, because God intends for us things far better than we could ask or imagine.

How can we go to Holy Communion, sit in Bible study groups, and share meals together, pretending that everything is OK?, that we are still in fellowship with the persistent violators of biblical teaching and of Lambeth resolutions?

The Bible says: “Can two walk together unless they are agreed?” The Archbishop of Canterbury has asked us to “wait for each other”. But how is it possible when we are not travelling in the same direction?

Two Bishops approaching the issues with vastly different ways of speaking and praxis. Guess which Bishop I would rather serve under? It’s not hard to do.

Wright vs. Orombi

Two Bishops, two very different ways of approaching the world. In this article Wright spends thousands of words essentially saying that the Bible is complex, we can’t go back to modernity, truth is hard to get at and both sides are probably wrong. Then in this interview, Wright can’t deign to answer yes to a question that I would think could be answered simply:

CT: Do you agree with the content of the Sudanese statement?

TW: What they have done in their statement is simply reaffirm what the Anglican Communion has always taught and what the historic churches in Christendom have always taught. It is sad that these things need to be reaffirmed – clearly they do. So for millions of Christians around the world all that they have said is ‘we are still believing what we have always believed’. So it’s not exceptional.

Wright does accept that homosexual sex is sinful, and yet he can’t seem to just say that. I think this is because it would be too much of a sop to conservatives, and he has to be seen bashing both sides equally. So if one party puts forward a great error and the other defends settled truth, you have to seek some sort of middle ground that accommodates sides both I guess. We have the Unitarian example in New England to see how churches die when they give in to serious error, but Wright seems content to just keep “grappling” and “wrestling” with the text as souls perish.

On the other hand, as a breath of fresh air, we have Bishop Orombi. This good Bishop has apparently had enough of grappling and trying to figure out what the final act of the play looks like. He seems to be committed to that ancient idea of truth – how quaint – quite apart from contours and gestures towards tentative thoughts on a subject. Orombi can actually get to the point:

In every case, homosexual practice is considered sinful – something that breaks our relationship with God and harms our wellbeing. It is something for which one should repent and seek forgiveness and healing, which God is ever ready to do. Not only is Scripture to be taken seriously, but it is to be obeyed, because God intends for us things far better than we could ask or imagine.

How can we go to Holy Communion, sit in Bible study groups, and share meals together, pretending that everything is OK?, that we are still in fellowship with the persistent violators of biblical teaching and of Lambeth resolutions?

The Bible says: “Can two walk together unless they are agreed?” The Archbishop of Canterbury has asked us to “wait for each other”. But how is it possible when we are not travelling in the same direction?

Two Bishops approaching the issues with vastly different ways of speaking and praxis. Guess which Bishop I would rather serve under? It’s not hard to do.

Legalism

A certain set of Christians that I do not count myself one of, consider terms and phrases that are not found in the Bible to be anathema. And yet there is a term that is used ad nauseam in the Church which we find nowhere in the Bible that seems to be acceptable even to those who dislike extra-Biblical terms. That term is “legalism”.

Just what is legalism? If you look at this Wikipedia entry, you’ll see that it means different things to different people. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines it as:

strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code

My Oxford American dictionary says:

excessive adherence to law or formula

At first glance these definitions seem a bit strange to me. What is ‘excessive’ conformity to the law? Are we only supposed to conform to the law a little bit? Just when we’re being watched for example?

In charismatic circles that I have run in it seems that legalism is used as a pejorative term and often as a cloak for every kind of vice and lack of self-control. If someone quotes the Old Testament to some folks, they get labeled as a “legalist.” Someone might say “we are under grace now” to condemn this legalist. If, heaven forbid, someone claims any kind of standing authority for the Sinai law, they will certainly get clobbered as a legalist by this kind of charismatic/evangelical. Never mind that the New Testament contains no provision against bestiality for example, you just can’t use that nasty old law.

Some go so far as to condemn you if you even quote a New Testament principle on a moral matter. I’ll pick one at random, “If any one will not work, let him not eat” says Paul to Timothy. But if you have the temerity to actually apply that verse to someone in our day, it is likely that you will get branded with the ‘legalist’ tag. You might hear ‘the letter kills but the Spirit gives life’ as your rebuke.

I think a major problem in EVERY conversation we ever have is the failure to define terms. So I would like to explore further just what legalism is, what ‘law’ means, and what role it should play for the follower of Jesus the Messiah. Of course that assumes that my interest continues, which is always iffy.

Summarizing Leithart V

Visible Words

 A judge who says, “I sentence you to death” is not merely declaring a decision that has already been rendered in some other forum. Rather, by his declaration, the judge is passing the sentence. Speaking the words is doing the deed. Similarly, the captain who says, “I now name you the Queen Mary” has actually named the ship, and the pastor who says “I now pronounce you man and wife” has made the man and woman man and wife. Wittgenstein said it simply: “Words are deeds.”

Just as words are “performative,” so the sacraments as visible words actually do things. They not only remind us and teach us about Christ’s death, but confirm, sustain, and nourish our relationship with the Triune God. Through sacramental “words,” we make promises, receive warnings, establish or renew covenants. Sacraments are indeed “words” from God, but not so much visible as performative words.

Summarizing Leithart IV

More on Signs and Symbols

 “…for many Christians, ceremonies and symbols are more or less unnecessary adornments or enhancements of real life. The key assumptions in this view are that natural or literal reality can be isolated from its enhancements, that natural or literal reality is non-symbolic, and that “real [i.e. non-symbolic] life” is the foundation on which we set up pretty symbols. These assumptions are false.”

“With regard to language, there is no clear line between literal and symbolic. In an important sense, all language is “symbolic” because it employs visual symbols or sounds that mean something other than themselves.”

“Relationships do not exist “behind” the symbolic exchanges, as if the “real relationship” were a hidden “spiritual” reality of which the symbols are only visible or audible “expressions.”

“If sacraments are signs and symbols in the sense suggested here, then they are (with the Word and through the Spirit) the matrix of personal communion with the Triune God. The symbolism involved in sacraments is the symbolism of action, less like the symbolism of a painting or a metaphor than the symbolism of a handshake or a wave or a kiss. They are symbols by and through and in which personal, covenantal relationships are forged and maintained. Sacraments are not “signs of an invisible relationship with Christ.” Rather, the intricate fabric of exchanged language, gesture, symbol, and action is our personal relationship with God.”

Part VI is here.

Cuil

Another new search engine: Cuil. I think it’s too late in the game for anyone to get into this field, but why not try? I also toy with Hakia, but I am still addicted to Google.

Orthodox Splits

Apparently there will be yet another ethnic division with the Orthodox churches:

With Orthodox Church notables from around the world looking on, Mr. Yushchenko asked Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the spiritual leader of the world’s 250 million Orthodox Christians, to bless the creation of an independent Ukrainian church — “a blessing,” he said on Saturday, “for a dream, for the truth, for a hope, for our state, for Ukraine.”

The Ukrainian president — who claims that pro-Russian opponents tried to kill him with poison that pockmarked his face — also snubbed the Russian Orthodox patriarch, Aleksy II, by giving him a businesslike handshake after warmly kissing Bartholomew on both cheeks.

Objectified

This is really great news: Gary Hustwit is making a follow up film to Helvetica about design. It’s called Objectified. Not only that but it will feature Dieter Rams and Jonathan Ive. Rams did path-breaking work for Braun in the 60′s and Ive has completely ripped him off at Apple with iPod, iMac, etc. And boy are we glad that he did! I can’t wait.

I finally purchased Helvetica a couple months back. I made Rachel watch it with me but I think she started digging it once we were into it. It goes a long way to revealing the role of type in the world around it. It’s like the Matrix, it’s all around us but we don’t even notice it.

Reading

Currently I am reading a biography of Sir Richard Burton. It is seldom that you come across a life as varied and interesting as his was. He roamed the world absorbing languages along the way, translating texts and churning out an enormous amount of writing. He converted to several religions to experience them, but seems to have been most truly a Muslim – actually Sufi in his heart. He famously made the hajj to Mecca and got away with it disguised as an Arab. The sheer mental energy of the man seemed inexhaustible.

Next week I will spend several days at the beach, staring at the Atlantic. I plan on bringing Moby Dick along and perhaps I will get into it and get a good chunk of it taken care of. Melville interests me as a person, but I’m not sure how interested I’ll be in his book. Reading on the beach will be an anodyne to the soul.

Lambeth – yawn

Is any of what is happening at Lambeth surprising to anyone? The only surprise coming out of Lambeth would be decisive action, say excommunicating American Bishops or affirming orthodox teaching on every subject.

I’m glad the forces of GAFCON stayed away. They were correct in thinking that the entire meeting is a waste of time.