On April 12th N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham in the Anglican Communion, gave a lecture to the gathered conferees at the Fulcrum Conference Islington. His lecture was titled "Conflict and Covenant in the Bible." Even if you have not been following the unfolding conflict within the Anglican Communion, this lecture is worth the read!Saturday, April 19, 2008
Bishop Tom and the Anglican Dilemma
On April 12th N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham in the Anglican Communion, gave a lecture to the gathered conferees at the Fulcrum Conference Islington. His lecture was titled "Conflict and Covenant in the Bible." Even if you have not been following the unfolding conflict within the Anglican Communion, this lecture is worth the read!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I am a bit biased. I was introduced to N.T. Wright in college (over a decade ago now - wow, time flies!) by a brilliant friend who went on to get his Masters from Yale and is currently closing in on his PhD at Duke. Wright transformed both of us and set a course.
So of course its going to be hard for me to disagree with him and his attempts. I may not agree with everything, but he has some solid themes.
For our ongoing discussion on Bible and heresy, this issue of apostolic authority once again reared its head. His usage of 2 Corinthians was instructive.
And the themes of covenant, apostolic authority, and living in the reality of the cross and resurrection with all eschatological expectation - these are all wonderful themes.
Its a starting point, yes, but I still don't know if it helps us with the nitty gritty. Say we begin Tom Wright's journey. Is it still possible to "agree to disagree" on the canon and its authority and specifically the issue of homosexual practice? And if we do so disagree at the end of the day, do we cry "heresy" then? Or do we respectfully hold off and form separate denominations? Oh dear... here we go AGAIN...
Wright used the word "muddled" about 800 times. That about nails it for me. In some odd sense, this muddled reality doesn't bother me as much as it once did. Instead, I focus all the more on loving my family, nurturing my flock, and leading with the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Odd.
Where does this leave us?
REV
I did not provide a link before, but here it is,(http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=298) for the other lecture given at this conference by Dr. Andrew Goddard titled "Conflict and Covenant in the Communion." He spoke of a 1st order and 2nd order level of disagreement within the Anglican Communion - 1st order being non-negotiables and 2nd order being more peripheral issues. This seems helpful for me, in the context of a community which has covenanted with one another to clearly state where the boundaries are (very carefully) and to describe how the crossing of those boundaries will be addressed.
How then do we agree to disagree when we hold strongly to 2nd order doctrines/positions? This is the challenge for the Anglican Communion in large part, and the question for any fellowship of churches. Will we be able to hold on the execution of those with whom we strongly disagree when the issue is not within the realm of what we have previously agreed are our 1st order positions?
Just an aside, I heard a dialogue between Wright & Dunn from Durham. Dunn was giving Wright a hard time for finding grand narratives in places Dunn doesn't find them. It sounded to be all in good humor, even though these scholars had some good disagreements to season their common bond.
Toughy. To be sure. And I struggle with this to this day.
I am not Reformed. But I embrace Reformed Christian brothers and sisters as, well, brothers and sisters. But I vehemently disagree with them.
I believe they're wrong. I don't absolutely know that. I have personal, reasonable, and biblical reasons for disagreeing, but I won't claim my absolute correctness. As a result, I consider it "peripheral" (as just one example of an issue).
That said, I don't believe in their God (or if their God is ultimately false, then "their god"). I don't.
So in that regard, it would actually be a "non-negotiable" for the highest commandments are the love and sole worship of the One True God of all creation.
So its a fine line. Trinity? I enter into dialogue with Unitarians but I will not cooperate (say, evangelistically). Incarnation? I dialogue with those who say Jesus was only human but I will not cooperate ministerially. Salvation by merit (or "works righteousness")? Again, same. And the list could go on.
But you raise a good issue Jeff. Who decides? Who decides in covenant community what is and what is not peripheral and central?
Let me attempt something...
(1) The Bible is our authoratative canon, above all others. (This will separate us from Unitarian Universalists/Bahai types AND from other religions (that claim Quran or Gita or whatever).
(2) God is Trinity eternally. (This separates us from Unitarians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, etc.) Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
(3) Jesus is fully God, fully man, truly God, truly man. And as such He lived, taught (especially about the kingdom of God and the eternal life), was crucified for our atonement (I'll leave much freedom in atonement theories here), died, was resurrected from death as the first fruits of resurrection and eternal life, and ascended to heaven and reigns as King of the world.
(4) Salvation and new creation transformation are possible thru Jesus alone, by putting our trust in Him.
(5) The new creation life is one of loving God and loving others. (A simple statement that will require much fleshing out)
(6) The church is the people of Jesus, servants of His advancing kingdom.
(7) Baptism, communion, marriage, family, faithfulness, obedience, discipleship, evangelism, worship, and many others are important elements of the praxis of the community, but I don't know what to say about them at this time. So they get a vague allusion statement.
OK, there's my seven point "uncompromisable, unsacrificeable" list. Did I neglect something important??? Did I include too much???
REV
This lecture is some of the best reading I have done in quite a while. Humility is what I was left with as a central theme.
Rev-
You seem to be very stong on Jesus. God the Father and Holy Spirit may need to be more central than some of the other points listed. All things come out of the character of God.
Troy, thanks for the input. I rechecked based on what you said, it IS a little strong on Jesus. Hmmmm...
Certainly I could have a more robust teaching on the Holy Spirit included. As we do know the second most about the Spirit of the three.
On the nature of the Father, however, I'm not sure what more to put. Biblically we know the least about the Father - largely just from what Jesus teaches about the Father - although there are other NT places as well.
Thoughts on where we could go with language about the Father???
On http://jesussocratic.blogspot.com/ I just posted a new thought for the day on knowledge and what Jesus says about knowledge. Having just posted that, I'm really questioning my "statement of faith" approach I just used. Hmmmm.... thoughts?
REV
REV
Post a Comment