jQuery Slider

You are here

ACKERMAN TO SYNOD: "Underlying issues are ecclesiological and theological"

ACKERMAN TO SYNOD: "Underlying issues are ecclesiological and theological"

SYNOD ADDRESS 2004
ST. GEORGE’S, MACOMB, ILLINOIS

‘AND EVEN IF OUR GOSPEL IS VEILED, IT IS VEILED TO THOSE WHO ARE PERISHING. IN THEIR CASE THE GOD OF THIS WORLD HAS BLINDED THE MINDS OF THE UNBELIEVERS TO KEEP THEM FROM SEEING THE LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL OF THE GLORY OF CHRIST, WHO IS THE IMAGE OF THE FATHER.’ 2 Corinthians 4:3,4

It is very difficult for me to imagine that this is my eleventh Synod Address as Bishop of the Diocese of Quincy. I can most certainly say that eleven years ago when I was first contacted by the Search Committee of this Diocese I, along with you, would never have imagined all that would take place in our nation, in our world and in our Church. In fact, in some ways a great deal of what has transpired is to me both incomprehensible and incredible.

As it relates to the Church as a whole we are dealing with issues that one would never have imagined, and as a nation we have encountered what virtually no one would have predicted, namely an attack on our very own soil. The responses to being attacked vary; we can ignore them, we can say that they do not affect me, and we can incorporate into our soul the fears, doubts and uncertainties that come with the trauma of being attacked. Indeed, even included in the various manuals that explain psychiatric and emotional disorders, we find Post traumatic Stress Disorders, which to a large extent cause us to function in ways that are not characteristic of normal behavior. Indeed, there are often flashbacks and also responses that formerly would have been termed as limited to those who function in a psychotic way, with a complete disconnection from reality. Admittedly we often create our own worlds and our own limited environments where we establish our own subjective truths and rules that are generally not based on reality or the prevailing universal truths, but rather on our own wounded experiences. But if there is one thing we have learned of late it is that we are, in fact, a global environment, and our Patron St. Paul’s teaching regarding the relationship of the various members of the body is now an international reality. Little did St. Paul imagine that one day one could say, “If my brother or sister in the Sudan is in pain, then I in the United States am in pain.” Thus the reality of the global interconnectedness that we observe makes it impossible for us to retreat into a personal existence that is devoid of a well informed conscience that is subservient to universal laws and principles. Moreover, given the rapidly changing landscape, the one thing that is needed is a sense of stability. Neither the Church nor the world any longer offer that stability. Indeed, it is ironic that sociologically speaking, the movements and religions that are growing operate, to a large extent, on principles of absolutism. Again, sociologically speaking, one might conclude that a perspective that carries with it a stated principle that can be supported is what the society is longing to have. In fact, that is precisely what God intended in revealing to us the Ten Commandments. To a large extent these universal teachings when not followed lead to chaos, family break down and cultural decadence. Moreover in virtually allcultural breakdowns, one sees a severe change in the articulation of belief in a personal god. To quote Christian A. Schwarz in his book Paradigm Shift in the Church “I am in no doubt that a wrong (e.g. institutionalistic or spiritualistic) ecclesiology certainly can lead to hindrances towards church development, but they are not the causes, they are merely symptoms of a far more deep-seated defect: a wrong view of God. And where we do not understand the nature of God, however conscientiously we phrase the details of our ecclesiology, we cannot really understand the nature of the church.” P. 49.

It would appear that the more appealing we make our construction of God, the less enthusiastic the vast majority of people are to our new hypothetical construct. Indeed, one of the best ways to deconstruct God is to rename Him. To alter the root metaphor that has transcended all time and cultures is to offer a reversal of the Creation Story, where we as people now have the democratic authority to vote in a God of our own creation, one who is created in our own limited ethnocentric realities. Either the revealed, personal God whom Jesus our Savior calls “Father” is the One whom we worship or adore or He is not. God the Creator is not a George Burns look alike who one day retired and turned all of His authority over to the created.

Therefore the Church and the world will continue to fight enumerable battles as if they were the worst yet, treating them as if they were the penultimate misrepresentation of truth, or we will look deeper to discover that our real crisis deals with the nature of God and the nature of the Church. Virtually all heresies, including the traditional ones and the reworked ones now being passed off as new and fresh have at their very foundation a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the nature of God, the undivided Trinity, and the Body of Christ, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Do we believe in a personal God, one who can still break into this sinful world? The former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey in his book Why I believe in a Personal God says, that perhaps one of the real dilemmas we face is a misunderstanding of evil. He says, “Pain and evil are inevitable consequences of the world being as it is.” P.78 He goes on to say, ‘Because only “persons” can understand, think, or reason it is only with persons that we can enter into relationships of the deepest kind. At a much deeper level of personhood we judge a person by his or her moral behavior and capacity to love, honor, and respect others. It is in these qualities that Christians find the full flowering of their idea of what it is to be a person. That God is a person they have no doubt, because he has shown himself to be that in Jesus Christ.” Thus any conclusions reached that are inconsistent with the revelation of God in Christ are at the most rudimentary level subjective constructs that often exist as diversions at best and sin at worst. Our Lord’s Temptation in the Wilderness shows us that no one is exempt from temptation, and while it is true that we are tempted in weakness we must remember that the temptations will almost always be in areas where there is the possibility for the misuse of the gifts that have been given to us.

To put it in another way, Satan is real and he continues to be the One who makes sin attractive and even acceptable. One need only watch television for one hour to see that what we invite into our living rooms today is what Christians have traditionally fought and avoided. St. Peter tells us, “Brethren be sober be vigilant, for your adversary the Devil like a roaring lion prowls about seeking whom he may devour.” I Peter 1:8 He goes on to tells us (II Peter 1:20, 21) that “..No prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but those moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” One of the tasks of the enemy is to lead us astray, to confuse us, to blind us from truth, and to alter seriously that which God has revealed in His Son Jesus Christ, “who is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” Thus the world HAS found the answer - and His name is Jesus; and no one comes to the Father but through Him.

Therefore Satan seeks to change the revealed image of a personal God and Savior, to confuse the faithful interpretation of Scripture and to leave us with a confused and ever changing sense of the nature of the Church, that is suddenly not governed by the revealed Word of God, but by canons and procedures created in an age of confusion. As G.K. Chesterton tells us through a character who functions as a “Satan symbol” in his book The Man Who Was Thursday,”..I tell you this, that you will have found out the truth of the last tree and the topmost cloud before the truth about me. You will understand the sea, and I shall still be a riddle; you shall know what the stars are, and not know what I am. Since the beginning of the world all men have hunted me like a wolf – kings and sages, and poets and lawgivers, all the churches, and all the philosophies. But I have never been caught yet, and the skies will fall in the time I turn to bay. I have given them a good run for their money, and I will now.” Pp.160, 161. Therefore not only have we been able to slide into the treachery of believing in an impersonal god, but we have, in our pseudo-sophistication and to our own soul’s detriment determined that there is no personification of evil. Not only have we constructed a non-transcendent God, but also we have created a Satan who is only symbolic of social ills and injustice. Ironically while we have elevated our own mortal nature into being the saviors of society, we have demythologized evil into that which seems only to be needed to be defeated in this world.

Therefore, evil and good, rather than being manifestations of their authors, become issues that must be attacked, once again treating the symptoms rather than the root. In their book The New Tolerance, Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler tell us that, “Traditional tolerance values, respects, and accepts the individual without necessarily approving of or participating in his or her beliefs or behavior. Traditional tolerance differentiates between what a person thinks or does and the person himself. But today’s definition – the concept our children are being taught in schools and through the media – is vastly different.” P 18. As Stanley J. Grenz points out in his book A Primer to Postmodernism “this new tolerance is based on the unbiblical belief that ‘truth is relative to the community in which a person participates. And since there are many human communities, there are necessarily many different truths. P.14. McDowell goes on to define postmodernism as follows: It is “a worldview characterized by the belief that truth doesn’t exist in any objective sense but is created rather than discovered. Postmodernists think things like reason, rationality, and confidence in science are cultural biases. Truth – whether in science, education, or religion – is created by the specific culture and exists only in that culture. Therefore, any system or statement that tries to communicate truth is a power play, an effort to dominate other cultures. P.208 (see Jim Leffel “Our Old Challenge: Modernism, The Death of Truth)

The result of this amalgamated reasoning is that it is neither sound theologically nor sociologically and is inconsistent with the image of God and the image of the Church as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, the Church Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils. This form of “process theology” can only work with a radical redefinition of God, of Satan, of the Church, and of the Holy Scriptures. A particularly symbolic mantra is the one that proclaims that “social justice IS orthodox theology.” By radically redefining our terms we can even create syllogisms that are initially illogical and incongruent but are ultimately logical. Moreover at the root of the dysfunction is “anecdotalism” that elevates “my experience to the level of truth, and canonizes “opinion” as necessarily divinely inspired. As Edmund Burke said on November 3, 1774 from his speech to the Electors of Bristol:

“ Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect, their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfactions, to theirs, - and above all, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.

But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure, - no, nor from the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement, and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

Thus the battle before us is not as easy as one might think, for it is an attempt to reclaim the very soul of a revealed Religion that transcends denominational barriers, for the evils of the world transcend the old definitions. David Nichols (Two Tendencies in Anglo-Catholic Political Theology - -Politics and Theological Identity) sees all of this in what he and others term an “incarnationalist slant”. He believes that God’s kingdom will come “slowly, silently, and peacefully, and that the mighty will be lowered so gently from their seats as not to feel the bump when they reach the ground.” It sees reconciliation in a very different way from the usual secular view that sees reconciliation as that which exists on a totally horizontal plane; that is, reconciliation is that which WE accomplish with each other. HOW that is accomplished is not necessarily important, and is often the political divide between those who believe in force and those who do not. The Biblical principle regarding reconciliation, however, is that Christ IS reconciling us with Himself, and in so doing, we must be drawn ever closer to Him. Horizontal reconciliation may coincidentally include some general concept of a deity, but Christians believe that we must be reconciled with Christ. Even the Kiss of Peace is only an empty reconciling exercise unless we realize that we are greeting each other with the eternal objective Shalom/ peace of God, rather than the transitory, subjective and fragile peace of the world. Therefore, as Nichols tells us, “The Incarnationalist sees the purpose of God in Christ as the ultimate reconciliation of all things, yet insists that the death of Christ on the cross represents the mortal battle between the forces of good and evil in the universe (cf. Ephesians 6:12.)

Thus, once again, identifying the enemy all too often is far too simple, and conceivably the enemy is “anyone who disagrees with me.” But, beloved, individual disagreement is not unhealthy. Conflict does not need to be a matter of division. But when we take debate to the level of canonical strength that is achieved through a majority vote as if “might makes right” then we have succumbed to the temptation to elevate human opinion to the level of Divine Revelation. In a society that demands a quick meal and “instant messaging” I fear we have fallen into the trap of assuming that “thinking is praying”, “praying is thinking”, and God will only fully reveal Himself when He is blessed with a world of reasonable thinkers who can quickly produce a position paper.

St. Gregory the Great in his classic work “Regula Pastoralis” warns us “The quarrelsome are to be admonished that if they turn away their ears from heavenly precepts, they should open the mind to what happens in the lowest order of beings – the fact that often birds of the same kind do not separate from one another, but fly together in a flock. The peaceful are to be admonished that in loving more than is necessary the peace which they have, they may not be in a mood to achieve that peace which is everlasting….The peaceable are also to be admonished not to desire human peace too much and so fail entirely to reprove the evil conduct of men. By thus conniving at their perversities they will sever the bond of peace with their Creator, and in fearing to deal publicly with human quarrels, they will be punished for a breach of the law that binds their souls. Indeed, what is transitory peace but the footprint, so to speak, of the peace that is eternal? What, then, can be more insane than to love footprints made in dust, but not to love Him by whom they were impressed?” pp165, 166 Part III.

Our response to all of this, unfortunately, is to be found in a statement by Lyle E. Schaller in his book “The New Reformation” “Will schisms and divisions be the dominant pattern in the twenty-first century, or will the urge to merge continue as the politically correct stance?” He goes on to say that the so-called” middle” is shrinking and that the two extremes in Christianity can be characterized as “those who believe Christianity is a revealed religion filled with givens that come from God the Creator….where the central focus (is) on Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior…” versus “..those who are convinced that each new generation of believers has both the right and the responsibility to define new images of the faith, to introduce new language and to redefine the basic belief system…” p 133

Perhaps now we have come to the crux of the problem. In terms of Anglicanism in general and the American Province of the Anglican Communion, called the Episcopal Church, the lines seem to be drawn. Unfortunately the lines change, and each new issue results in more fractures, more divisions and more hemorrhaging of the Church into which many of us have been born. And with each new issue there are another set of enemies. There are those who analyze all of these ruptures in terms of political realities, but I must take us back to the earlier points I have made: if we continue to treat symptoms, then we will have more generations of conflict that result in decreased membership and no resolution to the underlying issues. The underlying issues are ecclesiological - what do we believe the Church is, Biblical – what is the authority of the Word of God, Spiritual – what is the relationship between God and Satan (spiritual warfare) and finally what do we mean when we say “God?”

Until the Church seriously addresses in a theological fashion, which includes well informed people, rather than small groups that pool limited information married with feelings and opinions, we will be condemned to a future of what appears to be entrenched chaos. These matters will not be resolved by Synods and Conventions, nor will they be resolved by Concordats and Treaties. These matters can only be resolved by humbly submitting ourselves to God and by being reconciled to Him through His Son, who has bought us with the price of His life. Anything short of that will make us no different from any organization that seeks to exalt its own importance.

I did not become your Bishop to enter into every skirmish that could be resolved with humility and prayer, but I also did not become your Bishop to shirk from my responsibility as a Successor to the Apostles who is bound to speak the truth with love and Apostolic zeal. I can understand why the vast majority of Anglicanism resents the cavalier nature of our Province when it seemingly disregards the very tender unity that exists between us and many who laid their lives on the line daily just for professing that they are Christians. It is not our mission to force martyrdom, nor is it our mission to place those in our global Church in situations that may result in their harm. The health of Anglicanism worldwide is great, and along with you I wait upon the Lord for His guidance, which will not come from our anger or our self-righteousness or our sociological self-martyrdoms, that pale in comparison to the price paid by our brothers and sisters who are dying daily for their faith in Jesus Christ.

I ask you to join me in my prayers for unity, for an increase in the study of Holy Scriptures, in praying for those with whom with disagree, and in placing ourselves at the foot of the cross, for it will only be at that place that we will begin to understand. The Church is long past the luxury of Renewal. The Church must be engaged in the Reclamation of the world, not in the pretentious sense of being “co-creators” with God, but as servants who are obliged to live under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, who came “not to be served but to serve.”

“Therefore, since it is by God’s mercy that we are engaged in this ministry, we do not lose heart. We have renounced the shameful things that one hides; we refuse to practice cunning or to falsify God’s Word, but by the open statement of truth we commend ourselves to the conscience of everyone in the sight of God.” 2 Corinthians 4:1, 2.

+ To God be the Glory
+Keith Quinciensis
Bishop of Quincy

Subscribe
Get a bi-weekly summary of Anglican news from around the world.
comments powered by Disqus
Trinity School for Ministry
Go To Top