Yesterday the Church, and I, commemorated the Major Feast of St. Thomas the Apostle. In what apparently is my Advent habit this year, I simply neglected to post a entry yesterday, even though I observed the day myself in the Office. You, along with Thomas, may not believe me, but there it is.The Office readings for this day seem somewhat snarky towared poor Thomas. The morning lesson from Hebrew Scriptures is Job's theophany to the Lord, where he says, "I have heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you." And from I Peter: "And lthough you have not seen him [the Lord Jesus], you love him." Isaiah 43 offers :"Bring forth the people who are blind, yet have eyes; deaf, who have ears!" The lesson from John is the great "I am the way, the truth, and the life" prompted by Thomas's question to show the disciples the Way. But I think the overall tone of the lessons isn't very nice. I think we should be gentle with Thomas. Who hasn't wondered about God and Christ? Who hasn't asked for a sign of God's presense in their lives? I think it's absolutely OK to wonder, and even to doubt. The opposite of faith, after all, is not doubt, it's certainty. We Anglicans traditionally have tolerated and encouraged questioning and poking and prodding and doubting even. I'm reminded that the Archbishop of Canterbury has taken a lot of flak for engaging in that hoary Anglican tradition of deconstructing the details of the Nativity accounts. That's the kind of engagement that's perfectly acceptable. After all, he was right: we don't know there were three wiese men, just that some number came from the East; we don't know when the Nativity took place, but if it was December, it probably wasn't snowy at all; and so on. What the Archbishop noticably did not do is call Jesus a myth or that there really was a child who was born miraculously of a virgin. His "doubt," if that's what it was, was of the mildest kind indeed. (By the way, the Telegraph headline saying the Archbishop called the Nativity a legend is completely false. He note that some of the details of the story are questionable. He did not call the Nativity or the Incarnation a legend.)
So let's cut Thomas, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and especially ourselves and each other some slack. Doubt, after all, implies the desire to understand, and from that perspective, is a healthy thing as long as it keeps us on the journey with Christ, even if we can't see Who He is or much of anything else along the way.
Everliving God, who strengthened your apostle Thomas with firm and certain faith in your Son's resurrection: Grant us so perfectly and without doubt to believe in Jesus Christ, our Lord and our God, that our faith may never be found wanting in your sight; through him who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.
RFSJ
So let's cut Thomas, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and especially ourselves and each other some slack. Doubt, after all, implies the desire to understand, and from that perspective, is a healthy thing as long as it keeps us on the journey with Christ, even if we can't see Who He is or much of anything else along the way.
Everliving God, who strengthened your apostle Thomas with firm and certain faith in your Son's resurrection: Grant us so perfectly and without doubt to believe in Jesus Christ, our Lord and our God, that our faith may never be found wanting in your sight; through him who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.
RFSJ
9 comments:
There is no need to cut the ABC some slack. He already has enough rope.
The Archbishop says of the virgin birth that he doesn’t “set it as a kind of hurdle that people have to get over before they, you know, be signed up;…” Well, what about that oldie but goodie the Apostle’s Creed? Hasn't that stood at least the test of time?
With regards to the Star of Bethlehem standing still the ABC says, “we know stars don't behave quite like that,…” What would he say about Christ’s resurrection, sort of a cornerstone of Christianity, “We know men don’t behave quite like that.”?
Rev 3:16
Trog,
I think it's unfair to assume that because someone says one thing he or she says something else about another topic as well. The ABC hasn't commented on the Apostles' Creed nor the Resurrection. You seem to be really incensed at his speculations. Why is that?
RFSJ
RFSJ,
I am neither incensed or thurifer.
What the ABC said is that you really do not have to believe in Mary’s virginity in order to be a Christian. I pointed out that the Apostle’s Creed touches specifically on that point. Which is correct? I’ll go with the creed.
I admit that I took his star reasoning to a topic he did not mention. However, applying the same kind of logic to the Christ’s resurrection, which also is not normal, is not too much of a stretch.
After thoroughly diluting the scriptures what will we have left? It will be a nice story but it will not be Christianity.
Trog
Trog,
Well, we will have to agree to disagree. I take the Scriptures very seriously - you can see from, I hope, from some of my own sermons and meditations on the Proper of the Day - they are almost always Scripture-based. But I do not take Scripture literally when it is not meant to be taken literally. Christianity is not the Bible - the Bible informs Christianity, it is a component of it, but it is not Christianity in and of itself. Christianity is much more than the Bible. Perhaps the ABC went too far in his comments, but he is getting a lot of people to think - perhaps for the first time - about the Bible and about Christianity, and that is the Anglican approach I talked about earlier. We shouldn't be afraid to talk about these things and see where they lead us. We may at the conclusion of our investigation decide that's not where we wanted or should have gone, but the journey itself can be, I think, a blessed one.
RFSJ
RFSJ,
Thank you.
There are core beliefs set out in The Apostle's Creed, which is not found in the Bible. Yet we have been lead to accept it. Ultimately we must face what these things really mean.
For some reason those thousands of years ago and after the apostles a bunch of Christers decided that they needed what now would be called a mission statement. That statement became known as the Apostle’s Creed.
You may be able to tell me in which language it was originally written. That might be important in understanding the meaning of the original words. My question is this. Did the authors have a concept of virginity?
If they did have this concept, the Apostle’s Creed means she was a virgin. If they did not have this concept, why did it take 2000+ years before someone like the Archbishop of Canterbury questioned the issue?
The Archbishop of Canterbury believes what he believes. When he is interviewed as the ABC, like it or not, his beliefs become those of the church.
This is probably not the correct forum for the continuing discussion of this idea. However, will someone affirm or deny that the virginity of Mary is a core belief of Christianity?
Trog
Trog,
I assure you that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not the first Christian to examine the virginity of Mary! That's been going on ever since we first Christians began to break bread together in honor of the Risen Lord. I'd have to check, but I imagine Dr. Acquinas probably has one or two proofs about the Virginity in the Summa Theologica.
Although I might quibble about the Apostles' Creed as mission statement (I think if anything that moniker should go to the Great Commission), I do think you've got the right idea. We can use the Creeds as sounding boards about our doctrinal statements. We don't do theology in a vacuum; we do it in the context of the entirety of Christian history, in the context of Scripture, and in the context of everything else we know and observe about the universe. That's the Anglican Tradition-Scripture-Reason "stool" or triangle or tricycle. And there's tension there, no doubt about it. My own view is that I ultimately think it's less important what you believe about the Virgin Mary than in how you respond to her advice, "Do whatever He tells you." Are you conforming your life as best you can to the mind and heart of Christ? Then I think that's the important thing.
BTW, I also think blogs are a great way to do theology! I hope others might be moved to join in as well.
RFSJ
RFSJ,
Good Heavens! The ABC is not the first to question the virginity of Mary? That sure lets him off from the proverbial rod and staff. For a while there I though you and he might be the only two. In numbers there is strength. And it’s easier to hide in a herd.
I though I might tweak you by comparing the creed to a mission statement. It sounds so today, but it sort of brings to mind Elwood Blues in his quest to save the Saint Helen of the Blessed Shroud Orphanage. “We’re on a mission from God.” Aren’t we all?
I am pulling a heavy vacuum because I can not grasp the idea giving Mary any credence if she isn’t special. So, I ask again, will someone affirm or deny that the virginity of Mary is a core belief of Christianity?
Trog
Trog,
Clearly, you can tell I have problems with this belief. As I've written elsewhere on this blog, and as the ABC also said, this is an idea both he and I am living into. That does not mean I am not a Christian, or that he is not. I agree with the ABC that I do not seeing struggling with the virginity of Mary as being a barrier to professing Christ as Lord and Savior. You asked if it's a core belief of Christianity. Clearly the statement is in all the Creeds. However, some denominations, such as the Roman Catholic Church, place far more emphasis on things Marian than others. Anglicans are probably closer to Lutherans in this regard: as a result of the Reformation , much of what was seen, rightly or wrongly, as detracting from the true worship of Jesus as Lord was stripped away. (See my entry for the Feast of St. Mary the Virgin on Augist 15.Use the Archive feature on the left side of the page, because I don't know how to link to it directly in a comment.) So I lean more to the Lutheran side of things regarding Mary, including lots of the devotions to Mary, and including a lack of emphasis on her virginity, even though the words themselves were never removed from the Creeds. Remember, that was the tradition you brought me up in! Are Lutherans not Christians? I would not say that. My question is: if Mary were not a virgin, does that take away from the divinity of Jesus? I don't think it does, and I suspect that's what the ABC was getting at too.
So I can't answer your question historically or theologically. You can only answer that question for yourself, personally. What do you believe about Mary? And why is that important to you?
RFSJ
RFSJ
The cat, I see, is out of the hat.
This has given me much to ponder and I will.
Troglodyteus
Post a Comment