THE FAITH...ENTRUSTED TO THE SAINTS

Caravaggio - "Supper at Emmaus"

In the present Anglican disagreements, we hear much talk of the leadership of the Episcopal Church having left "the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints." Because of what seems to me the unthinking overuse of the phrase and one other phrase, the accusation that the Episcopal Church has "torn the fabric of the Anglican Communion", my reaction to hearing the words is pretty similar to my reaction to the sound of scratches on a chalkboard.

The former phrase, which is my present concern, is from Jude 1:3:

Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

I've just begun to read Diarmaid MacCullough's Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. On page 10 of the introduction to the book, are the following words:

The passions which have gone into the construction of a world faith are if nothing else the catalyst for enormous human creativity in literature, music, architecture and art. To seek an understanding of Christianity is to see Jesus Christ in the mosaics and icons of Byzantium, or in the harshly lit features of the man on the road to Emmaus, as Caravaggio painted him. Looking up at the heavily gilt ceiling of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, one should realize that all its gold was melted down from temples across the Atlantic Ocean, sent as a tribute to the Christian God and to the Catholic Church by the king of Spain, the theft accompanied or justified by the frequent misuse of the name of Christ. The sound of Christian passion is heard in the hymns of John and Charles Wesley, bringing pride, self confidence and divine purpose to the lives of poor and humble people struggling to make sense of a new industrial society in Georgian Britain. It shapes the divine abstractions of the organ music of Johann Sebastian Bach. During the drab and mendacious tyranny of the German Democratic Republic, a Bach organ recital could pack out a church with people seeking something which spoke to them of objectivity, integrity and serene authenticity. All manifestations of Christian consciousness need to be taken seriously; from a craving to understand the ultimate purpose of God, which has produced terrifying visions of the Last Days, to the instinct to comfortable socialbility, which has led to cricket on the Anglican vicarage lawn.

Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome - Gilt ceiling

So then with reference to "the faith...entrusted to the saints", was there a cut-off date when the faith was "once for all" established as given? Surely, the first century was not the end of revealed faith. Was it the second century? The third? The Council of Nicea? A later council? Was the Reformation all a mistake? A departure from the "faith...entrusted to the saints"?

With all the variety in Christianity over the centuries, who is in, and who is out? I'm asking questions only, not answering the questions. Do we see Jesus in the Caravaggio painting? Do we see Jesus in the glorious gilt ceiling in Santa Maria Maggiore, tainted though it is by the history that made its beauty possible? My queries are sparked by the words in the quote above, which seem to me very right. There's room in the Church, the Body of Christ, for great diversity, and it appears to me that we humans are the ones who confine the faith, who set boundaries which are perhaps not of God.

And what of the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in the Church and individuals?

‘I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16:12-15)

Who discerns which movement or work is of the Spirit? Testing the fruits over a period of time by a broad swath of the Christian community would seem to me a likely way to move forward to consensus if we do not wish to quench the Spirit. Enlarge the circle.

On Unwelcome Implications

From Ruth Gledhill at the The Times.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has mounted a direct challenge to the Roman Catholic Church's stance against the ordination of women priests.

In a speech in Rome today, he made clear there could be no turning back of the clock on women priests to appease the Pope, the Catholic Church or malcontents in the Church of England.
....

And in a significant departure from Anglican polity, he did not apologise for the ordination of women priests, the development in 1992 that derailed progress towards full unity between the two churches. Instead, he issued a direct challenge to the Catholic prohibition on women's ordination and said that refusing to ordain women could not enhance a Church communion.

Oh good. As primus inter pares of the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury will not demand an end to the ordination of women priests or that the existing women priests be defrocked to please the pope. I'm pleased to know that there are limits to what the ABC will do to please the pope.

"For many Anglicans, not ordaining women has a possible unwelcome implication about the difference between baptised men and baptised women," he said.

When the ABC references the baptized, he enters deep waters. The attitude toward and treatment of baptized GLTB persons by certain Anglican churches come immediately to mind. What about a possible unwelcome implication about the difference between baptized straight persons and baptized GLTB persons?

Bishop Barbara Harris gets it right in her sermon at the Integrity Eucharist at GC09:

More importantly, if indeed the church honestly believes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender folk should not be bishops, then the church should not ordain them to the sacred order of deacons. For certainly, if one is deemed fit to be ordained a transitional deacon, then one should be deemed eligible to move into the sacred order of priests and to be elected and consecrated to the episcopate. If you don’t want GLBT folks as bishops, don’t ordain them as deacons. Better yet, be honest and say, “We don’t want you, you don’t belong here,” and don’t bestow upon them the sacrament of Baptism to begin with.

How can you initiate someone and then treat them like they’re half-assed baptized?

Really, it's quite simple.