Sunday, December 7, 2008

What is the Foundation for Our Preaching?

What is the Foundation for Our Preaching?

This is a significant question – especially in a Church that is debating truth claims and presuppositions – because our brethren in the Roman Church can point to the official teachings of their Church to back their preaching, what about us?

As an Order we need to be united in the essentials of the faith and be a passionate community proclaiming them, but what will we will stand on?

Looking forward to your post.

11 comments:

crhooker said...

This is indeed a tough one. I think perhaps we will all feel that scripture and inspiration of the Holy Spirit should be the basis for our preaching.

The idea of having 'official' church doctrine I think can be troublesome, especially when the church gets it wrong (i.e. women priests and bishops for one).

One of my attractions to Anglicanism is based on the fact that we are not so centralized that we muzzle the Spirit. I feel that I can be catholic/orthodox yet also be a witness to the realities around us.

Having said that, for me the discussion would be one based on what are the essentials: faith and our sacraments in my humble opinion. From there it gets harder of course. Even within the sacraments I would say. I am not yet sure if I believe transubstantiation for instance. I am studying it and praying as well as discussing when I get an opportunity. The fact that as an Anglican there is not a core belief or unbelief provides me some opportunity to discover this. I am of course aware of the statement in the 39 Articles, but I do not agree with other things in there either.

As I continue to discern what it means to be Anglo-Catholic as well as Dominican, I look to your comments and guidance.

Bro. George West said...

Your question touched on the two interpretations of Peter's Great Confession.

The Roman Catholic church maintains that Jesus appointed Peter as the Rock of the Church, which supports their saying that church tradition stands coequal with Scripture: If Peter was the foundation, than the teachings and traditions of the R.C. church are the structure of the church, and merit veneration.

On the other hand, Protestants say that the Church is built on the Great Confession, not Peter; that personal acceptance of the Lord as Savior is the proper foundation of the Church of God. In that case, Scripture study and prayer-- which lead to us confessing Jesus as Lord--are paramount.

I go with the Protestants. Our personal knowledge of Jesus as Lord and Savior-- accompanied by a sense of our sinfulness, and the sinfulness of the world-- is the foundation of our preaching. If we are not speaking of/to/for Jesus, we are wasting our breath (or our typing).

BroPhil said...

Wow! This is why we are invited to pray, study, and discern before we open our mouths. Tradition and dogma are not four letter words. They are the result of God's action in and through the Body across time. What about in our own beloved Church? I heard an Episcopal Priest recently brag in a sermon that he never consulted a commentary. He needed to. It sounded like he was making it up as he went along and he was in gross error---based on tradition and dogma. Dominic preached against heresy. Is our own Church flirting with error? I think so, and I think we have our work cut our for us. I may not have a pope to interprete but we do have a community of saints who have gone before us to accompany us in our task.

Anonymous said...

Br. Rick says:

Greetings, beloved brothers and sisters! Thank you, Br. Kevin, for posing this vital question to us. I do not think this is a hard question to answer, but I think the answer is a hard one to hear, for some people. The question is, what is the foundation of our preaching? No, we Anglicans do not have a Magisterium to which we can turn for the answers to all important theological questions. We do not have catechism that catalogs the infallible doctrine of the church. At times I think that is unfortunate, and that much of the turmoil in our church today could be resolved if we did have a Magisterium. I’ve always loved the Rite I formulation of the words of the Nicene Creed: “I believe,” and not, “I believe in,” “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”

But nevertheless, Br. Kevin’s question does have an answer. And we all know what it is. The foundation of our preaching is not us. It is not our ideas. It is not social justice. We must cast aside our own notions and prejudices and die to ourselves and humbly submit to our Lord. That is the answer is a hard one to hear.

The foundation of our preaching is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the word made flesh. It is the incarnation. It is Jesus Christ, simultaneously human and divine, the God-man. It is the crucifixion. It is the resurrection. It is the Old Testament Scriptures that point inexorably to the coming of Jesus Christ. It is the New Testament witness to his life, death, and resurrection. It is the historic creeds, and the interpretations of the early church councils.

What do we preach? That the Gospel writers, and Paul, and Peter and James and the other New Testament authors got it right. That Almighty God, creator of the galaxies and the moon and the sun and the planets and all the fish in the sea loved us so much that he humbled himself and made himself into a man in order to undertake a daring rescue operation to release us from the captivity of our own sins. And that is both great news and the most exciting romantic story ever conceived. That the cross was not a tragic end to the ministry of Jesus but the entire reason he came to live among us, a triumph of good over evil. That God did these things in actual human history, and he only did them once. That Jesus is the only name under heaven and earth by which men may be saved. That we are all enslaved by sin and in desperate need of a savior. That submitting to the Lordship of Jesus Christ is the only possible way to become free of our bonds. That those who deny these truths by diluting them, or by attempting to make them more palatable to the modern mind, are robbing the gospel message of its power and its ability to deliver salvation.

Jesus is of one substance with the Father. He was not created by him. We continue to reject Arianism and all forms of adoptionism that deny the divinity of Christ. We reject as well docetism and all other heresies that deny the humanity of Christ. We simply are not at liberty to edit out, add to, or reinterpret the Holy Scriptures or the understandings of the early church about the nature of God and Christ. When someone proposes a theological innovation that challenges the historic understanding of the church, the burden is on the innovator to prove, using Scripture and Tradition, and without resorting to current fashionable ideas abroad in the world, that the innovation is appropriate. God is immutable. The Holy Spirit does not change his mind. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

We are part of a long line of witnesses to the gospel message that began with the apostles themselves (including St. Paul). The foundation of our preaching is simply to continue the work that they began. If we have questions, we know where to find the answers.
Blessings.
Rick, O.P.

Anonymous said...

I will jump in here to say that it is a misnomer that the Anglican tradition DOES NOT have an offical doctrine, it does..it always had.

A more historic view is that the Anglican Church believes all that has always been believed by Orthodox Christians over the centuries.


more specifically, our beliefs (and we do have doctrine!)

is according to the Canons of TEC:

"The doctrine of the Church is to be found in the Canon of Holy Scripture as understood in the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds and in the sacramental rites, the Ordinal and Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer"

We do have a core conviction of Christian belief.

We allow for diversity on matters non-essential, and not reflected in the teachings above.

Anonymous said...

In my ignorance and unworthyness, I offer the following:

We have scriptural references in both Matthew and Mark that deal with going out into the populace. In Matthew it is the great commission, and in Mark it is Jesus send his disciples out by twos to surrounding areas and towns telling them to spread the good news.

As a church who branched off from Rome, we still can point to the history of the early church until the split from Rome by Henry VIII. Still, the Dominicans were in power in England and were cooking along preaching and teaching. As Anglican Dominicans we are a part of the organization that was specifically designed by its founder to preach, bless, and pray. I don't see any disconnect from this pattern in our small community, except that we don't recognize Papal Authority. (Some of my Roman Dominican friends don't recognize it either)

Also, the Roman Dominicans in the US are thinning out due to the lapse in vocations while we seem to be growing. There is a thirst for preaching in the Anglican Church and we need to be the water to fill the well.

What will we stand on? The answer to that is we stand on teaching and preaching the Holy Gospels of our Lord Jesus Christ. The spectrum between Protestant and Anglo Catholic in the Anglican Church needs to take this stand. Instead of arguing about buildings and grounds, the power structure of the Church needs to look at bringing more members into the fold and preaching the word of God.

Anonymous said...

Br. Kevin says:

I will jump in here to say that it is a misnomer that the Anglican tradition DOES NOT have an offical doctrine, it does..it always had.


Br. Rick says:

I'm not saying that the Anglican tradition or even the Episcopal Church does not have an official core doctrine. Here is an excerpt from a decision of the Episcopal Church in the case of Bp. Walter Righter, who had ordained a non-celeibate homosexaul man to the diaconate in 1996, and who was put on trial for doing so.

Within Anglicanism there is a long tradition of appeal to fundamental doctrine as supplying a basis for reckoning a Church to be a true Church. This 'Core Doctrine' of the Church arises out of the Gospel itself, and is rooted and grounded in Holy Scripture. It is the story of God's relationship to God's people, and has been entrusted to the Church as the people of God, the bearers of God's mission to 'restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ.' (See 'An Outline of the Faith commonly called the Catechism,' Book of Common Prayer, 855).

The Court holds to the ancient distinction between the Core Doctrine which is derived from the Gospel preaching, kerygma, and the Church's teaching, didache, of those things necessary for our life in community and the world. The kerygma is found in the life and teaching of Jesus and the preaching and evangelistic action of the Church revealed in the New Testament and other early Christian documents. Sound and trustworthy biblical scholarship has identified the basic contents of the kerygma. See, for example, C.H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching (New York and London: Harper & Bros., 1936). They are:


God in Christ fulfills the scripture.

God became incarnate in Jesus Christ.

Christ was crucified.

Christ was buried.

Christ rose again.

Christ was exalted to God.

God gave us the gift of the Holy Spirit.

There will be a day of judgment.

Therefore repent.


We have a core doctrine. But do we Episcopalians corporately act as if we do? Whether the current leaders of the Episcopal Church unfeignedly believe and teach this core doctrine today is a question I will leave for my brothers and sisters to decide.

Anonymous said...

To answer Br. Rick, I'm one of the current leaders of the Episcopal Church, and I don't see anything on his list with which I can't agree. Though I would also observe that Jesus never asked anyone to prove their theological orthodoxy in order to receive God's grace through Him.

Anonymous said...

Amen, Brother Kevin, More Gospel Period.

Brother Jimmy

Anonymous said...

Br. Rick says:

Beloved Brothers and Sisters,

I am heartily glad for the professions of faith by Sr. Elena and by all of you who have posted on this thread. I doubt not that all the members of our order adhere to creedal Christian faith. Sr. Elena is surely correct that, Jesus never asked anyone to prove their theological orthodoxy in order to receive God's grace through Him. I would not be a Christian today if Jesus had not given me the benefit of his grace while I still possessed of very strange and very worldly religious ideas. And there would be no point in my doing prison ministry if theological orthodoxy were a condition precedent to receiving grace. As has been said many times, the church is a hospital for sinners and not a museum for saints. But the question is not, who is eligible to be saved, for certainly everyone is. We are instead talking about what our church, corporately, teaches. Br. Kevin’s excellent question was, “What is the foundation for our preaching?”

“Vast confusion has arisen because men have not distinguished between the functions of the Church and of the individual believer in the economy of the divine purpose. To the Church heresy is more destructive than conscious sin; to the individual conscious sin is more destructive than heresy; to both, idolatry—worship of God falsely conceived—is deadlier than either heresy or conscious sin, for it is the prolific source of each.”

--William Temple (1881-1944), 98th Archbishop of Canterbury

“Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.”

James 3:1

“But as for you, teach what befits sound doctrine.”

Titus 2:1

“[W]hoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

Matthew 18:6; see also Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2

As for whether it is fair for me to question whether the leaders of our church, at its highest levels, actually believe and teach what the church itself has called its core doctrines, I will let their words speak for themselves and let all of you decide for yourselves.

“We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.”[Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori,, quoted in Time, July 10, 2006]

“. . . I see the pre-Easter Jesus as a Jewish mystic who knew God, and who, as a result, became a healer, wisdom teacher and prophet of the kingdom of God. The latter led to his being killed by the authorities who ruled his world. But I do not think he proclaimed or taught an extraordinary status for himself. The message of the pre-Easter Jesus was about God and the kingdom of God, and not about himself.” [Dr. Marcus Borg, Co-Director of Center for Spiritual Development at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral Portland, and former President of the Anglican Association of Biblical Scholars, Washington Post, December 30, 2006]

“Rather, I see the grand statements about Jesus — that he is the son of God, the Light of the World and so forth — as the testimony of the early Christian movement. These are neither objectively true statements about Jesus nor, for example in this season, about his conception and birth. To speak of him as the son of God does not mean that he was conceived by God and had no biological human father. Rather, this is the post-Easter conviction of his followers."[Dr. Marcus Borg, Washington Post, December 30, 2006]

“The story of Jesus’ bodily resurrection is, at best, conjectural; that the resurrection accounts in the four Gospels are contradictory and confusing… the significance of Easter is not that Jesus returned to actual life but that even death itself could not end the power of his presence in the lives of the faithful.” [+John Chane, Bishop of Diocese of Washington, D.C., Easter sermon in 2002]

“Asked about the literal story of Easter and the Resurrection, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori said, ‘I think Easter is most profoundly about meaning, not mechanism.’" [Episcopal Life on line (official newspaper of TEC), April 8, 2008]

“I believe the Bible is a book of poetry with a lot of history in it. I believe the Prayer Book has all that one needs for salvation. I believe that an all-loving God would never send anyone to hell for eternity. I believe he works it out in the end for everyone.” [+Stacy Sauls, Bishop of Lexington, at meeting with St John’s Parish, Versailles, KY]

“The question is always how can we get beyond our own narrow self-interest and see that our
salvation lies in attending to the needs of other people.” [Presiding Bishop, Parabola, Spring 2007].

"Why does the church gather around a table with food and drink in its primary act of worship? Because God calls the church to a ministry of reconciliation. The church is called to restore the dignity of creation. It is all about feeding and being fed. It is all about making certain that all God’s children are safe, whole and nourished. The ritual breaking of bread in the midst of the assembly reminds us of our task while it embodies its reality.” [The Rev. Clayton Morris, Liturgical Officer for the Episcopal Church, Episcopal Life, March 31, 2008]

“The Bishop of the Episcopal diocese of Los Angeles has issued an apology to Hindus worldwide for what he called "centuries-old acts of religious discrimination by Christians, including attempts to convert them. The apology was given in a statement read to over 100 Hindu spiritual leaders at a mass from Right Reverend J John Bruno. The ceremony started with a Hindu priestess blowing a conch shell three times and included sacred chants… Rev. Karen MacQueen, who was deeply influenced by Hindu Vedanta philosophy and opposes cultivating conversions (added) "There are enough Christians in the world," [India Abroad, Posted: Feb 10, 2008.]

“The view of the cross as a sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God that must be dismissed.”
--One of the “12 Theses,” of retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong, former diocesan of Newark, still a member in good standing of our House of Bishops. Read all 12 here, which contain other outright denials of the tenets of creedal Christian faith: http://www.stpetersnottingham.org/theology/spong2.html

“I can no longer think about Jesus as the only way to God and to a saving faith. How one comes into a relationship with God has taken on a meaning that it did not have in my younger years.

“'I am the way, and the truth and the life. No one comes to God except through me.' The first thing I want you to explore with me is this: I simply refuse to hold the doctrine that there is no access to God except through Jesus.

"I personally reject the claim that Christianity has the truth and all other religions are in error. Unfortunately, this is the position of the new Pope, Benedict XVI, who says salvation is only possible through Jesus Christ. I think it is a mistaken view to say Christianity is superior to Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism and that Christ is the only way to God and salvation."

--Rev. George Regas, Rector Emeritus, All Saints Episcopal Church, Pasadena California, preaching at Washington National Cathedral in 2005



Rick, O.P.

Anonymous said...

I like this as an answer.....
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. 8He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. 9The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. 11He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. 12But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, 13who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth. 15(John testified to him and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.' ") 16From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known.