As they do for most everything, the Romans have an apt proverb for translations, in Italian, it even works as a pun “translator – traitor.” Which leads to a problem, most Christians, and nearly all Anglicans, are not literate in Aramaic, ancient Greek (quite different, I understand, from Modern Greek,) nor either ancient or church Latin. All of that matters because the opportunities to make mistakes using one’s best scholarship, and highest intentions are magnified when one relies on translations.
Does this mean that one cannot do serious theological reflection using English? No, but it does mean that one must be careful. There are a number of ways to err when reading a translation or for that matter, when reading English if one is not aware that there is a phenomenon called migration of definitions.
A classic case of migration is visible in the hymnal. The words are, “bring peculiar honors to our king.” Now, in America, “peculiar” has come to mean odd, or bizarre. But (!) when the lyric was written, in England, it meant something very different. British usage makes it, “A privilege or property that is exclusively one's own.” American choristers, especially young male sopranos have a hard time keeping their composure as they sing it.
“Walking together” and “agreeing” can be problems. The Windsor report, as deadly bad a piece of writing as it has been my misfortune to read in some years, contains not only amazingly bad history, but dubious theology. The history, a description of how the ordination of women has come to its current status in the communion, and a description of that status, deserves to be filed under fantasy. Some of the ideas, among them agreeing to walk together, are if not as bad: worse.
Amos 3:3, the source for the Windsor comments on agreeing, or walking together, are variously translated as “agreeing” or making an appointment to walk together.
Given the tendency of some who insist the church “comply” with the report, the question of what is required to be in communion (walk together in the language of the report) matters.
When I encounter an issue of translation, I tend to look the passage up in the “Young’s Literal Translation.” This particular English rendering seeks to be as close to literal as humanly possible. This is a translation that tries to preserve not only the literal meaning of the original but its syntax. Of course, there are still issues, but this time I find it interesting: Do two walk together if they have not met?
What is clear to me, and should have been clear to the Windsor fabulists, is that Amos is not arguing for unity. He is rather listing a group if things that his audience would consider nonsense as a prelude to a point. Using, as the self-annointed enforcers of the Windsor report do, that verse to imply something else does real violence to the text. This from those who claim the “plain meaning” as their goal.
As a former archbishop of Canterbury reportedly observed, the particular American heresy is to read the Bible as a book of rules. He, it appears, did not know about Ugandan and Nigerian heresies. The process of searching Scripture to find a verse that buttresses our prejudgments is not faith, not Bible study, it is idolatry and Windsor. Taking an Aramaic word that can be read as “meeting,” or “making an appointment” to full agreement on a serious of theological premises that “just happen” to satisfy the prejudices of paternalistic cultures in some African countries and some American diocese, is simply wrong.
What is particularly troublesome to me is that the Windsor fabulists knew better. The group included a number of very competent Biblical scholars. I have some ideas, based in part on what they have said since the report appeared, (with poetic appropriateness, in a crypt,) on what happened and why. But that is speculation for another day. For today, I am content to say that the entire walking image, and with it, the idea that a communion must be in total agreement is manufactured.
[As I finished writing this, I noted that Fr. Mark Harris had a piece that commented on the issue of Amos 3:3 as Windsor spun it. He and I have some similarities in our comments, but he certainly did not get his ideas from me, nor I from him. His blog is linked from here, so you may want to see what he wrote. ]
Profile Information
- JimB
- I am an Anglo-catholic Episcoplain layman, a lay contemplative, a musician, and a completely doting grandfather. New slogan for the election cycle: Vote for Cthulhu -- don't settle for the lesser evil!
9 comments:
Hi Jim;
I wrote a whole long post last night in answer to your thoughts, only to lose it in the ether. I suspect, however, that this post will benefit from the demise of its predecessor in that brevity is more likely here.
I found your essay interesting, but, largely, because it highlights what I think is mis-reading of Windsor (or vice versa, perhaps). I fully recognize that the 'walking together' image at the end of the report has been taken by liberals and conservatives to mean something like what you present: that is, we have to agree. Yet, after having a second look at the revevant passage in the Windsor Report, I'm not sure that is what it really is saying.
I say this because we have to remember the context of the report is that the report's aim was never to sort out the same-sex issue, but rather to work out how we are supposed to function as a communion when struggling with such a difficult issue. That is, how, despite our disagreements, do we walk together (i.e. remain in communion)? The discipline that has been recommended (I note to both sides, which is often conveneintly forgotten by both sides) has been over ecclesial sins, not doctrinal ones. In fact, the report itself, while stating that liberals have not yet proved their case, does not rule out the possibility that, in the future, they will. What the report worries about (for better or worse) is how do we deal with this kind of church-dividing strife in the Anglican Communion.
If I'm right here, I can agree that this sense of 'walking together' which you pillory is not supported by scripture, but I see that rather as a critisism on how the report has been used (i.e. as a weapon) rathe rthan a comment on the theology of the report.
I hope this makes sense.
Peace,
Phil
Phil,
One of my many problems with the report is its ambiguity. I will grant that it may be that the authors did not demand agreement, at least not formally. I think in the context of the section's call for ECUSA and ACCanada to self-exile, the creation of what has been widely described as a curial system, and a call for creation of a new, confessional community, I think your reading a bit over generous.
In the event, one need only subject one's self to some of the (un)Global South ranting in the post report period to see how its misreading of Amos is being used. Or for that matter spend a few minutes reading the various postings by the "Anglican Communion Institute" and I think the Amos abuse is clear.
In fact, NT Wright whose work we both admire has taken the ideas of "regret" and "walking together" to new dimensions in his speaking engagements. He clearly knows that this is stretching Amos all out of shape. Nothing in the relevant passage suggests Amos discussing how anyone should agree.
I find it difficult to take the report seriouisly. Its amazingly fictionalized discussion of the history of female clergy, its distortion of Amos, its attempt to force us into a confessional community, and its invention of a theory of governance that is simply not a part of the church's history lead me to think it was about something else. I think that something else is the British obsession with the retention if illusions of empire.
Thanks for the note!
FWIW
jimB
Jim;
Sorry, Jim, I'm unconvinced. I'm unconvinced for a couple reasons.
First, while I am prepared to admit that ECUSA and ACCAn have gone some way to satisfy the recommendation by the Windsor Report to repent of their actions which have helped to injure the communion of the Anglican Communion, I would point out that the crucial problem, acting in defiance of Lambeth '98 and the opinion of much of the rest of the Communion has not been directly addressed. That is, yes, ECUSA and ACCan have apologized for hurting feelings, but they haven't admitted that they were out of line in acting. They haven't, for the very good reason, that they don't think they did wrong. On this point, this isn't about agreeing, so much as just recognizing that one's actions were wrong. THe issue of same-sex blessings isn't at issue on this point, so much as how do we behave ecclesial and, if you'll pardon me, ECUSA and ACCAn didn't act well ecclesial in GC 2003 and GS 2004. Unless and until, people get that in ECUSA and ACCAn, this division is going to widen.
Incidently, let me also point out that the same is true on the conservative side, so what I'm suggesting is true repentence is necessary on both sides, if we expect to avoid full out and official schism. That is, if we want to avoid it.
Second, I simply don't read Bishop Wright or the Anglican Communion Institute (originally, the old SEAD and other groups which united soon after GC 2003) as reading 'walking together' as agreeing. There is no doubt that both Bishop Wright and the ACI have clear opinions about how the debate over same-sex blessings should be resolved and there is no doubt that they advocate this position consistently. Yet, can I point out that several authors in the ACI have made it very clear that they are talking about the current ecclesial state, when they are talking about 'walking together'? At least, so it seems to me.
What I like about the pro-Windsor conservatives (of whom I count myself one) is that they recognize that Windsor articulated a fairly robust ecclesiology instead of the kind of watered down congregationalism behind which ECUSA and ACCAn are currently assuming. To me, ECUSA's and ACCan's arguement that they should be allowed to do whatever they want within their sphere obviates the nature of a church and of a communion. And I would defend that on scriptural grounds.
Peace,
Phil
Phil,
Here is where I begin to have issues, "acting in defiance of Lambeth '98/"
Wait a minute, since when did Lambeth become a legislature? And why is Singapore, which ordered women before any councilar sessions doing in the communion?
What troubles me is that the "Windsor conservatives" are now using that phrase, as they are using Amos and both are simply wrong.
FWIW
I agree Lambeth isn't legislation, yet, one would think that, if ECUSA's primate signed Lambeth '98's statements (whether they liked it or not), they, at least, would act in accordance to their words. Of course, there isn't any formal mechanisms to force them to do so (as much as many conservatives would like to see it), but it is acting in bad faith to sign a document and then, within five years, act in a completely different direction. Is it surprising that the rest of the Communion is a little upset at that and is, perhaps, feeling a little betrayed?
That is the problem here. No body in the Anglican world has the power to legislate in the way that many conservatives would like to see. To some degree, I'm relieved it doesn't because it forces us back into working for consensus between the provinces. Yet, what ECUSA and AC of Can have been saying in their actions is that they can do whatever they want and go back on their word whenever they wish without feeling that there should be consequences for their actions.
As for the Singapore move in women's ordination, I agree that the methods of doing so were wrong and they set an awful precedent; a precedent which has, unfortunately, been picked up in New Westminster and New Hampshire.
If we are actually a Communion, not a loose federation of autonomous ecclesial provinces, we owe the truth to each other. If ECUSA and AC of Canada have a problem with the document they signed at Lambeth 98, they shouldn't have signed it. If they changed their mind, they needed to discuss their issues in the many venues available.
Of course, these problems go deeper than merely a governance issue between provinces. The whole of AC of Canada and ECUSA have not gone back on their word, but two diocese have very clearly done so, even if for activist reasons. In ECUSA's case, that activism was legitimized. In AC of Canada, it has been tolerated. The same criticisms of going back on one's word and disregard of other diocese and provinces can and should be levelled here as well.
My point here is that I'm not arguing a canon law point here, I'm arguing a ecclesiological problem. These actions are simply not good ecclesial actions, just as ordaining priests outside of one's diocese isn't either. Both conservatives and liberals need to learn how to be the church in truth and charity. Neither of us are doing well here.
That is what Windsor is trying to get us to. I simply don't get your reading of the Amos metaphor because I don't think we're talking about a legistlated solution. We are talking about something more important: how can we be the body of Christ if we keep breaking our word to each other?
Peace,
Phil
“I agree Lambeth isn't legislation, yet, one would think that, if ECUSA's primate signed Lambeth '98's statements (whether they liked it or not), they, at least, would act in accordance to their words. “
Herein a problem: the ECUSA added the title “primate” to “presiding bishop” so that someone could attend various meetings. The presiding bishop has no authority to commit the church. His office, as such, does not even include a vote on the confirmation of elections. We give him a vote by a cute legal fiction. He is the bishop of our European diocese and the bishop on the ground is technically a Suffragen.
”That is the problem here. No body in the Anglican world has the power to legislate in the way that many conservatives would like to see. “
And the precise problem is? The 39 articles clearly identify the national church as the legislative authority. How more conservative than that can we get?
As long as I am asking questions, what would those same conservatives do if a liberal majority voted against them? Starting with the heretic of Nigeria, I think we know the answer.
”As for the Singapore move in women's ordination, I agree that the methods of doing so were wrong and they set an awful precedent; a precedent which has, unfortunately, been picked up in New Westminster and New Hampshire. “
I don’t know that they were wrong. From the time Jesus cleansed the temple, the way progress happens is that someone breaks the rules, and the world shifts. I do know that absent Singapore, the church would either have had another country act or we would still be looking for concensus.
”If we are actually a Communion, not a loose federation of autonomous ecclesial provinces, we owe the truth to each other.”
I think that the actions of Pittsburg, Nigeria and the like have convinced a lot of us liberal types that a loose federation is the only safe choice. Given the amazing willingness to call for unity and act against their own report, frankly I am not the only one who flat does not trust some of the world’s self anointed orthodox.
”Of course, these problems go deeper than merely a governance issue between provinces. The whole of AC of Canada and ECUSA have not gone back on their word, but two diocese have very clearly done so, even if for activist reasons. “
Sorry, I cannot agree. Once again, bishops acting without laity, cannot give the word of ECUSA. I dunno about ACCanada, but ECUSA does not empower imperial bishops.
”That is what Windsor is trying to get us to. I simply don't get your reading of the Amos metaphor because I don't think we're talking about a legislated solution. We are talking about something more important: how can we be the body of Christ if we keep breaking our word to each other?”
I wrote one of the authors of the report shortly after the appointments were announced. I offered my condolences as it looked to me to be an impossible task. He responded, “Someone must say where the boundaries are.” I hear you saying something of the same. My question is why?
Jesus set them fairly clearly and they simply don’t match up with the incredible actions of Nigeria, or the hate filled crud one reads on Dr. Virtue’s site. Those people are boundary setters.
Once again, though, ECUSA did not give its word to do or not do anything at Lambeth. The Windsor fabulists, by accepting +Pittsburgh’s appearance and hearing from not one lesbian or gay person did nothing to make us commit to its result. We are just now, next month considering the idea and I think and hope the acceptance resolves will fail. Someone has to say no to the curial movement.
I think, to some degree, we're arguing different issues here, which is, I think, why we continue to misunderstand each other. I hope I can clarify my own position.
First, let me make it clear that I'm not expecting any primate to be an imperial bishop, much less the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA or the Primate of Canada. That particular model of episcopacy is simply not supported by Scripture nor is it recommended by the history of the Christian Church. I share your revulsion to the whole idea.
Yet, I have to point out that there is a lot more ground between the kind of decentralized model you suggest and an imperial bishop. If we look at Scripture, we find a model of the bishop who is the steward of the Church (Titus 1,7). That, to me, doesn't shout out an imperial bishop, but rather a servant to his people. There seems to be a teaching duty which the bishop needs to know the word and teaches 'sound doctrine' in a trustwothy matter (Titus, 1,9; before you say it, we can debate what constitutes 'sound doctrine' until the cows come home, but I hope you see the general principle). Of course, both 1 Timothy 3,17 and Titus 1, 7-9 set out an idea of what kind of person who should take on the role which includes things like being personally respectable, with an orderly family life and household, not be a recent convert (so, he doesn't fall into the sin of pride).
My point in this is to say that the bishop we are looking for is, yes, a leader, but not an autocratic one. So, in this, I differ with some of my conservative colleagues in that I don't expect the Presiding Bishop or even the Archbishop of Canterbury to be a Pope or something. Yet, they are a leader in the church and, I hope, they know their people well enough to represent them at general gatherings.
Second, keeping in mind the above, I see your point that the Presiding Bishop, but my own comments were based on an understanding of the Presiding Bishop as a representative of the church who may not necessarily be able to impose Lambeth decision on his national church, which as you point out, does have the final say in a province.
Yet, what I'm saying is that, as a respresentative, it would be disingenuous to sign a document which makes a clear declaration that will not be acceptable to the national church that one returns from. Now, I don't think that the Primate of Canada or the Presiding Bishop were being disingenuous when they signed on the Lambeth 98 decisions. I do think that they made efforts to restrain 'progressives', but I know that they failed. In that failure, no one, least of all the two primates involved, should be surprised that the rest of the Communion asks whether those signatures were worth the paper they were signed on. I hope you see how this can be seen as bargaining in 'bad faith', even if it may have been out of the power of the primates concerned to enforce that decision.
Lastly, this is my point on the 'activism' model sparked by the Singapore decision and embodied in the New Westminster and New Hampshire decisions. I might grant you that, there are times when one must act in the church in a less than canonically salubrious manner in order to challenge a misunderstanding of the Gospel. Each time that we do, however, we are sinning against charity in that we are called to carry each other's burdens and to gently repove our brothers and sisters, not override them when they have scruples which we may not believe to be valid. I get that those who did act in New Hampshire and New Westminster believed that they are right. I beg to differ, but, even if I agreed (as I do with the female ordination question), I think this is a spectacularly bad way to go about it.
The question I keep getting back to in this question is what does it mean to be the Church acting according to the promptings of the Spirit. One of those things is that decisions are made in unity and by consensus. This has not happened and one has to ask why. Now, I grant you that one hypothesis could be because of sin in the form of homophobia. Yet, I don't think that is true because I just don't think that the liberals have proven their case on a scriptural or theological ground. I am still happy to be proven wrong, but I still haven't seen anything that convinces me.
I hope this clarifies things a bit.
Where Robin a party to our conversation, he would point out that the early bishop was in fact a pastor of a congregation, or a missionary. It took growth and the founding of the priesthood to move to the idea of a diocese and with it the idea of a leader who moved on a larger stage. As recently as the 19th century in the emerging USA, we saw the missionary bishop moving the church into new places.
”My point in this is to say that the bishop we are looking for is, yes, a leader, but not an autocratic one.”
I would be happy to see this model. I don’t. In the CoE, the bishops, selected in a closed process, appointed by the queen, are entirely the product of other clergy. That model, absent the queen, is common in the church. Priests take an oath of personal obedience to the BISHOP in several African provinces.
Two things:
First it seems to me that one can not use the word disingenuous without asking where if anywhere, the conservative signers of the primate’s statement have made any effort to comply with the statements? I think both Canada and USA have at least paid some attention to the content – one cannot I submit; make the same case for Uganda, Rwanda or especially Nigeria.
Second, I can imagine, and to be fair, this cuts both ways, that a communiqué might garner signatures from two sides both of which agree on only part of the content. That the two primates involved, should be surprised that the rest of the Communion asks whether those signatures were worth the paper they were signed on. I hope you see how this can be seen as bargaining in 'bad faith', even if it may have been out of the power of the primates concerned to enforce that decision.
In our recent diocesan convention, there were several resolutions calling on the deputies and bishops to place unity atop the values they considered when voting at the up coming General Convention. They were soundly defeated.
My own sense is that we can choose to be of one mind on things that have central importance, the creedal faith, or we can become a community that knows what its members should think about many indeed most other things.
”The question I keep getting back to in this question is what does it mean to be the Church acting according to the promptings of the Spirit. One of those things is that decisions are made in unity and by consensus. “
Ummm… no. The history of the church over and over again is that the prophetic voice is crying in the wilderness and after disagreement, schism, anger, and even bloodshed, the church finally, slowly, comes to change. Unity and consensus come late in the process if at all. It has for instance, taken 400 years for Lutherans and Romans to decide that they can talk, that Luther may have had some points, and that he might could have been wrong about some things.
“This has not happened and one has to ask why. Now, I grant youthat one hypothesis could be because of sin in the form of homophobia.”
There are homophobes in the church. But I don’t think that is why we are where we are. In the period before New Westminster began to bless unions, before +Gene was elected, and before the report from the crypt slithered into the daylight, the strategists from the right were publicly jubilant because gay sex would give them the lever they wanted.
I actually think it is simpler. The movement has not been by consensus because God doesn’t work that way. Calling David to account in his own court over Bathsheba was not moving by consensus! Interrupting the sacrificial system and proclaiming a new Israel was not moving by unity.
”I hope this clarifies things a bit.”
I too.
You comment:
Priests take an oath of personal obedience to the BISHOP in several African provinces.
Well, they also do so up here in Ac of Canada. I remember a clergy friend of mine unimpressed by the fact that, when she would be ordained, she would have to give an oath to be obedient to the bishop. And that is in the fairly liberal AC of Canada.
Not that there isn't some patristic basis for obedience to the bishop. From Clement I onwards, there was a high view of the rights of the bishop. Sometimes that could be overdone, but some respect for the office is called for.
Second, I fully grant that both sides in this conflict have not adhered absolutely to the Windsor Report. They have just enough to avoid open ecclesial war, but not much more. That is something, but I hope for more from both sides.
I'll grant you the prophetic voice, but I will also say that one of the difficulties with the prophetic voice is that it is assumed more often than it necessarily is found in reality. Those who are claiming a prophetic voice risk being false prophets or prophets of the age who are only telling people what they want to hear. That is always the risk for prophecy.
However, in saying what I have said about the marks of the Spirit, I do not argue that the prophetic voice or even prophetic actions necessarily need to wait for consensus. What I do say is that this lack of consensus is a spectacular proof that these voices have not proven their case. Sure, that may mean these voices should continue to cry out, but it should cause them some pause. Yet, that pause is moderately difficult to see overall.
The thing is, as far as I can see, that conservatives are serving every bit as valuable a role as any prophetic voice. As Paul notes, we need to test the Spirit in anything we do or say. Conservatives by arguing and persistently pushing are, in the very least, forcing liberals to work harder to prove their case. Mind you, I'm skeptical about whether they can actually manage it.
Peace,
Phil
Post a Comment