I think the metaphor of a “lover’s quarrel” is a good one. We must remember, however, that lovers sometimes behave badly and, when behavior becomes dysfunctional, it is necessary to call it for what it is.

This essay comes just after Executive Council called for a dialogue with the Common Cause Partnership. Whereas I am not against talks, in principle, many of the leaders of this movement have made charges against this church that we have every reason to believe they know to be untrue. Declaring or demonstrating our Christian values is not going to lead to reconciliation because this is not a situation caused by misperception, but by a grab for power by an ambitious few. I am not about to let the likes of Bob Duncan determine if I am a “real Christian.”

Lionel Deimel

Peter,
If you had grown up in a Baptist Sunday School, as I did, you would know that this "wise woman" was just quoting I Peter 3:15. This well-known passage is, for me at least, the primary Scriptural basis for the discipline of apologetics. Just last week, at a book discussion group, I asked a professor from the Virginia Theological Seminary why the field of apologetics is so widely ignored these days. If seminarians and subsequent clergy are not trained in the art of making a defense for the hope that is within them, if they do not know how to explain the Faith to the culture in which they live, how can they be effective apologists for the Faith as the Early Church Fathers were? It is a small wonder that we find ourselves on the inarticulate defensive and that it is so passingly easy for others to put us there. Most of our not so well educated clergy haven't a clue how to go to the defense of their faith, either to the very secular culture at large or to those who fancy themselves champions of a presumed "orthodoxy."

More than once I have said in public, "If you want to know the sound of silence, try to have a theological discussion with an Episcopal priest."

When the reverend clergy get serious about knowing the Faith and their personal faith inside out and have enough caring to master the major currents of secular thought, the reticence which afflicts and enervates us will dissipate. And, no small thing, we will be more convincing witnesses to the Faith we profess.

Phillip Cato

Oh, Phillip - I think it's safe to say Peter knows I Peter.

John,
Your paternalism is touching and I can only hope that out there somewhere there is some benign person standing up for me.
The point is, how is one to know whether the writer, with whom I am not acquainted, is familiar with the source? It is, after all, a direct quote of the Scripture cited by me. It reminds me of the Watergate hearings when so many went on and on about the eloquence of Sam Erwin, the Senator from North Carolina. Most of the time he was just quoting Scripture, albeit without citation of chapter and verse.
This writer characterizes the teaching as the words of a wise woman and does not mention that ii is a direct quote from I Peter.

I think this hesitancy of Episcopalians to quote Scripture, lest they be regarded as evangelicals or Bible thumpers, contributes considerably to others marking them as not being "Real Christians." The good chaplain undermines his own argument unnecessarily.
Phillip

Lionel, amen to your good thoughts!

Phillip,

Thanks for your comments, I think you have some important observations - and I agree absolutely that we should be able to speak more clearly about our Faith! Right on!

As for the citation, absolutely, I should have included the citation, and you are right to criticize my negligence in citing scripture when I quoted it, and I agree that it does undermine my argument unnecessarily - criticism noted and taken! I so appreciate your close reading of my article, and your positive comments on many of my points, as well as your valid criticism of my own oversight in mentioning the scriptural base of that quote.

In full, it reads:

"...but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence." (I Peter 3:15-16)

I think we need to preach boldly, and marry that with gentleness and reverence.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

In Christ,

Peter+

Father Peter,

That's a wonderful question to think about. I think everyone could have his/her own unique definitions. Here's mine, from a young adult's point of view.

1. He/she must be a genuinely loving person to everyone. After all, one of the greatest commandments we have is "love your neighbors as yourself".

2. He/she can have his/her own viewpoints. But, he/she should be receptive to new ideas and be open minded. How we react to the gay/homosexuality issue is actually a good limus test for this.

3. He/she gives him/herself to the church. Not just in money, but also time, talents, and experience. After all, that's making the church a better place for everyone.

4. He/she must have the drive to be the best Christian he/she can be. This can be done through prayer and reading spiritual texts.

5. He/she must be one with strong faith. (This should be pretty self-explanatory.)

6. He/she must be willing to teach, in some way or form, so that others can follow his/her lead if they desire. I say that because of the old saying- actions speak louder than words.

7. He/she should have gone to at least one pilgrimage. After all, in my opinion, a pilgrim's mentality is a nice intangible whenever one is doing ministry. (This is recommended, but not necessary.)

That's all I got to say.

- Bill Wong

Bill,

These are wonderful!!

Thank you,

Peter+

Father Peter,

You welcome! Ever since I have settled into my new church (since I made a relocation from one Episcopal Church in the LA area to another last year), I have set these high goals for myself to meet. I know I am nowhere near on almost all of them. But, I am willing to face the challenges, as a single Chinese young adult in a non-Chinese, non-Asian Episcopal church.

After all, I know God is calling on me to be a difference maker in his church and be a pioneer/innovator in Chinese ministry locally and nationally. So far, I have been successful in introducing Chinese ministry into my new church.

- Bill Wong

Peter and Phillip,

I wonder a bit about our accepting a norm of citation in quoting scripture. I grew up in a heavily Evangelical, memorize it, "cite, quote and cite," Sunday School setting. We were being trained (and specifically equipped) for proof-texting. I think many Episcopalians know more Bible than they think, but feel at a loss because they can't cite chapter and verse.

But as I read St. Paul, for example, or Jesus in the Gospels, I see quotation without chapter and verse, and sometimes even quotation of scripture that's approximate or a paraphrase or conflation of texts.

I think we gain by encouraging people to say, "Isn't it somewhere in the Bible that..." or even just quoting scripture without citing chapter and verse, following the examples St. Paul, Jesus, Abraham Lincoln, Sam Erwin, Martin Luther King Jr. If we're reading scripture regularly, the words and ideas will come up, and from just reading (not proof-texting training) they're likeliest to come to mind without chapter and verse citation. Drawing on the Bible from memory but not by memorization is also less likely, I think, to take us to the out-of-context distortions that proof-texting seems to encourage.

Donald Schell

Donald,

Interesting point, wouldn't it be nice if we could help our congregations to be able to know the scriptures in this way!

Of course, our BCP is full of scriptural quotations and paraphrases, but even a biblical scholar would need to get Marion Hatchett's commentary to recognize all of these citations.

Peter+

Donald, I understand and agree with your point to a degree. Just as is the case with you, I do not like proof-texting or specific quotations by chapter and verse. It is possible to say, in this instance, "As we are enjoined by the First Epistle of Peter," or "As one of the later epistles (I Peter) reminds the Early Church, and us as well, we should always be prepared to make a defense for the hope that is within us, and do that in a gentle way." This acknowledges the source; it shows that we value what Scripture teaches us, and that it continues to be a guide for our actions, and it doesn't sound like proof-texting. My earlier remark was engendered by leaving open the question whether this sage advice was simply from a wise woman of the writer's acquaintance or whether it has a weightier provenance.
Phillip

Phillip,

Yes, from a teaching perspective (which is what I did hear you raising as groundwork for apologetics), frequent reference to sources is useful and helps people see what we're doing. And hear in your note the possibility of those rhetorical moments ("Let justice roll down like waters..." "A house divided against itself...") where the power of the words may stand best without reference.

In reference to Peter's piece today, my biggest concern is that we encourage our people where they are (with all our continuing efforts to teach) to speak what they do know. Episcopalians joke about being scripturally illiterate which is, partly at least, insecurity about not having chapter and verse, and lacking the confidence to venture the storyteller's kind of reference ('It reminds me of Moses striking the rock so the water comes out...') or the intelligent question, 'I know there's something in the Old Testament about an eye for an eye, but doesn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?' Even if it's not particularly satisfying in a debate with a prooftexter, it does rest on some big picture knowledge of the Book.

We'll get further in helping our people know they're 'real Christians' if we encourage them to use what they already know - and discover they know more than they thought they did.

love,
donald

Donald,

I can see why you think being scripture illiterate is a problem. However, I think some of the fault should go back to the Episcopal Churches themselves.

I say that because I am a scripture illiterate person myself. The main reason is that I didn't get much guidance during my youth and early young adult days in my former church, thanks to the fact that the church was in rebuilding mode during those years. Understandably, the church didn't have the financial resources to hire a youth minister... not that there was a lot of youths and young adult at the time anyway. Making matters worse, the church was relatively indifferent about the ministry. People either didn't care and those who pledged to commit to the ministry either were ill-equipped and/or didn't follow through with their commitments. (That's one of the reasons I left my former church, btw.)

My point is... if the older generation doesn't do an effective job to ensure the younger generation to be scripture literate, how can these young people do a good job for the future generations?

My solution to this problem...

1. Each church must either have a youth minister or share one with another church, like the way some schools do with psychologists or assistant principals (finances will be split between the churches involved). If we do that for our younger generation, it will stop the cycle of having scripture illiterate Episcopalians.

2. If churches (like my former church) needs some sort of grant to hire a youth minister, the local diocese (if not the national Episcopal Church) should do what they can to assist the effort. If these bodies want to check on the churches to see if they use the money efficiently, by all means do so.

3. We should be flexible in terms of Bible edition goes. There are people who like the Message Bible. There are also people who like the King James version, etc. Rather than having one standard text, we should allow people to find a version that help them understand scriptures the best.

- Bill Wong

Another way to explain my point is... we should address the disease first, not the symptoms. I am sure each case would be different from case to case.

- Bill Wong