The simple answer is that the NYT story as written is a bit more sensational and makes for more exciting reading. CHURCH DOES NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS beats MAN BITES DOG.

The shame is that newspapers are notoriously ignorant regarding theological and ecclesiological matters. This indifference, or willful ignorance, is no hindrance to their writing about such matters.

The schism is the news. The reasons, given by one side and not challenged or explored, is just sloppy reportage.

Phillip Cato

"To our knowledge, there is no debate in our church over whether Jesus is the Son of God."

Would it help to put the emphasis on the definite article? The Son of God?

I appreciate the protests about all this: surely the prayer book does unambiguously affirm orthodox Christology, etc., and I would suspect that many bishops do as well. That said, one still has to deal with the fact that John Shelby Spong is still considered (though retired) a bishop in good standing and welcomed all over the province. I know this is an unfashionable example. Surely, you will say, Spong is not the mainstream Episcopalian or even bishop! And that is doubtless true. But that does not mean that "there is no debate" about these basic questions: surely it is indicative of the fact that there is actually a very substantial debate happening. You can protest all you like, "That's not what we believe here!", but those claims do not answer the basic charge, which is that the Episcopal Church allows such aberrations to flourish at the very highest levels.

The other thing implicit in this charge is that such things could, in the way that General Convention operates, be put to debate. Suggesting that the Lordship of Christ is not up for debate is immaterial when the precedent and structures are encouraged which could allow such a thing to be put up for debate: all you need is for someone to write a resolution, because General Convention is now seen as the Final Authority.

In response to Sameul Keyes:

If the fact that Bishop Spong thinks X and I disagree with him and we both state out positons publicly constitute "debate" within the church then what you have is a definition of the word debate that would apply to our disagreeing out loud over where to go for dinner.

What you are arguing is not about what Episcoplains believe, but about how they respond to a bishop who asserts what we do not believe. That is a different matter. I think it is an area worth discussing, but it isn't what is at issue in this story.

To your last point, it is true that General Convetion can debate what it likes--just as the decision making body of any church can debate what it likes. I am not sure what point you are making here, although I get the sense that you don't care for the way the Episcopal Church governs itself.

In appreciation of Jim Naughton's response to Samuel Keyes:

Poor Bishop Spong! What would the ultraconservatives ever do without him? Have you ever noticed that nearly every time Bishop Spong is brought up, it's by the ultraconservatives/schismatics/TEC bashers? When did we last hear a "liberal" say, "Oh, what a wonderful thing Bishop Spong said!"? The only time most of us pay any attention to Bishop Spong is when the right wing drags him out to bash us with him.

(Actually, Bishop Spong has said some very good things, but systematic theology is not among them.)

I think both Jim and Samuel have valid points.

I think the real debate here--and it applies to just about any church controversy you like--is between those who think that church doctrine is the sort of thing that could be settled by debate and written down so airtight that it can only be interpreted in one way and no other; and those who think that doctrinal issues (the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the "Lordship of Christ") are inevitably open to a variety of interpretations and that it is possible, even healthy, for Anglicans who hold different beliefs to continue to worship together and recognize that those with whom we disagree are still Christians.

The first group, the "conservatives" like the Fort Worth folks, usually feel pretty strongly that "right belief," i.e., believing the correct things in the correct way, is somehow tied up with salvation; hence it is really important to them to nail down meanings, to try to get things "right." The second group, which I would say encompasses the bulk of Episcopalians, and emerges from classic Anglican comprehensiveness (Elizabethan Settlement, anyone?) is more apt to think that there isn't such a strong connection between "right belief" and salvation--in other words, God saves you, not the way you believe in him. I think the second attitude takes a more realistic and humble view of finite humanity's inability to fully comprehend and understand an infinite God.

Anyway, Samuel is right: the second attitude does give rise to the church "allowing" folks like Spong to say what they think. On the other hand, I don't think anyone in the Church, not even "radicals" like Spong, are seriously interested in re-writing or omitting the Nicene creed. Which is well and good. But prayerbooks, hymns, and creeds are just as open to interpretation as scripture is. At least as long as the second attitude I described is the ascendant one in TEC.

[PS I do think Spong is a bad example to use in this discussion because he operated so thouroughly out of a modern mindset, not unlike the "conservatives" described above, in which he felt it necessary to "prove" that his insight/experience/belief was "true." Which only set off the conservatives even more.]

Jason Cox

I know no one likes the Spong connection. Yes, we "ultraconservatives" always bring it up. He is a good example that "debate" going on in this Church is much more than simple conversational disagreement -- I am quite well aware that in your average parish there quite a few people holding unorthodoxy views. As much church history prof has often said, you'll find almost every 4th-5th century heresy somewhere in almost every parish. In the parish where I last did field education there was a gentleman in the lectionary group who was obviously an Arian. And you're right: the fact that he thought as much does not mean that the divinity of Jesus was "up for debate" in that parish. What would it take to make such a claim? If the rector of a parish was aggressively teaching Arian theology as true, and the local ordinary did nothing to prevent him/her, then I'd say the diocese has entered a place in which based on official teaching ("belief" doesn't really enter into it) the divinity of Christ is questioned. It is absurd to compare Bishop Spong's denunciation of orthodox Christianity as a polite parlor disagreement.

If you want us to stop complaining about Bishop Spong, then get on with deposing him. You clearly don't have a problem deposing anyone else, canons or no canons: why not him?

Other than calling attention to Bishop Spong at a time when his influence is waning, do you think deposing him would accomplish anything?

Has no one in the forum ever attended a service in an Episcopal parish where Jesus' Divinity, Divine-Sonship or other article of the Creed was called into question from the pulpit? Has no one ever attended a Sunday School class or retreat where various recent revisionings of scripture and tradition were discussed?

Certainly the Creed is in the book, but one can go to services in many places where that part is skipped for various reasons. I've attended liturgy at several of those parishes - indeed, am a member of one now. Lex Orandi Lex Credendi: I take the local editing of the liturgical text to mean we're editing the faith. AND I take the lack of censorship or consequence to such editing to mean that we're allowing that editing to happen - from Bishops to councils to conventions.

Certainly the debate is happening - even if it never gets to the floor at any convention. This is not a simple case of "not everyone in every parish is 100%". That's true of every denomination. This discussion happens in pulpits, seminaries and classes all over the church. Take any side you wish - we've got a big tent, after all - but at least let us be honest about the existence of the discussion and not play semantic and liturgical games.

If this debate that is taking place, who are the leading figures in the Episcopal Church arguing that Jesus is not the Son of God? What organization promotes this point of view? What conferences do they hold? What journals do they publish?

If you think that editing a service for local issue is equivalent to editing the faith, then every Catholic parish to which I have ever belonged was guilty of this. I suspect it happens in all liturgical faiths. Who would like to argue then, that Catholics don't believe Jesus is the Son of God.

I am not playing semantic games. I am arguing that the assertion that there is some sort of debate about whether Jesus is the Son of God is false.

Jim -

Again, as one writer noted the issue is not "son of god" but THE Son. That is, second member of the Holy Trinity, only begotten Son of the Father incarnated as the fully-human and fully divine Jesus, the God-Man.

If by "no debate" you mean never did we argue about it at Convention, then, yes you are right. We didn't. I'm not debating that point.

If by "no debate" you mean this topic does not come up - in many places at all levels - in ways that challenge traditionally held belief on this matter and sometimes sweeping them away (no matter what the liturgy says) then you are wrong.

For organisations: there is the Center for Progressive Christianity and one or two others (I need coffee at this hour to remind me). These are not Episcopal Orgs, but they have Episcopal Congregations supporting them and Episcopal Clergy and, at least at one time, one member of Executive Council on their board.

Our unwillingness to censor (and in most cases bless) the places where that liturgical editing takes place is our leader's support for that debate.

You are right that many liturgical traditions also do this: they are terribly deep in denial about it though, and Rome is swinging all kinds of heavy artillery into place. That's why I left one place that said it didn't have such editing (but did anyway) and came to a place that was honest about it... or so I thought. ECUSA needn't be as dysfunctional in this matter as Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Huw, following up on your point, which I think is fair, the issue isn't whether or not there are some Episcopalians who question the exclusive nature of Christ's person as THE Son of God, it's really an issue of church discipline.

In other words, the real point that's being made here by Bishop Duncan and others is their concern that the Episcopal Church is not censuring people who don't hew to the Prayer Book teaching. The Roman Catholic Church certainly censures as do the Orthodox and as too do the conservative Protestant churches.

So the question really is; "How should the Episcopal Church draw the boundaries?" Which is a fair and interesting question, and not one that I hear anyone talking about today.

(Hey - I claim this topic for my next Daily Episcopalian Essay. All you other columnists, hands off! Grin.)

Huw, I am not arguing with your definition of who Jesus is. I find it hard to respond to your most recent post because I don't really know what you are talking about. There is liturgical editing that might change the meaning of the faith, and there is liturgical editing undertaken to shorten the service because it's 95 degrees and the air conditioner is broken. I assume you mean something more akin to the first, but you haven't really made that clear. You also haven't made clear how you know what you know. Does "many" mean that you have visied a dozen churches where this has happened and are generalizing from this experience. I wouldn't find that persuasive. Maybe you have other sorts of information you aren't sharing. I can't tell from what you write if you are such a liturgical purist that you generally leave a service dissatisfied because the priest didn't do what you would do or because you've seen some serious abuses. I also have know idea how you would be in a positoin to know that "many" bishops "bless" liturgical abuses--lots of contacts on parish staffs all over the country or what?

While I am at it, not everyone who belongs to the Center for Progressive Christianity is a liturgical reformer. Some of them are more politically minded.

I think Nick has a point that there are lines we should draw, but I also think that the church has sometimes been enriched by liturgical innovations it has later adopted as canonical, and that we have to be very sensitive about nurturing the emerging movement within our church--which, by its nature, fiddles with the liturgy.

By the way, the idea that the Diocese of Pittsburgh is leaving the Episcopal Church for any of the reasons we are now discussing is farfetched, I think. It assumes that the Common Cause movement are strict prayer book folks, which isn't the case. .

Huw frames it well. I am short of any evidence that might trump the prayer book; I can only say that it is very, very easy for people who encounter the Episcopal Church, whether on the local or national level, to get the impression that things such as Jesus' divinity are up for debate. Open the latest edition of Episcopal Life to find a bunch of letters bashing the Creed. Go to a local parish and chances are pretty decent that you'll find standard liturgy -- sure, a lot of places are "conservative" when it comes to the prayer book -- but you might have that very tradition openly questioned in the pulpit. I am not a very well-travelled person, but in my limited experience of visiting Episcopal parishes all over the country and abroad I have heard all sorts of bizarre things: from the idea that Jesus really just came to tell us about the MDGs, to the idea that the real Jesus was the one found in the Gospel of Thomas, to a kind of spiritualization of the resurrection which made Easter really no less about the Easter bunny than about Jesus.

It is admirable to continue to say that these sorts of things are not standard teaching. Of course they are not. But what they reveal is that whatever "standard teaching" we have -- be it the prayer book or some abstract notion of Scriptural, traditional and reasoned authority -- is not held in any committed way. This is, as Nicholas rightly says, a question of discipline. Right now it seems that the only things that are being actually disciplined are, to put it crassly, whatever 815 happens to dislike at the moment. But I could stand up in a local pulpit and, if it weren't for the fact that my rector takes such things seriously, denounce the resurrection as a bunch of nonsense, and the local ordinary would take no notice. If, however, I preached a traditional view of human sexuality, I might be deposed (and this has indeed happened here).

To briefly answer the question about Spong: I don't know what good it would do. But I don't think it's ever too late to do what's right and for the health of the Church. To me the fact that such a trial might be difficult is symptomatic of how diseased the House of Bishops currently is.

In any case, a parallel question really ought to be asked: What possible good did it do to depose Bishop Duncan? That is, besides giving 815 and half of the House of Bishops a feeling of canonical self-righteous glee. The deposition will certainly not do anything to stop movement in Pittsburgh; it has only exacerbated the problem.

We might be able to have a reasonable conversation about liturgical discipline if we leave out the 815 bashing. If you think that 815 calls the tune in the House of Bishops, you are not talking to nearly enough bishops. If you have information about people being deposed for their views, rather than for license that they believe those views confered upon them, I hope you will forward it to me privately. I think it is important that that sort of thing should be exposed.

Hmmm. The article says what it says pretty carefully. It is about complaints, first of all, as the sentence makes clear.

And what is the complaint, exactly? "that the national church allows open debate on whether Jesus is the Son of God..."

NO. That is what you would guess based on so much of the ink spilled. But is isn't what the sentence actually says.

The article says the complaint is about "allows open debate on whether Jesus is the Son of God, or that the only way to God is through Jesus..."

It is an important word, OR, but I do not see it being addressed here.

First, the article would be correct as written just because it is describing complaints, I think, although I might not have written it that way.

However, even given that, it is absolutely and indisputably true as written
because of that word OR.

At issue on the second set of the "complaint" list is the exclusivity of Jesus. the list of leaders who could be regarded as raising this question include the Presiding Bishop, the Bishop of Washington, the former rector of All Saints Pasadena (at the national Cathedral, no less), and many others.

Kendall, I think you misread the sentence. The "or" indicates that people don't necessarily make both arguments, some make one, some make another.

As for what the Presiding Bishop belives about Jesus as a path to salvation, can you explain for me how her view differs from that of the Catholic Church? I have written at some length about this, here:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/episcopal_church/orthodox_soteriology.php

Finally, as far as the the fact that the Times is reporting on "complaints", if you "complain" that I beat my children and I deny it and the Times presents a "balanced" viewof the matter, is this fair to me if I do not beat my children?

This is the kind of "balance" that practitioners of Big Lie politics depend upon to keep their opponents on the defensive.

"Has no one in the forum ever attended a service in an Episcopal parish where Jesus' Divinity, Divine-Sonship or other article of the Creed was called into question from the pulpit? Has no one ever attended a Sunday School class or retreat where various recent revisionings of scripture and tradition were discussed?"

No, I have not. Not a single one.

I've been an Episcopalian for 15 years and before that attended Lutheran and Methodist churches. I've visited Episcopal churches throughout the Midwest (northeastern and central Illinois, northern Wisconsin, Kansas, Indiana), many in the Northeast (western and central New York, NYC, Maine, Massachusetts), and have lived and attended churches in both areas. I came to the Episcopal church precisely because of the Eucharistic-centered worship and theology I found, the fact that it was Christ-centered in ways that I found lacking in other Protestant churches I attended or visited. The Episcopal priests I have encountered and the people I've known in the pews have had no doubt that Jesus is Lord -- indeed, I think it is fair to say that is why, in today's anti-religious culture, they get their butts out bed on Sunday (and other) mornings to go to mass, where they voice their confession, their affirmation of the creeds, and partake in the Holy Eucharist, in deep prayer and humility.

While I do not doubt that if one looks hard enough one can find discussions of liberal theology (such as Tillich, Borg, etc.) in some Sunday School classes somewhere in the Episcopal Church, just as one can in every Protestant denomination (such as the Presbyterian and Lutheran churches, where I have heard such authors discussed), I must attest that I, myself, have not heard any such discussions in a single Episcopal parish I have attended. Our sermons are on the Gospel or other lectionary readings. Our Adult Forums also generally focus on the Bible, as well. People talk some about what the passages mean to them and often bring in their struggles in everyday life, seeking and giving prayer and support. That's what everyday parish life is about. And if some people somewhere like to sit around in an EFM or another group and tangle with deep theological questions from a variety of perspectives, that is fine and good, but it says nothing about what most clergy and parishioners do when they worship, attend to the poor and the sick, celebrate baptisms and weddings, and mourn at funerals.

I really do wish the so-called conservatives who cry out about the supposed heresies in the Episcopal Church would spend some time in what really is the typical parish in just about every diocese, "liberal" or "conservative." This whole business of "heresy" is a red herring thrown out by those who either want to scare people and acquire power for themselves, or are simply hopelessly ignorant of what goes on in real-life church and would rather believe in the nightmares they imagine in their blogs and magazines. It's long past time they were called on it.

Kathryn Jensen