srigdon
Eucharistic Assistant
Posts: 214
|
Post by srigdon on Aug 9, 2006 16:11:15 GMT -5
I'm sure the older folks like NELib on the board will be able to answer this question easily, but I wonder how many people under 40 can. Q: What Californian Episcopal bishop was married three times, questioned the Trinity and Virgin Birth, and had a homosexual experience in college? Hint: nope, it's not Barry Beisner. And it's not John Spong either. Spong is just a piker in comparison. I'm just putting this up so more Episcopalians are aware of the history of controversy in ECUSA. (I'll post the name if it doesn't come up in responses to this thread.)
|
|
NELib
Lay Reader
Posts: 54
|
Post by NELib on Aug 10, 2006 7:38:03 GMT -5
Pike? I know he meets a couple of the criteria. Sadly, there may be more than one who fits the description, but I thought your hint gives it away. He was something of a celebrity in his day.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Aug 10, 2006 15:07:32 GMT -5
Bishop Pike also resigned his bishopric. After his son's suicide he sought out the help of mediums to contact his dead son.
|
|
srigdon
Eucharistic Assistant
Posts: 214
|
Post by srigdon on Aug 10, 2006 18:37:59 GMT -5
Yes, it's the Rt. Rev. James Pike. Chaplain at Columbia, then Dean at St. John the Divine in New York, then Bishop of California. (I sort of intended to give it away to those who knew the name.)
For anybody who doesn't know about this guy, I *highly* recommend "Passionate Pilgrim," a fascinating biography. He is another one of those guys who had so many good and bad sides it's hard to know what to make of him. It's frustrating that we don't have figures in ECUSA today who have the ability to get into the national media for their *ideas* and duke it out with the best of them - as opposed to their becoming known for being gay, female, or whatever. This guy made the cover of TIME, for heaven's sake! And in the 1950's he had his own TV show "The Dean Pike Show," done at a time when Billy Graham failed at TV and a simliar Catholic show also failed. For all his drawbacks, he was a certifiable star and people wanted to see him - on TV, and in church.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Aug 14, 2006 9:00:26 GMT -5
Whatever one thought of him Pike was, indeed, a superstar. He questioned doctrine, he challenged the establishment. By 1966 a group of bishops, led by Henry Louttit of Florida went to then Presiding Bishop John Hines and asked that Pike be tried for heresy. Hines formed a committee of bishops to study the request. This committee issued a statement that was accepted by the House of Bishops meeting in Wheeling, West Virginia. That statement said: "It is the opinion that this proposed trial would not solve the problem presented to the church by this minister, but in fact would be detrimental to the church's mission and witness...This heresy trial would be widely viewed as a "throw back" to centuries when the law in church and state sought to repress and penalize unacceptable opinions...it would spread abroad a "repressive image" of the church and suggest to many that we were more concerned with traditional propositions about God than with the faith as the response of the whole man to God."
While it is fashionable in some circles to fashion a view of a silent, hidden conspiracy by the Legions of Satan to take over the Episcopal Church, this very clear and public statement made 40 years ago clearly states, in my mind, an intentional departure by a majority of the bishops of this church to separate "traditional propositions about God" from "faith as the response of the whole man to God."
While I'm not a believer in a Great Man theory of history, Pike provided a perfect target for those who equate "propositions about God" with faith in the living person of Jesus to defend that position by convicting Pike of heresy. They did not do so, and, in my opinion, now reap the results of their inaction. And yet, they treat the current situation as something about which they knew nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Canadian Phil on Aug 14, 2006 17:33:57 GMT -5
Sojourner et al;
This is interesting background. I was faintly aware of Bishop Pike, but was a. rather too young to know about him at the time and b. not yet an Anglican.
I must admit that my gut response to the decision of bishop's committee is that I really wish they had been rather more concerned with the church rather than how the church looked. Heresy is an ugly charge, but, from I've heard of Bishop Pike, the term fit. I certainly would not advocate burning him at the stake, but that isn't what heresy is about. A conviction on heresy is merely a recognition that the person involved has already set themselves outside the belief and traditions of the church, so should be sanctioned until he or she comes around. From all accounts, Bishop Pike qualified.
Now, before anyone flares, let me also note that I do understand the concern of the bishops. Heresy trials got a very bad name because of the punishment for heresy. Yet, really, this was a product of the Constantinian alliance between state and church. The church declared a person a heretic and expelled them, but the state, believing the church and state should be the same, is the one who kills them. Yes, the Church is guilty of connivance, but it is interesting how critiques of the procedure like to blame the Church, but forget about the state.
I'm not arguing for the extension of heresy trials in the church today, but really, I do think we have to ask some hard questions: The first one which I'll pose to all of you is: At what point does someone's beliefs put them outside of the beliefs of the Church? That is, does it really matter what we believe?
Peace, Phil
|
|
srigdon
Eucharistic Assistant
Posts: 214
|
Post by srigdon on Aug 17, 2006 18:12:41 GMT -5
Phil,
There was probably lots going on behind the scenes. I suspect that the bishops decided that there were other ways of getting rid of him. He ended up resigning, so there was obviously lots of internal pressure.
There was a scene at his last diocesan convention where a conflict between him and his successor came to the floor and the convention overwhelmingly voted against Pike. The convention then gave his successor a standing ovation. It was a remarkable public rebuke from his diocese. So at the end, everybody was sick of the guy. They didn't need to try him.
The other day I made some trouble on another blog concerning your last question. I think Jesus addresses this in the parable of the Good Samaritan. There was a priest whose doctrinal beliefs were all right - and the apostate Samaritan who did the good deed. Which one did Jesus exalt? Might we make any conclusion about the relative importance of doctrinal belief vs. good behavior from this episode? I think so.
In fact, I wish it were more widely understood that "Good Samaritan" - interpreted directly - is really a backhanded compliment. Calling somebody that is like saying that well, you're all screwed up but it's nice to see that you can do *something* right.
Belief clearly puts you outside of the church if it changes your behavior negatively. I don't think disbelief in the Virgin Birth or Trinity is really all that big of a problem. You can still believe that the Christian way of life is compelling without these. (I would agree that excessive harping on one's literal disbelief in these and other miracles should be classified as just plain rude and unbecoming of church leadership.)
But the issues regarding sexuality - homosexuality, divorce, polyamory - are more problematic. These are about behavior - and cut right to what defines the Christian way of life.
|
|
|
Post by Canadian Phil on Aug 17, 2006 18:45:57 GMT -5
srigdon;
I agree that an orthodox belief doesn't necessarily say much about how good a Christian someone is likely to be. Walking the walk is, ultimately, more important than talking the talk. That, as you note, is the real message behind the Parable of the Good Samaritan and a lot of other parables of Jesus. Clearly, practice is crucial in a Christian life.
Yet, I disagree with you that we can not worry about central doctrines because they don't impact behavior. I disagree with you because you really are reflecting an attitude to doctrine and to theology which, although very common, is a mistaken one. I don't fault you for this because the practice of theology over the last few centuries has encouraged the conclusion that doctrine and theology is hopelessly abstract and separate from practice or, indeed, the real world. In many ways, academic theology as we know it IS very abstract and removed for the world. That doesn't mean that is the way it is supposed to be.
Theology, at the end of the day, has to be rooted in practice. Now, sometimes we may choose not to follow the reasoning of a certain doctrine to its furtherest implications, but the central, core doctrines really do fit together in such a way that they can't help but impact how we act day to day.
Take the Trinity. We could sit here and try to work out the relationships of the person in the Trinity, taking care to avoid this or that heresy. Or, we could ask ourselves what is the Trinity trying to explain? Centrally, the Trinity tries to explain how God, the Creator of the World, could be come incarnate in Jesus Christ, who lived and diied and was resurrected and how He could remain with us in Spirit even today. Now, do I think I really understand how all that works?
No, of course not, since God is infinately bigger than me.
Yet, it is crucial for me to remember that God is the Creator of a good Creation of which I am a steward. So, I had better take good care of the bit around me.
It is crucial for me to remember that God became incarnate in Jesus Christ, that God became man, because I know that, in this way, God has chosen to redeem the world from sin and death. I know that I am forgiven, that God is working to redeem this broken world and that I am called to join with him.
It is crucial for me to remember that God became Spirit so that he could remain with us as we work in this world. The Spirit comforts me and keeps me hopeful even amid the terrible things that happen to humanity.
One of the assumption that I'm seeing in your comments is that our choice is between a narrow, judgemental Pharasaical orthodoxy and a open, free, unbounded practice. This is not an either/or proposition here. It is perfectly possible to be orthodox and consistently Christian in practice. Paul did it, generations upon generations of Christians have done it. Why are we the exception?
Peace, Phil
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Aug 28, 2006 10:49:42 GMT -5
Phil, I think you really have to stretch Paul's writings to support the refined Trinitarian orthodoxy of the Cappadocean fathers. Paul's writings, taken as a whole, manifest a far more adoptionist concept of Jesus than does the Nicene Creed, developed some three centuries after Jesus. So, I'm not sure that I agree that Paul's orthodoxy and consistent Christian practice are the same as what is described as orthodoxy today.
srigdon says: "But the issues regarding sexuality - homosexuality, divorce, polyamory - are more problematic. These are about behavior - and cut right to what defines the Christian way of life. " I guess.
However, there are those strange issues about being a peace maker, about forgiving seventy times seven, about living in grace and being unconcerned about whether one lives or dies, about feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. Oh, I'm sorry. These things are kind of hard to follow in our society and, depending on who's interpreting the Bible, aren't really commandments but ideals of behavior. Well, we all have our ways around our own faults, don't we?
|
|
|
Post by Canadian Phil on Aug 28, 2006 12:33:26 GMT -5
Yes, I know the argument about Paul being adoptionist. I don't buy it, mind you, but perhaps you'd like to expand on some passages. It is one thing to make the accusation. How 'bout backing it up?
Now, about your statement:
However, there are those strange issues about being a peace maker, about forgiving seventy times seven, about living in grace and being unconcerned about whether one lives or dies, about feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. Oh, I'm sorry. These things are kind of hard to follow in our society and, depending on who's interpreting the Bible, aren't really commandments but ideals of behavior. Well, we all have our ways around our own faults, don't we?
No, Sojourner, those are commandments and darn hard ones to live up to. Yet, that is precisely what we are called to do, wherever we find ourselves.
The thing is, Sojourner, that, when you get into this mode, you really are reminding me of the lack of grace and moral perfectionism that conservatives are alleged to embody. I take it you are being satirical, but, frankly, you are coming off bitter. I really do take exception to the sarcasm, but I'm alive to my own faults, so I'll leave it there.
Peace, Phil
|
|