Moderator visits VST

Posted by John Maich on December 01, 1997 at 11:40:28:

This past Thursday (Nov. 27th) the Rt. Rev. Bill Phipps was scheduled to come
and share lunch at the Vancouver School of Theology. I had not originally planned
to go and participate as I am in a final year field placement at St. Paul's Hospital in
downtown Vancouver.

Shortly after beginning my shift I began a random introductory visit with a newly admitted patient whom I judged to be in her mid fifties. The patient was concerned to know which denomination I represented (St. Paul's is a Roman Catholic Institution), I responded by stating that I was with the United Church of Canada. I was immediately asked to leave the room as there are "No Christians in the United Church of Canada!"
 

I left, trying to be as upbeat as possible, although her verbal slap really brought forward the pain of the recent debate regarding the Moderator's interview with the Ottawa Citizen. I determined that because of this event I should go and spend some time with the Moderator. As I drove back to VST I reflected more upon the visit, perhaps this woman is carrying baggage from something else how fair am i being in laying this all at the feet of Rt. Rev. Phipps? Should I go and attempt conversation around a personally sensitive issue when I am already out of sorts? I decided to go and to listen and to make sure of the Moderator's exact position before continuing with the debate. Rt. Rev. Phipps gave the appearance of being mentally beat and it was obvious, at least to me, that this issue has not been painless for him.

In answering the questions of controversy the moderator declared that he firmly believes that "Jesus is God Incarnate," furthermore the Moderator claims that it has been believed by him all of his life. Initially I was confused by this answer, after all the Moderator ackowledged his gut reaction answer to the question "Do you believe that Jesus is God?" was stated in the negative. The moderator said "No" and then continued to clarify his answer. Based on what I heard the Moderator say about his personal belief during the lunch the answer should have been "yes."

I am forced to conclude then that our current Moderator made a tactical error in his answer, certainly the qualifications of his negative answer could have been appended to a positive response. Despite a career which includes over twenty years in parish ministry and lawyer's training our Moderator is a little green at representing the National Church. Obviously Rt. Rev. Phipps is feeling the weight of office and the pressure of publicly tripping on what should be easy territory for the Christian Church.

While the event has opened up much discussion it is my belief that the catalyst was accidental and not heretical. I may wish the Moderator to be more polished in the future but as a theologically conservative member of the United Church of Canada I lament the fact that it takes an accident to encourage us to talk about our faith. Regarding the debate itself I am coming to believe that diversity is not the Church's problem but the polarization within that diversity surely is.

Posted by Mark Fearnall on December 01, 1997 at 12:03:46:

In Reply to: Moderator visits VST posted by John Maich on December 01, 1997 at
11:40:28:

I wish your explanation was that simple, but I'm afraid I'm not convinced. In
Ottawa he also stated that Jesus was God incarnate, but he was asked whether this
meant that Jesus was the only incarnation of God... this he would not affirm.
Furthermore, if he believes that Jesus was God incarnate, why would he deny
worship to Christ? This he stated in Ottawa, and he has not denied that he stated
this. (see my open letter).

Mark.

Posted by John Maich on December 01, 1997 at 14:34:18:

In Reply to: Re: Moderator visits VST posted by Mark Fearnall on December 01,
1997 at 12:03:46:

: I wish your explanation was that simple, but I'm afraid I'm not convinced.

Hello Mark,

I admit that my explanation is simple, but my purpose in writing was not to
convince the voices of dissent to become mainline. While the issue of the
Moderator's orthodoxy are still under discussion let me say that when the
Moderator answers questions I would prefer his 'yes' to be yes and his 'no' to be
no. Although the responses given by the Moderator on Thursday are not entirely
satisfactory they are encouraging in the fact that the voices of dissent have been
heard and appear to carry some weight with the Moderator. I was in considerable
pain that day but even so I saw that Bill Phipps is also hurting. I'm not trying to
stifle debate, nor am I attempting to gloss over the event. I am in my own simple
way :-) trying to offer a different insight.

Posted by george hermanson on December 01, 1997 at 17:42:56:

In Reply to: Re: Moderator visits VST posted by John Maich on December 01,
1997 at 14:34:18:

Most of the debate indicates that we have not understood the history of the
emergeranc of doctrine...by doctrine I mean the stated belief of the church over the
ages, began with the DIFFERENT theological perspectives found in the gospels.

The creeds are another matter, but what is bottom line is the difference between
Jesus as the Christ which is the belief statement that God is in the man Jesus (fully
man and fully God) which the creed was trying to reject gnoistism which had Jesus
as God, thus a supernatural being coming from some other pure spirit realm to
appear to be human but whose being is supernatural... that view has always been
heresy, yet it seems that gnosticism won the day, so it is NO contradiction to say
Jesus is God incarnate and no Jesus is not God.

The other issue of other ways to God is a theological issue, if we follow a God who seeks to be known there will be other paths, yet for the christian Jesus is the decisive event, just as there is love but the love of the spouse is the decesive one. Why is this a puzzle in this an issue in theological school

Posted by John Maich on December 02, 1997 at 10:34:09:

In Reply to: Re: Moderator visits VST posted by george hermanson on December
01, 1997 at 17:42:56:

Hello George,

For clarification, are you saying that the statements "Jesus is God incarnate" and
"Jesus is not God" are compatible? I would reject whole heartedly the notion that
Jesus only appeared to be human but I am not clear if the qualifier of incarnation
allows the bare statement "Jesus is God" to become the equally bare "Jesus is not
God" unless we are operating out of a Trinitarian understanding.

If the Trinitarian framework is placed upon the statements I understand God to be the "One" and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (to use the traditional phraseology)to be the "three." If that is so I am okay with the phrase that "Jesus is not the Father" but to say that Jesus does not participate fully in the Godhead denies the fullness of Divinity which is in the man Jesus. Laying aside Trinitarian construction (and I don't think that I will be able to do this at all effectively but I'm going to try), to say that Jesus is fully divine and fully human indicates that Jesus is in some way God.

One can argue about his being fully God but I assume that the Creeds were meant to clarify concerns in this area.

It may be my conservative theological upbringing and training previous to this point has conditioned me to look at this area of doctrine narrowly but I equate the statement "Jesus is God incarnate" to mean that "Jesus is God." Is this a matter of language or is there something else at work here?

I confess that my knowledge of church history is one of my weakest areas and I look to you for some explanation. Jesus as the decisive issue for Chrisitanity in theological schools? VST offers a course in Christology which runs for one semester and generally it focusses on Christology as interpreted by a movement within the Chrisitan body, when I took the course it looked at feminist issues in Christology and I would be hard pressed to name right now any epiphanel moment for me during the course.

The faculty got together, along with a few students after the Moderator's visit to discuss Christological views held here at the school (apparently Christology hadn't been discussed for 25 years, I'm not sure how that would speak to Jesus as being decisive. I feel that many here would say that Jesus (as Lamb of God, Risen One or Sophia's Prophet) is but one path to God.

Posted by George Hermanson on December 08, 1997 at 15:51:34:

In Reply to: Re: Moderator visits VST posted by John Maich on December 02,
1997 at 10:34:09:

John:

Jesus as a man cannot Fully participate in the Godhead (if there is such a
thing), the action goes from the father to the son not the other way round.. Jesus
the man is as much of God that any human can contain of God... take this image...
there is water, a glass is full of water but not all the water there is... this is what is
meant by incarnation... some of God is in Jesus, not all of God... so to say Jesus is
God is to reduce God to only one experience of God...

Likewise Jesus is the decisve event of God for Christians but not the decisive event of God for all,,, there are other ways to God that are decisive... we cannot claim that only in Jesus is God revealed, for there is the history and presence of Judaism, the prophets, other faiths etc...

All in all, it is logical to say God is in Jesus but Jesus is not God... Otherwise the man Jesus becomes a superman or a supernatural event... of course that is the problem with conservative theology, they want supernaturalism... and Jesus is reduced to the hero like superman who is not in all ways like us, tempted etc... this is one of the christological issues... my cousin studies at vst and she tells, and I have heard of, a long history of christological talk... both bill and david are good on the subject.

Posted by David Ewart on December 08, 1997 at 16:41:47:

In Reply to: Re: Moderator visits VST posted by George Hermaanson on
December 08, 1997 at 15:51:34:

Nice images George.

I guess the clue for me in this debate is the addition of the word "incarnate" to the
phrase "Jesus is God incarnate." Does "incarnate" add anything of significance or
importance to the content of the sentence or not? If not, then we would simply
have been saying all these centuries that "Jesus is God" plain and simple. But we
have not. Presumably it means something to qualify the bald statement, "Jesus is
God." by adding "incarnate" That is what the Moderator was trying to say - at least
that what's *I* think the Moderator was trying to say - in his inimitable way.

BTW: Even the beloved Basis of Union affirms that God is know in history, nature,
and the hearts of "men.", Jesus is affirmed as the "perfect" revelation and the "Only
Mediator."

And while I'm on about the Basis of Union.... Why is it that no one quotes the
preamble to the 20 Articles which is a masterpiece of United Church equivocation.
Such phrases as:
"set forth the substance of the Christian faith, AS COMMONLY HELD AMONG
US." (ie, and not commenting on those things we do not hold in common.)
"Affirm" the scriptures "as the primary source" but only "ACKNOWLEDGE the teaching of the great creeds of the ancient church." (ie, did not profess or affirm)
"Commend (this statement) to the STUDIOUS ATTENTION of the members and
adherents ...." (OK, we've studied them. Thanks for commending them to our
attention. Now what?)

My point being, that the Basis of Union itself commends studious attention to faith
and not the profession of any creed (including the 20 Articles themselves.)

Posted by Richard Fairchild on December 03, 1997 at 08:20:07:

In Reply to: Re: Moderator visits VST posted by John Maich on December 02,
1997 at 10:34:09:

: The faculty got together, along with a few students after the Moderator's visit to
discuss Christological views held here at the school (apparently Christology hadn't
been discussed for 25 years, I'm not sure how that would speak to Jesus as being
decisive. I feel that many here would say that Jesus (as Lamb of God, Risen One or
Sophia's Prophet)is but one path to God.

Interesting comment. I took the Christology Course at VST in 1980 - and initiated a
noon hour special seminar with a local minister who had been preaching "against"
the Apostles's Creed at a nearby United Church. We had a 90 minutes session. And
much talk.

I don't want to get into the specifics - but safe to say here that Christology is more
often discussed at VST than you have stated. The conclusions of that discussion
however may be a far cry from what traditional folk would like to hear.

Posted by John Maich on December 03, 1997 at 13:17:02:

In Reply to: Re: Moderator visits VST posted by Richard Fairchild on December
03, 1997 at 08:20:07:

Hello Richard,

Thanks for clarifying what I did not. I of course did not intend to imply that
absolutely no discussion regarding Christology had been happening. As to the
frequency of Faculty and students engaging in Christological debate without the
forum of lecture it has not happened widely since I arrived in 1994, I rely on the
faculty for dates prior to my arrival.

Posted by David Shearman on December 03, 1997 at 06:34:50:

In Reply to: Re: Moderator visits VST posted by John Maich on December 02,
1997 at 10:34:09:

:The faculty got together, along with a few students after the Moderator's visit to
discuss Christological views held here at the school (apparently Christology hadn't
been discussed for 25 years, I'm not sure how that would speak to Jesus as being
decisive. I feel that many here would say that Jesus (as Lamb of God, Risen One or
Sophia's Prophet) is but one path to God.

And that's wonderful Unitarian doctrine... not United Church, at all. Even our
Congregational forebearers, who gave us the gift of Essential Agreement, did not
doubt the significance of Jesus Christ.. though in the U.S. their polity and
theological differences led to the creation of the Unitarian-Universalist church.