Albany Via Media

July 18, 2010

To the Editor:

Fr. Paul J. Hartt recently offered a thoughtful discussion of the uneasy relationship between “progressive” and “traditional” Episcopalians (and other Anglicans). In particular, he pointed out that many “traditionalists” are skeptical about the orthodoxy of progressives in subjects other than human sexuality. He suggested a discussion of Bishop Spong's 12 Theses.

I don't usually label myself as either a traditionalist or a progressive. My progressive friends describe me as a moderate. Mostly I label myself as a Christian. But I think Fr. Hartt deserves at least one response to his suggestion.

Let me start by saying I cannot possibly evaluate the career or lifework of Bishop Spong. I may have read one of his books, but if I did it didn't make a big impression on me. I've never met him. Also, I'm a laywoman and do not have a formal theological education, so I am always at risk of misunderstanding the meaning of a technical term in theological discussions. (Ask me sometime about the engineering distinction between stress and strain.) That said, I looked over Bishop Spong's theses. Some provoked questions, some impatience, some opinions. I'd like to respond to them one by one, rather than all together. Here goes:

Thesis 1 “Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.”

My response: Of course the word “theism” doesn't literally define the word “God.” You might as well say that a telescope defines Mars. As I understand it (but remember, I'm not a philosopher or a theologian) Theism is the belief that there is a deity, and — in contrast with Deism — that the deity interacts with the created universe. Theism encompasses beliefs as varied as the Hindu belief in the Goddess Kali and the Muslim belief in Allah.

As Christians, we don't usually attempt to define God, or at least I don't, anyway, though we do sometimes attempt to describe God. We believe in God, which is a different matter. As Dr. Rowan Williams pointed out in Tokens of Trust, belief in God is not a matter of “believing in” (like believing in aliens or ghosts or the Loch Ness monster) but is more a matter of trusting (like I believe in, or trust, my husband).

In the end, Thesis 1 has all the appeal of a statement like “rootbeer tastes redly.” It's certainly possible that Bishop Spong is using technical terms I'm not familiar with, and that in those terms his thesis makes sense. It may even make sense as poetry. But it does not address my faith at all.

Allison de Kanel