Two quick but essential points before I get into the heart of my thoughts here. First, it is not my intent to "assign blame" in the matter of division. I am raising questions. I am not establishing conclusions. My questions, of course, will reveal my biases, but these biases should not be taken as conclusions, only as the impetus of my questions. Second, I will be bringing up two of the most contentious issues among Christians today: the ordination of women and the blessing of same sex behavior. I realize that the mere mention of these matters will likely inflame the prejudices and passions of my readers. I highlight this fact not because I deliberately wish to convect alienation and disagreeableness, but rather so that I can point out that this post is not about women's ordination or same sex behavior, but rather about a rather different phenomenon: schism.
Those two all-important qualifications having been set out, if you wish to read further, please do so.
I knew when I posted it that my friends here in Chicago, nearly all of them, would be in strong disagreement with my commendation of Kreeft's lecture opposing the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate. I also knew that this matter is one of deep feeling to my friends who favor women in Eucharistic ministry or otherwise ally themselves to varying degrees with feminist principles. However, since my friends know where I stand, and I where they stand, and since Kreeft's lecture I knew to be well-reasoned (which is not to say perfectly-reasoned), free of ad hominem, and otherwise forcefully stated, I considered it to be a resource worthy of thoughtful commendation to all my readers. I expected disagreement, and hoped for a lively dialogue.
I was, to my great sorrow, mistaken.
For those who don't know us (my Chicago brothers and sisters in Christ and myself), they might not quite realize how distinctly the odd-man out I am among them. My friends are all nearly perfectly aligned in theology, social mores, ethical paradigms, and political commitments--which is not to say there is no differences among them, but rather that those differences are ones of degree rather than of kind. I, on the other hand, find myself markedly different from them in almost every important way. My theology differs, I orient around different social concerns, my ethical paradigms are founded differently, and my political commitments are much more right than theirs. Yet, in God's inscrutable Providence, they include me as their friend and brother (and I must stress that I often feel this dynamic in precisely this direction). Still in a way which never ceases to both amaze and humble me, I know that if I found myself in dire straits, these brothers and sisters would not hesitate to come to my aid, and I suspect they pray for me often. I trust that they know the same is true of me: they may certainly count me as both friend and intercessor and one who would not hesitate to do all I could to aid them in whatever way their needs called for.
Which now brings me to my point. By my posting the link to Kreeft's lecture, division has come among us. One dear friend, indeed, one for whom I expressed a deep respect in my reply to a comment on the Kreeft post, wrote me personally to express this sense of division she felt. Another also expressed in a public comment he later withdrew his own sense of anger.
But here is where I am brought up against a seeming wall around or over or through which I cannot seem to go. My friends know me well, and know that I am no misogynist. If they think differently, they hide it well. We know each other's convictions. My good friend, Tripp, and I are rather known among our blogofriends for the role of foil we often play to one another on various matters.
So why is it that my upholding of the dogma and canon of the Church, which has held for two thousand years and counting is the cause and occasion of this schism?
This question is more than personal, please understand. For all that I might just be a flat-out jerk which may the more be blamed for this division, in point of fact, if we look around at the ecclesial world, where do present-day schisms take place? Precisely where the tradition is resisted. I am more conversant with the goings on of the Anglican churches than any other non-Orthodox body, and everywhere that departures from the tradition have been enacted there have been schisms. The ordination of women in the 70s. The validation of homosexual behavior and the blessing of same-sex unions in the 90s and currently. Why?
Let's have done with the assertion of ulterior motives of power-mongering and territorial preservation--these accusations prove nothing and fit everyone. Rather, let's assume the best of intentions on the parts of all. Why is it then, that those who wish to fully embrace the history and life of the Church and to live such in all its fullness today are most often the ones assigned as causes of these schisms?
Let me return to the personal. My friends know, and I am on record as affirming, my love, respect and esteem for them. They also know of my convictions. So why is it now, in the current set of circumstances, that this division runs between them and me?
Let me reiterate: I am not whining for my own sake, despite how I may feel about all these matters. Rather I am using my personal experience to elucidate and ask a most serious question. Why does the affirmation of Tradition get assigned the blame for schism among (American at least) Christians?
Perhaps I may benefit from someone's insight.
Posted by Clifton at January 27, 2005 02:14 PM | TrackBackCan't really offer any insight. I believe women shouldn't be elders (I was raised in OPC, attended Covenant) yet I serve in a church where the other elder is a woman. How can I do this? I still ask myself the same question.
After much reading and studying, I believe women should not serve in authoritative positions, but that position is not as strong as I had once thought. There is much more scriptural credibility to the opposing side than I had thought before. I just always had assumed they were throwing the Bible out, which is not the case. In fact, after reading some viewpoints from the other side (Gordon Fee) I see they approach it with just as much biblical intent and as much scripture. Now, I am not talking about people who approach it from a feminist idealogy, only those who are seeking to truly understand the exegesis and hermenutics. But I agree, tradition (not always right, as in slavery)does seem to indicate that women should not be in spiritual authority.
When discussing election of elders in our small church, my wife and I were the minority on this issue. We also felt that it was not worth leaving the church over. We can't divide the church over every little doctrinal issue, much less divide friends and family. Rather, we chose to stay and continue to work through the issue and perhaps one day the church would revisit it. It still makes me uncomfortable and I don't know the exact consequences of it, but I know that it would have been wrong for us to leave on this issue alone.
We did feel like we were the ones causing division becuase we upheld the tradition interpretation of 1 Timothy. Anywyas, I feel for you. Fortunately our church was able to try to understand each others viewpoints rather than dig our own trenches deeper. A division was avoided on this one. Which raises the question of which issues are worth being divisive over? My guess is that they are far fewer than what the church today is split over.
Posted by: andyp at January 27, 2005 04:58 PM
My intuition is that the issues of gender are going to prove to be the breakpoint between those accept the Holy Tradition as normative and those who consider it not only superseded, but positively embarassing. Orthodox and Catholic believers may find themselves joined by a few Protestants...but not too many. My brother, a Baptist pastor, shares this opinion. When the political and judicial pressure mounts, and it will, those bodies of believers that are based upon various private interpretations of Scripture will sell out the remnants of the Tradition they still cling to in order to maintain their property and their good standing in the eyes of the world. And behold, the apostate church. It shall be tolerant and inclusive and seeker-friendly and popular with those who are perishing. The intensity of the emotion this issue evokes should not be surprising; those who are rejecting the Holy Tradition are, in fact, rejecting the Body of Christ. Most of them don\'t know what they are really pursuing, but some of them, I'm convinced, do. Why be surprised when apostates, even very kind and personally generous ones, even ones in Holy Orders, hate Christ's Church and respond angrily when the truth of the Tradition is affirmed? Of course they're angry. They are being threatened. May God grant them repentance and a better mind.
Posted by: Scott at January 27, 2005 07:58 PMWhine away, bro. I do it all the time.
Here are a few reasons that I believe God has put you with this heretic.
1. To make me read Aristotle. Surely a sign of the end times.
2. To teach a Baptist about tradition.
3. To pray with and for.
4. Reconciliation, which takes generations to work out.
5. You said foil, I agree...some days we are more like saran wrap, but what can you do?
6. To love and to serve one another. Can there be a greater gift?
I must confess to others who read this blog that I do not perceive these differences in doctrine as casual or relative stances that can be ignored. It is all far too complicated to slip into such a simple position.
If I am in error, then so be it. If I am a heretic, then so be it. But I am more grateful for the presense of the Anglo-Catholic and Orthodox in my midst than I can confess here, and not because they force me into a polemic, but because their love upholds me.
And, for the record, I removed the post out of my shame. My anger was directed at the speaker and not at you, Cliff. In either case, it was an egregious sin...and I needed to make ammends however I could. It would appear that I am not ready for civil conversation about some of these things...not yet and to my great shame. Philipians comes to me again and again...be of one mind, submit to one another...and here I sit with my thumb on my nose.
Have mercy on me, a sinner.
Don't lose any opportunity, however small, of being gentle toward everyone. Don't rely on your own efforts to succeed in your various undertakings, but only on God's help. Then rest in his care of you, confident that he will do what is best for you, provided that you will, for your part, work diligently but gently. I say "gently" because a tense diligence is harmful both to our heart and to our task and is not really diligence, but rather over eagerness and anxiety...I recommend you to God's mercy. I beg him, through that same mercy, to fill you with his love. - Francis de SalesPosted by: AngloBaptist at January 28, 2005 06:49 AM