Wednesday, July 30, 2008
How Diverse?
Classical Presbyterian is asking questions about diversity in the PC(USA). At one point in this very interesting post he said,
For example, as I read the CP post I would think he would say that which defines a PC(USA) member is our constitutional documents and that which unites us is commitment to same. Certainly, watching the Republican primary campaign, one could say that the majority of church goers in this country define "Christian" on a theological basis. There really is little but theology that separates us from Mormons any more. But the ferocity with which people protect and guard "territory" indicates that there is much more at play here than a mere intellectual understanding of something. We discuss this stuff at near survival instinct levels. What's the hook?
There is the psychology of identity involved, surely. That is hooked into tribalism. Of course, one cannot discount supernatural intervention. It is truly astonishing. Most people think of the Reformation as largely an intellectual event. Printing and translation lead to knowledge and understanding which lead to reform. But much more happened - A single tribe broke into many tribes which continue to fracture into many more tribes, even today. There is far more at work here than simple new theological understandings.
Of course, much depends on what you think a church is - something that has changed significantly throughout history. It has been state, it has been debating society, it has been religious institution. It has had governmental forms all along the political scale from monarchy to democracy to socialistic. What is this thing? Do we just throw up are hands and say "It is what YOU think it is?" Relativism?
Well, if you think about it - that is where we are today. Freedom permits many different definitions to co-exist. Hence also the fractures and fractures of fractures. This has proven to be the only reliable way to manage ourselves. But it also means we should be able to, from time-to-time, and as necessity demands it, be able to make common cause with those that have a different definition. And yet that seems so difficult. We see today movement that will seemingly inevitably lead to a church of one - each of us to our own understanding. Is that truly what God desires? That I know is not true, we are commanded to unite in some ways. Why don't we start there?
Technorati Tags:church, diversity, unity, definition
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
But there is nagging problem that I have yet to really wrap my head around or make sense of, that our level of diversity in the beliefs and practices of our churches are so wide that I don't even know what a basic PCUSA Presbyterian is anymore.That encapsulates something I have been thinking about for quite a while - particularly in light of my work at Article 6 Blog and all the issues associated with a Mormon running for president. The question is "What makes a church?" or "What defines a church?" or "What is the unifying factor?"
For example, as I read the CP post I would think he would say that which defines a PC(USA) member is our constitutional documents and that which unites us is commitment to same. Certainly, watching the Republican primary campaign, one could say that the majority of church goers in this country define "Christian" on a theological basis. There really is little but theology that separates us from Mormons any more. But the ferocity with which people protect and guard "territory" indicates that there is much more at play here than a mere intellectual understanding of something. We discuss this stuff at near survival instinct levels. What's the hook?
There is the psychology of identity involved, surely. That is hooked into tribalism. Of course, one cannot discount supernatural intervention. It is truly astonishing. Most people think of the Reformation as largely an intellectual event. Printing and translation lead to knowledge and understanding which lead to reform. But much more happened - A single tribe broke into many tribes which continue to fracture into many more tribes, even today. There is far more at work here than simple new theological understandings.
Of course, much depends on what you think a church is - something that has changed significantly throughout history. It has been state, it has been debating society, it has been religious institution. It has had governmental forms all along the political scale from monarchy to democracy to socialistic. What is this thing? Do we just throw up are hands and say "It is what YOU think it is?" Relativism?
Well, if you think about it - that is where we are today. Freedom permits many different definitions to co-exist. Hence also the fractures and fractures of fractures. This has proven to be the only reliable way to manage ourselves. But it also means we should be able to, from time-to-time, and as necessity demands it, be able to make common cause with those that have a different definition. And yet that seems so difficult. We see today movement that will seemingly inevitably lead to a church of one - each of us to our own understanding. Is that truly what God desires? That I know is not true, we are commanded to unite in some ways. Why don't we start there?
Technorati Tags:church, diversity, unity, definition
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
