Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Anglican, Denominations, and Conventions
The commentaries in the wake of the Anglican Lambeth Conference last summer were most interesting. I could not help but be drawn to reactions on the left, London Guardian, and the right, Al Mohler.
They are both looking at schism and the left was saying "Maybe we should not be there to begin with:
I could not help but wonder if there was not a better way. Some of this is embedded in the structure of these organizations. The highly structured nature of Anglicanism makes schism sometimes the only alternative. The non-binding convention nature of Baptist union makes schism somewhat impossible, but denies anything approaching an actual unified voice. I thought about a post I did a while back on structure and wondered if those ideas would help.
Then it dawned on me, it seems that no matter how we organize ourselves, we end up with garbage. See the problem is not the structure, but the people in it and running it. The problem here, frankly is the lack of humility on both sides and the sanctimony on both sides. In other words, we have failed to grasp the gospel once again.
The gospel changes us. not the world - US. The world changes, but only because we are changed.
So what is the answer to the Anglican dilemma, or the similar one my PC(USA) faces? Not sure I know right now, but one thing I do know - EVERYBODY needs to shut up for just a minute and drop to their knees in confession. Confess their hard-headedness, confess their self-righteousness, confess their utter lack of humility. Neither side has a pipeline that direct to the will of the Almighty - and they certainly cannot build one while they are busy telling other people what they "know" it is.
Look, I know sometimes people leave churches over issues. Heck, I have done it and contemplate it all the time. But there is a big difference between storming out and screaming "Don't let the door hit you on the butt as you go," and the kind of respectful agree to disagree while leaving the door wide open for reunion that I do believe ought to happen.
I think Jesus wants us to learn how to handle conflict better, not necessarily settle the conflict. I mean we do live in the "already, not yet."
Technorati Tags:anglicans, schism, conflict, grace
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
They are both looking at schism and the left was saying "Maybe we should not be there to begin with:
Maybe liberal Anglicans are waking up to the fact that liberalism and institutional Christianity are not gently compatible, as they were told by lots of well-meaning Anglican thinkers. That tradition is admirable, but it is dead. Williams is a deeply admirable man, but he has no vision for Christianity's renewal in the context of liberal culture. He is offering a slightly nicer version of Roman Catholicism – an international communion whose unity trumps all other concerns.The right is helping them leave:
Anglican theologian J.I. Packer, who resigned from his affiliation with the Canadian Diocese of New Westminister because of that diocese's blessing of same-sex unions, once spoke of Anglican comprehensiveness as both virtue and vice. It is a virtue when it allows Christians united in doctrinal essentials to worship and minister together. It becomes a vice when it is used as a cover for heresy.While holding my conservative principles dear, I marveled at these reactions. Both were in some sense sanctimonious, self-righteous, and smug. The left seems to be saying "We are too good to hang with you bunch anyway," and the right, "Well, I agree with the not hanging part, but certainly not the 'good.'"
I could not help but wonder if there was not a better way. Some of this is embedded in the structure of these organizations. The highly structured nature of Anglicanism makes schism sometimes the only alternative. The non-binding convention nature of Baptist union makes schism somewhat impossible, but denies anything approaching an actual unified voice. I thought about a post I did a while back on structure and wondered if those ideas would help.
Then it dawned on me, it seems that no matter how we organize ourselves, we end up with garbage. See the problem is not the structure, but the people in it and running it. The problem here, frankly is the lack of humility on both sides and the sanctimony on both sides. In other words, we have failed to grasp the gospel once again.
The gospel changes us. not the world - US. The world changes, but only because we are changed.
So what is the answer to the Anglican dilemma, or the similar one my PC(USA) faces? Not sure I know right now, but one thing I do know - EVERYBODY needs to shut up for just a minute and drop to their knees in confession. Confess their hard-headedness, confess their self-righteousness, confess their utter lack of humility. Neither side has a pipeline that direct to the will of the Almighty - and they certainly cannot build one while they are busy telling other people what they "know" it is.
Look, I know sometimes people leave churches over issues. Heck, I have done it and contemplate it all the time. But there is a big difference between storming out and screaming "Don't let the door hit you on the butt as you go," and the kind of respectful agree to disagree while leaving the door wide open for reunion that I do believe ought to happen.
I think Jesus wants us to learn how to handle conflict better, not necessarily settle the conflict. I mean we do live in the "already, not yet."
Technorati Tags:anglicans, schism, conflict, grace
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
