Monday, May 02, 2005

Seperation of Church and Church

People break down into one of three groups: they prize either peace, love, or truth. I'm a truth person--which means I'll go to war with you over the truth, and I'll tell you the truth, even if it means you'll end our relationship. But that's me--I think that before anything else, there must be truth. All three are vital virtues, all three should exist within us to an equal extent--but being humans, we are almost never able to successfully balance virtues, and so often the best we can do is know which of the virtues we have a tendecy to uphold above all others, and try and avoid abusing it.

So...the church I have attended for over two years now is faced with the question of whether or not to break with its larger body over the issue of homosexual bishops. That's right--I attend an Anglican church--though I'm not an Anglican. The high church doesn't get everything right in my opinion, but their reverance for God's holiness is exactly what I think it should be--and what I don't see often elsewhere. Plus, its cool to say the same words that pillars of our faith have said for centuries.

Our priest, Father David, has said that we will not break--and his reasons were acceptable, though I ultimately disagree. He said that we cannot change the problems within the body if we leave the body. That's true...though ultimately, I still see the issue of truth as non-negotiable--but his reason is fair enough for me to accept. So my problem comes in when I hear people saying that we need to remain together for the sake of being together--that the fire cannot remain hot when the coals are seperated. We were urged to consider that it was not for us to judge the other members of the body, that what we were to do was maintain fellowship. And I have heard elsewhere that the only "-ism" the church has never recovered from is "Schism"...However, this is a step beyond Father David's urging for unity for the sake of having a positive effect on those that have fallen away within the body. This is clearly wrong.

We are the body of Christ. We remain hot not because of the numbers of our church, nor because of the title of our congregation--we have the Spirit of the Living God dwelling within us and THAT is the fire that keeps us hot. If we abandon that for the sake of unity, then we die. If we chose love or peace over God's truth, our love and our peace become stale mockeries of love and peace. Truth is a sword that can destroy people when misused--and no man should presume to understand the full nature of God's truth--but that does not mean we cannot KNOW certain unshakeable, unquestionable, unchangeable truths. And with that knowledge comes responsibility--we cannot turn a blind eye in the name of love or peace when we see truth being twisted and corrupted. There is right and there is wrong, and we have been given the ability to discern that and a charge to live justly and NOT do ill. Submitting to those that cannot understand good from bad, who think that there are no absolutes, no real meaning to "right" and "wrong" only means that we have surrendered our charge to be lights in the world--and THAT means we have become ineffective for the cause of Christ.

I know this sounds rather judgemental, and a little "fire and brimstone"-ish on my part...but I cannot NOT say it. Yesterday I heard a sermon (not Father David) that is making me consider the need to talk to Father David about this issue. As I am not an Anglican, I have been reluctant to get involved--but yesterday's message may have crossed the line. We don't stick together for comfort's sake. The family of Christ welcomes any who will repent and follow Christ--but in order to be a part of that family one MUST repent and follow. To correctly discern that there are people calling themselves Christians who are not and therefore NOT associate with them in the context of fellow believers isn't not loving--it is, in fact, their only chance of hearing what they must hear to be saved--that they cannot be "right" and believe in their lukewarm version of morality.

God help us.

14 comments:

Joi said...

As far as Fr. Michael's message yesterday, I tend to agree. I think he means well, but at the very least, he doesn't state things well, and at the worst, he's just plain wrong.

But I'll still disagree with you over splitting churches. (surprise, surprise, right?) I've seen the effects of splitting churches, even over important doctrinal issues, and it's never good. I have yet to see or hear of a time when it was good. (I am in favor of excommunication, and believe that at least parts of ECUSA should be excommunicated, but that's different).

As Rush say, in their great work Hemispheres,

"Let the love of truth be lighted,
Let the truth of love shine clear,
With the heart and mind united
In a single perfect sphere."

Essentially, Mr. Leigh, though you and I disagree fairly heatedly about this, we (as in, the church) will only get through this time if our respective viewpoints STAY TOGETHER and keep talking, rather than splitting off yet again.

Chris said...

"(I am in favor of excommunication, and believe that at least parts of ECUSA should be excommunicated, but that's different)."

In that case...what is splitting but churches who aren't in the "authority" position excommunicating the rest of the "church" which has lost its way? I think you're splitting hairs over words by suggesting that this distinction exists.

Joi said...

No, there's a real distinction. Splitting oneself off from the body is the eye saying to the hand, "I don't need you." The authority (i.e., the symbol of the body as a whole) reprimanding one part is saying "You are not functioning properly."

Chris said...

Majority rules though. At least, it certain seems to amount to that. In this case--single churches look at the body as a whole and want to say that the heads of the body have a serious malfunction--the heads ignore these individual churches--so the churches have few options. Either continue to reside in a body that has lost sight of truth and is dying...or "split"...hoewever, if those individual churches had the title of being the head, they would not be splitting, they'd be excommunicating.

My point is...man-made structures seem to be taking precedent over God's truth in the priorities of many. It means nothing that one man is a Bishop and one man is a priest, in terms of authority, if the Bishop has surrendered his understanding of truth to moral relativism and the priest has not. Authority doesn't come for the office, but from God. And at this point, Bishops have forsaken God's truth...so splitting from them is effectually the same thing as excommunicating them--the only difference is that the individual churches that have split don't have the "official power" of the man-made system of the church to excommunicate the Bishop.

And by man-made, I hope its clear that I mean the system of power which employs Bishops, priests, etc. God laid the foundation of His church--what His people have done with it is another matter. God may be in certain institutions, but He can, and I believe will, leave institutions that forsake Him--whether or not they retain the official name.

Joi said...

So the solution to a poorly-functioning "man-made" structure is to make another one??

Some of this has already been settled in past debates within the church: for instance, it was decided that the Sacrament does not lose its efficacy if administered by a faulty cleric--thank God! Otherwise, we'd all be in trouble if the priest's mind wanders during the Mass, or he's in a bad mood, or he's a heretic.

The sacrament, any sacrament, is an objective thing. Marriage is an objective thing, not something that ends when the two parties fight or feelings end, or when one member is unfaithful. Infidelity does not negate the marriage. It means there are serious problems, and there will be pain, but it does not make either party free. (interestingly, although it's the only Biblical grounds for divorce, divorce is never said to be the best option in that situation).

Similarly, even heresy does not negate the relationship between parts of the church.

Chris said...

"Similarly, even heresy does not negate the relationship between parts of the church."

I would challenge you to show me how that is the fact, when Paul and Jesus Himself give pretty harsh words about cutting people off over sin. One example that everyone knows would be discussion for the proper way to confront a brother in sin: first privately, then with one or two others, then before the church, and if there is no repentance, then you break with that person, for they have no truth in them. With such a simple outline, how can we miss the fact that "unity" as such is not the highest calling of the church? For all the talk of division that Christ made, we seem to regard it as something we (the church) should never accept, and certainly never instigate.

The reality of living a righteous life means not only that others will leave you--but that you will have to leave others--because they won't accept the light and remaining with them will, in certain cases, mean the destruction of the light that abides in you.

Something else that I find ironic and confusing...you cited the example of the objectivity of sacraments, that the person who administers them cannot taint. If that therefore meant that the integrity and righteousness of the minister did not matter (even more then the ingerity and righteousness of the congregation) then why does Paul take so much time setting out the principles that are to determine the leadership of the churches--why does he stress that leadership in the church means more accountability and failure is more serious? And, given that, how can we look the other way when authority figures are sinning, and leading others to accept sin, under the perverted guise of "love" of all things? It sickens my heart.

Joi said...

Ok, a few things:

1. Paul is talking about individuals within a church body. There is little in Scripture about what to do when heresy takes root in the leadership of the church. But Paul talks plenty about not splitting the Body. Even excommunication is for the purpose of alerting the person to the seriousness of their sin and bringing them back into communion as soon as possible.

Secondly, it would be silly if the idea that the minister's impurity does not taint the sacrament means that the minister need not seek purity. It does mean that our puny sin cannot taint God's grace. Sin cannot veto goodness, truth, or beauty. That minister will be held accountable for leading people astray, and may God have mercy on his soul, because the judgement for bad leaders is very harsh.


You also said, "how can we look the other way when authority figures are sinning, and leading others to accept sin, under the perverted guise of "love" of all things? It sickens my heart. "

Who's talking about looking the other way? That's not love. Love doesn't overlook all things, but it bears all things. Love stays with the other and tells them how they are harming themselves, and doesn't leave them to their own devices. No compromise of truth, no lack of love. We cannot just let the rest of ECUSA go their own sinful harmful way and not keep trying to bring them back. If we just pick up and leave, we've lost any right to be listened to.

Look at the life of Jeremiah: always preaching to the people of Israel, who were always unwilling to listen. He knew the conquest and captivity were coming. But he didn't leave. He suffered his people's fate and kept preaching.

We cannot afford to take an individualistic approach to church, or any kind of community.

In Dante, schismatics share the same level of Hell as the heretics. Splitting off has never worked, EVER. It's harmful to our witness, our churches, and ourselves.

Chris said...

the foundamentalists (Torrey, Stewrat, Horton, etc) saw that the Denominational Seminaries weren't producing the right thing. So they started over. Something new: the Bible Institute of Los Angeles. The Dean of Princeton realized that Princeton Seminary was being corrupted and would be lost. So he left Princeton to start Westminster. Biola has grown and thrived. Westminster has not fallen away yet. Splitting can produce fruit--and in certain instances was the only way to salvage the witness at all.

Joi said...

But that's not splitting congregations off from each other. That's splitting organizations, not bits of the Body of Christ. In fact, Torrey and the other Founders hated the proliferation of denominations and wanted to build Christian unity.

Chris said...

this is true. However--in trying to build Christian unity, they seperarated themselves from what they perceived as compromised parts of the body. Parts that were no longer bastions of truth.

Joi--the problem is unity cannot be the highest good. Our values have to stretch beyond simply sticking together because we all claim to be the body of Christ. The body of Christ is a force only when it is actually founded in Christ. Presently we have churches that have forsaken that foundation of their own accord, while still laying claim to the title of the Body. Seperating from that doesn't seem devisive--or that we're taking an individualistic approach to a larger community--it seems common sense.

Even Christ talked about removing churches in Revelation. If there is no repentence, there is no light--and then it cannot be called the church. It is wrong (and severely harmful to the testimony of the church) to cover us all in one name when there are those among us who are wolves, not sheep.

Joi said...

Butm in the human world, neither can purity. It's in Pilgrim's Regress, the Northern and the Southern errors. I'm more prone to the Southern, you're more prone to the Northern.

And yes, Christ talked about removing churches. And He's the Son of God and the Head of the Church, and He can do it. We are not called, and have never been called, EVER to split one ourselves.

An overwhelming concern for purity without love leads to this:

Superbia, by C.S. Lewis:

"I have scraped clean the plateau from the filthy earth,
Earth the unchaste, the fruitful, the great grand maternal,
Sprawling creature, lolling at random and supine
The broad-faced, sluttish helot, the slave wife
Grubby and warm, who opens unashamed
Her thousand wombs unguarded to the lickerous sun.
Now I have scoured my rock clean from the filthy earth,
On it no root can strike and no blade come to birth,
And though I starve of hunger it is plainly seen
That I have eaten nothing common or unclean.

I have by fasting purged away the filthy flesh,
Flesh the hot, moist, salt scum, the obscenity
And parasitic tetter, from my noble bones.
I have torn from my breasts--I was an udder'd beast--
My child, for he was fleshly. Flesh is caught
By a contagion carried from impure
Generation to generation through the body's sewer.
And now though I am barren, yet no man can doubt
I am clean and my iniquities are blotted out.

I have made my soul (once filthy) a hard, pure, bright
Mirror of steel; no damp breath breathes upon it
Warming and dimming: it would freeze the finger
If any touched it. I have a mineral soul.
Minerals eat no food and void no excrement.
So I, borrowing nothing and repaying
Nothing, neither growing nor decaying.
Myself am to myself, a mortal God, a self-contained
Unwindowed monad, unindebted and unstained."

I know that I am prone to fall into the opposite error, and that's a dangerous swamp. I'm trying to watch out for that.

But purity cannot be the supreme virtue. Health does not consist in ridding the body of every germ and virus: you'd have to scrape away all your skin and empty all your intestines to do that. That's neither health, nor life. Neither is it healthy to ingest everything.

I am not saying, nor have ever said, that theological errors should be overlooked, or ignored. But I don't believe in calling people lost causes and leaving. The hand of mercy is always extended, and the person can always reach out for it, as long as they are willing to repent. But the unwillingness to repent does not prevent the hand from being reached out.

Chris said...

the hand of mercy may remain extended...but that doesn't mean we allow them to continue to call themselves the disciples of truth under our name even as they preach sin.

Joi said...

No, you're right, it doesn't. We may need to preach against them, but that doesn't entail leaving them.

Chris said...

Joi...you agree that we may even need to preach against them...when the message isn't received and accepted (which it isn't) then what? Does the unity of the body of Christ entail constantly preaching against each other? THAT sends a message of division and mars the name of Christ--and since it will just last longer, it seems more destructive then making a lcean cut when its clear that they will not repent.

Again, I come back to the clear instruction given for unrepentent "believers"--when they have been confronted with their sin, if they will not abandon it (and of course it should be clear that I mean they acknowledge its sinfullness and what to change as a result of that acknowledgement), then they are not a part of the body. We have no tie and should not bind ourselves to those who claim to be true but are false.