Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Be honest Guys
American Anglicanism is fast becoming a religion of hate, at least, in some spheres.
Seriously, do we really think liberals (so-called) can share space with conservatives (so-called)? There just seems to be so many intractable positions – the fact is, there is no Diverse Center in anything, anywhere. That is just theosophical gobbledygook dreamed up by someone who is trying to appear to be a deep thinker (mystic?) or is trying to ‘have his cake and eat it too’.
By definition, a center cannot be diverse. That which is diverse is NOT a center. There can be diverse opinions about a center, but the center itself cannot be diverse – the ‘philoso-speak’ is just sickening. So is the intellectual dishonesty.
The Council of Nicaea was called in 325 because there were diverse opinions about the Center. They came up with a statement affirming the Center and anathematizing opinions contrary to this statement. Christianity – East and West; Orthodox, Roman and Post-Reformation – all affirm the Nicene Creed. Granted, it took two or three generations to solidify the creed as a Christological ‘no-brainer’, but it was still the gold standard. In modern Christianity, to think otherwise would be considered heresy – that Center held and the gates of Hell cannot stand against it.
It is simply a truism that when ‘things fall apart’, it is because the ‘center (did) not hold’. The center, by definition, is that which holds all things together. Christianity’s center is Jesus Christ. The Nicene Creed settled the question of who He is.
Everything else is subsidiary. If we cannot agree to disagree with each other in the American Anglican Scenario, because we think the other groups’ positions are perilous/heresy/error etc., then perhaps the time has come to separate – it is only a fool who thinks that unity is more important than heresy or schism because heresy and/or schism defeats unity every time – that’s another no-brainer!
If not then:
· What of discipline?
· What of the “anathemas” coming out of the Nicene Creed? Or did we forget them?
· What does a Bishop’s ordination vow to “…guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church” (pg 518, BCP ) mean? Does that mean he should forgo “guarding the faith” because of unity? Clearly that is absurd.
In the American Anglican Scenario, the only unity that liberals and conservatives can ever have is in trusting, in faith, that Jesus will make all things right in His time. Using that as a basis, the most we can do is to be gracious to each other.
If it means recognizing, or not recognizing someone’s ministry as legitimate, then so be it. This of course does not mean that ‘discussions’ and ‘conversations’ (whatever that means) should cease. Nor does it mean that theological debates should cease.
If we are being honest, though, we have to admit that the ordination of women, and persons with same-sex attractions have done the proverbial ‘end-run’ around these issues as now they are really moot unless the proponents are willing to draw back from the edge, so to speak, and defrock those who ordained persons. I’m not saying they should defrock them, but they must be willing to do so. There has been not even a hint of a hint of a suggestion that they would be willing to do that; in fact, many proponents see this as a ‘civil rights’ issue!
Consider this hypothetical example:
My wife and I have a disagreement over whether our daughter should pierce her navel. She says no, I say yes. If our daughter goes ahead, with my blessing, and does the piercing, what’s the point of further discussion on that issue?
The deed is done! The consequences, however, will most certainly include ‘tension’ (euphemism) between my wife and I. Was my giving our daughter permission (In spite of my wife’s opposition to it) really worth it.
If I consider it a ‘civil rights’ issue, it was. If I consider it a ‘family issue’ it most certainly wasn’t.
The act cannot be undone. My wife just has to “lump it”, but don’t I also, and our daughter, and the other members of the family, also have to live with the consequences of my decision? What message does it send to everybody else?
What about the spirit of:
· “It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall” (Rom 14:21 KJV) or
· “9But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend” (! Cor 8:9-13 KJV).
Is that really sacrificial living?
I’m not here deliberately targeting the proponents, who will no doubt give a litany of injustices initiated, or supported, or ignored by the church. The fact is, they are the doers of the deeds which can’t be undone. The conservatives have their own issues but that is not the issue here.
The question is “why couldn’t you wait?” If you reply “how long should we wait”, I would respectfully say that, that is really immaterial, unless you consider your position to be the ‘master key’ in God’s plan. Read the Old Testament – how long did they wait for Messiah (some still waiting)?
What really is the purpose of ‘conversation’ now? If you were on the other side of the issue, would you not question the sincerity of those who acted, then wanted to talk about it?
Be honest, please.
