This is too long, but in my “thinking out loud,” brevity isn’t easy. I am very thankful that this Church makes a place for those who wrestle with doubt. I am very glad that those who find this Faith very difficult to manage are given a place to struggle. Our Tradition dictates that we make a way for those with whom we disagree, for those we may find it difficult to engage, and that we can find our strength and balance in having a wide theological and pietistic berth. It is a strength of our Anglican Tradition.
I love the fact that within this Church we have Charismatic Anglican-Evangelicals and Anglo-Papists, and all the theological and pietistic diversity that comes into play as a result. What a positive witness to the world of a way of being that is so peculiar within the prevailing worldly systems. Yet, our Tradition calls us to put aside all these differences and come to the Eucharist and receive the Bread and the Wine together, to common prayer and worship, from a unifying Book of Common Prayer. We are witnessing the reality that common worship and prayer and means of maintaining diversity are not possible when we all decide to do our own thing – province to province, diocese to diocese, parish to parish, and individual to individual.
As I’ve ruminated before, discipline is very important in this kind of environment, else we end up with chaos and disunity. Benevolent ecclesiastical discipline is a necessity, theological rigor is vital, honesty and good will must be maintained, else we fly apart, we demonize our opponents, we act very unchristian in front of a world that seeks something, someone, someplace that can offer hope beyond what they find with these world systems. We fail them and the cause of Christ when some of us in the aggregate insist on acting the way we have been in this Church and this Communion over the past 5 years specifically and really building over the last 20+ years, perhaps more. The fault and blame lie squarely at the feet of people who claim both conservatism and liberalism, but with the intent of imposing their own ideology on the rest of us. Social and political ideology have become more important than our unity. Looks just like our polarized civil government, doesn’t it?
Over the years, I’ve noticed a shift in part of the ethos of this Church – perhaps only in the leadership (bishops, priests, theologians), perhaps within its very fiber – away from something that sounds like, “The Church teaches, even as I struggle to understand…” to something that sounds more like, “This is what I want to believe, regardless of what the Church teachers.” We continue to move down the path of self and hyper-individualism in belief and action over the Common good – this is a weakness, a proclivity that has and continues to hinder us in our proclamation of the Cause of Christ in word and deed.
Is this Church more like the Unitarian Universalists, that believe that each person can cobble together their own belief system in good faith or is it more like the Southern Baptists that believe it is imperative that all must agree on every jot and tittle, else they be expelled from fellowship? After all, what does light have to do with darkness.
One group shouts, “Hurray! We are moving to the enlightened position of the Unitarian Universalists and we are remaking this Church just like we want it to be!” Even as we lose members and become irrelevant to the larger society. Another groups shouts, “We must stop this heresy and re-impose the faith that has been handed down unchanging since the time of Jesus, else we cannot ourselves believe.” Even as we no longer provide a space for those who doubt or have a hard time believing or are looking for an example of a place where people can get along despite important differences. Most of all the rest of us just want to be Anglicans, as the Tradition reveals.
What have we done with “Doubt,” the twin of faith and necessary for the Faith to be realized, IMHO? One side has elevated doubt into a virtue to be extolled and emulated. Another side has condemned it to be antithetical to a Christian life. Right now, the side that extols doubt to the point of virtue is on the ascendancy. Couple that with our rampant individualism and you have a recipe for chaos and disaster. This is where were we are living. It can’t last. The world isn’t seeking chaos, a place that has no real identity, or a people that have no clue what they believe in common. For the rest of us, we just want to be Anglicans, as the Tradition reveals.
This may be an exaggeration of the real condition of the parishes across the Church. Jason has reminded me that to get caught up in generalities can be problematic, and I tend to. I tend to look at trends – I don’t see the forest for the trees, at times. Yet, I can’t take a broad look across this Church and think that we are going in good direction on the whole. The statistics, and I have the statistics, show that we continue to decline – and that means our positive influence over the powers-that-be politically, socially, and financially for the good of all continues to decline. The path this Church has gone down and continues down – elevating doubt to a virtue, allowing hyper-individualism to overwhelm our Common experience, and putting aside our discipline – works counter to the very things the leadership has proclaimed it be important. We pass resolutions that no longer impact anyone.
As I’ve said before, the clergy take vows to maintain the discipline of this Church through which we received our Holy Orders and are licensed to fulfill our priestly office; we vow to maintain the Church’s teaching in its Canons and the Book of Common Prayer as we act pastorally, prophetically, sacramentally. We are failing the people; we are failing the nation; we are failing Anglicanism, as the Tradition reveals – in the aggregate.
Category Archives: anglican
Prayer Book Anglican/Episcopalian
After vacation, after much conversation, after discussion of the expression of a new and unique kind of narrative, after continuing to watch the sickness of this Church and the unwillingness of the patient to recognize its need for medicine or even a need of healing, after seeing the Congregationalist chaos that has overwhelmed this Church – a rejection of the disciplined, Prayer Book tradition – I come to this conclusion:
We all need to be called back to the Prayer Book! We need to simply be “Prayer Book Anglicans” – whether Evangelical or Catholic or anywhere in between. We need to come together again in Common worship – province to province, diocese to diocese, parish to parish, individual to individual. Along with Canterbury, this is a defining mark of an Anglican. We are losing it.
No more violation of Ordination Vows by bishops and priests that ignore the Canons and the Rubrics. How in the world am I to have any respect for bishops that knowingly, willingly, and boastfully violate the Canons and the doctrine of this Church for their own notion of how things things should be done? Why should I obey such bishops, when their example is to blatantly disobey? Not good examples. “Local option” is great for Protestant Congregationalists, but is problematic for those claiming to be part of the Universal Church. (There is a difference in making pastoral provisions from time-to-time and in making pastoral provision the norm!)
We used to be a Church governed by law where we could propose, consistently and thoroughly vet, argue about, and then decide to make or not to make changes (however imperfectly it worked at times). We used to have a loyal opposition that would argue its case, but if it didn’t win it remained and continued arguing – we all worshiped together, in common prayer, using the Prayer Book. We’ve moved too far from this Episcopal model because of the assertion of Identity-Politics and misplaced ideas of hyper-individualism and justice – and most likely lots of other stuff that I am unaware of. Now, we assert our individual – individual – rights without regard for the common good, law, process, discipline… This is chaos. This is what is making our Church so sick.
I want to yell loudly – “Be Prayer Book Anglicans!” Be Prayer Book Evangelicals! Be Prayer Book Catholics! Even be Prayer Book Progressives! How many parishes actually use the Prayer Book as it was intended without looking for loopholes in order to do their own eccentric thing? Do priests with such limited understanding, considering the vast amount of information there is to have, believe they know better than the 2,000 years of lived experience of Christians throughout the world? In our American hubris, yes we do.
Those of us on vacation, after a lot of discussion, well, what I got from it is the need to be a “Voice for the Voiceless.” This time, the voiceless are those who advocate equality under law (abiding by Canons and rubrics), who advocate our catholicity and the need to be concerned with the whole Church and not just this little province (despite how much money we have right now, though quickly dwindling), and for those who wish to be Prayer Book Episcopalians! This isn’t about issues of conservatism, liberalism, Evangelicalism, Anglo-Catholicism, homosexuality or the like – but how we conduct ourselves. Frankly, it is orthopraxis. Its about Lex orandi, lex credendi. It is the Prayer Book.
Anglican Catholicity, Anglican “magisterium”
Fr. Dan of “Catholic in the Third Millennium” makes the following statements concerning Anglican catholicity and with respect to our current problems ideas of a “magisterium” to solve our problems. (Fr. Dan describes himself as: “Vice President and Academic Dean of an ecumenical seminary and a priest in the Episcopal Diocese of Texas.”)
He writes:
I accept the premise that an “Anglican magisterium” would make Anglican life so much easier. But would it make Anglicanism more “catholic”? Would it solve the issues that so divide the Anglican Communion today? Or, rather, would it solidify for all time certain theological innovations in the name of “Anglican doctrinal development”? I believe the latter to be more likely, and I believe that supposedly “infallible” Roman dogmas (e.g., the Immaculate Conception) make the point better than I ever could.
Such a scenario, of course, is nonsensical. An “Anglican magisterium” is about as oxymoronic a term as one can imagine. However, my point should be obvious: the Anglican way of being “catholic” (or living into catholicity) is different than the Roman way. So why is it that Roman apologists (many of them ex-Anglicans, I might add) only come out to play when they have homefield advantage? Obviously it’s futile to argue for the catholicity of Anglicanism on Roman terms. So I won’t. I will be content to argue for the catholicity of Anglicanism on Anglican terms.
At first, it may appear odd to my readers to hear me suggest that Anglicanism has its “own terms” or definition of catholicity. But it shouldn’t. I have argued on a number of occasions that each of the three major apostolic communions (i.e., Roman, Byzantine, Anglican) operate on quite different understandings of what it means to be “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.” Romanism and Byzantinism both make claims of ecclesial ultimacy. But their respective claims are mutually exclusive, as the former insists on papal supremacy and the latter on the received faith of the ecumenical councils. Thus, despite whatever superficial similarities Rome and Byzantium may have, they are different ways of understanding what it means to be catholic. In contrast, Anglicanism has never made a claim of ecclesial ultimacy, and so defines itself not as the Catholic Church, but rather as a catholic church, and thus recognizes the other two communions as legitimate branches of “the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” Unlike Fr. Kimel, I see this as Anglicanism’s greatest strength, not its weakness. And if it survives the present struggles, then it will only be that much stronger.
I agree that Anglicans do not have to define our catholicity in Roman terms or in Byzantine terms. It makes little difference to me whether Rome or Constantinople recognize each other or Canterbury as being truly part of the “one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” or not. I don’t believe we (Anglicans) are in competition with either communion or that we are approaching the question of catholicity from a place of insecurity, thus needing approval from anyone else. After all, we think Rome has erred (as we all do from time-to-time). We shouldn’t and don’t have to seek their approval. Rome doesn’t determine our catholicity, but some want to think that the Roman Church does just that. Without the Pope’s imprimatur, well then we are just Protestant or Catholic wannabees, or some such thing.
Fr. Dan continues:
You see, believe it or not, I still believe in “common prayer catholicity…”
Rather Anglicanism is a way of being catholic, or living into catholicity, that has proven itself very effective and extremely resilient over the last nearly 500 years of this independent Anglican experiment. I still believe that Anglicanism is a movement of God. I may be wrong. But why should I give up on it now?
Orthodoxy
Here is the sad truth (at least as I see it, and of course the way I see it is of the utmost importance, right?):
If you stand in a middle place where you can recognize the validity of arguments or positions concerning touchy issues held by opposing groups spanning the theological divide, you are called a “heretic†by the howlers standing on the edges of the opposing ideological cliffs. The considered middle-way gets you little respect in war zones. It is hard to hold a position between hyper-individuality and group-think. You can’t win, at least as the world defines “winning!”
Anglicanism has traditionally straddled the divide between Continental Reformation and Roman Catholic ideologies/dogmas, and of course it has been skewered by both Protestants and Roman Catholics, by Evangelicals and Ritualists, by conservatives and liberals alike.
Anglicanism can’t “win” on the world stage because most of the world demands certainty, conformity, and capitulation – but we don’t. At least we haven’t, generally. Well, at least it has continued on fairly successfully up until now, and we don’t know what will happen next. Will we now capitulate to those that demand conformity and certainty, whether they are yowling on this or that cliff side?
Nothing says such things as democracy, rationality, love/good-will, or even good manners will rule the day. Anglicanism survives – not as the largest expression of Christianity, not as the smallest, but it survives uniquely.
I read stuff put out by both sides of the angry and bitter theological and pietistic battles going on in The Episcopal Church and Anglicanism. I hold positions and opinions that some will call conservative or traditionalist and that some will call liberal or innovationist. I could be wrong on all of them. When some demand that I “choose this day” with whom I will align unquestionably, I say, “No, I’m not going to jump onto a conformist, sectarian cliff.” I’m determined to remain an Anglican with strong opinions but without desire to boot those with whom I disagree. I still have choice.
I can agree with many conservatives who say that The Episcopal Church has been going down a path that leads it into a wilderness of quasi-Christian belief and experience. I agree that by going down this path we lose the essence of what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ, we lose our power – rather the power of God working through the Church to transform lives – and we loose whatever it is that compels people to want to find and experience God within our walls. People may find nice ideology or music, but they may be hard pressed to find God, despite the verbiage. So, put me on the rack.
I agree with those who say that we are not a dogmatic or confessional Church, and that we should not become one! I agree that we can simply (and I do mean simply) choose to stay together. I agree that ambiguity and doubt are not twin evils. I agree that there can be a generous orthodoxy, and that the messiness of Anglicanism that stems from its refusal to codify certain sectarian or dogmatic statements is not giving ourselves over to the culture. I believe I have not be blinded by Satan for thinking such things (I can still verbally pronounce “Jesus is Lord” without conflict, so there!). I believe there can be legitimate and honest differences of opinion over biblical interpretation and application or pressing issues (over issues of homosexuality or women’s ordination, for example) without giving up the faith or giving up our catholicity. Pull the ropes tighter.
I, for one, wish we would obey Jesus in his two great commandments to love God with all of our selves and to love our neighbors as ourselves. All those standing on the edges of opposing cliffs demanding absolute assurity of opinion and position would rather shriek across the divide “HERESY” with fang laden smiles than love their enemies. It feels better.
Well, here is a statement, or a quote, that I read this morning from the blog of Fr. Jeffrey Steel. The post is entitle, “The Old Orthodoxy and a Fight.” The blog seems to be of the kind that is a bit reactionary and “Catholic” (as opposed to the reactionary and “American-Evangelical” variety). I readily agree, however, with what is written. I see it.
“It can always be urged against it that it is in its nature arbitrary and in the air. But it is not so high in the air but that great archers spend their whole lives in shooting arrows at it — yes, and their last arrows; there are men who will ruin themselves and ruin their civilization if they may ruin also this old fantastic tale. This is the last and most astounding fact about this faith; that its enemies will use any weapon against it, the swords that cut their own fingers, and the firebrands that burn their own homes.
“Men who begin to fight the Church for the sake of freedom and humanity end by flinging away freedom and humanity if only they may fight the Church. This is no exaggeration; I could fill a book with the instances of it. Mr. Blatchford set out, as an ordinary Bible-smasher, to prove that Adam was guiltless of sin against God; in manoeuvring so as to maintain this he admitted, as a mere side issue, that all the tyrants, from Nero to King Leopold, were guiltless of any sin against humanity…
“We do not admire, we hardly excuse, the fanatic who wrecks this world for love of the other. But what are we to say of the fanatic who wrecks this world out of hatred of the other? He sacrifices the very existence of humanity to the non-existence of God. He offers his victims not to the altar, but merely to assert the idleness of the altar and the emptiness of the throne. He is ready to ruin even that primary ethic by which all things live, for his strange and eternal vengeance upon some one who never lived at all.”
Orthodoxy
I would not agree with Fr. Steel (or the original author), however, if he believes that to save the catholicity or orthodoxy or validity of this Church Anglican that there can be little allowance for differences of opinion over hot-button issues, resulting in the demand to capitulate to a sectarian certainty (be it Roman Catholic or American-Evangelical, conservative or liberal). That kind of attitude is to attempt to beat into submission Anglicans that do not hold to the same dogmatic certainty demanded by all those standing on the edge of their own cliff, all the while yelling, “give us our own freedom.” It just isn’t Anglican (or maybe it is too Anglican??).
Get back to
To return to later:
Archbishop of Canterbury’s Sermon at York Minster (describe as “the heavy yoke of self-justification“)
Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks’s address to the Lambeth Conference:
– Text
– Video
Alan Jacobs has a good thing to say about the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Alan has joined a breakaway Anglican church, rather than slogging through Anglicanism’s (or The Episcopal Church’s) problems, and he describes why. I fully understand his reasons. Yet, both of us will look in some way to the See of Canterbury as one of our loci of identity. He writes of Rowan Williams:
But in these past few days I have been wondering whether there might be a method in Rowan’s madness — or rather in God’s. Might it be possible that while Rowan is most certainly not the kind of leader we want, he is precisely the kind we need? That his leadership is not that of a Churchill but rather a Desert Father? We want decision, action, clearly set plans; Rowan offers prayer, meditation, stillness, silence. He models those disciplines for us, and in so doing (silently) commends them… What if that is what we Anglicans actually need? What if our desire for decision and action is actually distracting us from what the Lord God is calling us to do and be?
A very good question!
I think I am coming to a place of, words fail me – something, in all the troubles of this Church. Men will do all manner of things in their high minded certitude that result in dissolution, if not destruction. We can’t help it, really, because self-centered self-righteousness has gotten into our bones. There is, of course, a way out or over this particular human proclivity, but few will take up the cure.
So, for me, within the worldly realm and within the Church structures, I will look to the See of Canterbury as a locus of my identify as an Anglican Christian, regardless of what high-mined men and women decide they must do. If others want to do the same, great. If we don’t agree on most things, so be it. If they want to yell at me and call me names or cast me into outer darkness, then so be it. I will not return the favor (but I reserve the right to critique). I do think Rowan is a good person in this office to look to.
As Julian might say, “All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.”
We think we have problems…
Over at SARX, there is a good post the touches on Anglicans, the Orthodox (as in Eastern Orthodox), and the idea that if we look at the world of Orthodoxy, we realize that our Anglican problems are not the one problems.
A couple take-away sentences:
Bishop Alan posted a joke about Episcopalians being a disorganised religion and I noted in my reply that, in fact, many Orthodox (converts, mostly) are horrified to realise exactly how disorganised Orthodoxy is… Add to that infighting over “modernism†and “traditionalism†as well as ecumenism (which means, in the states, just accepting the baptism of other churches, while in some other locations it means inter-communion and intermarriage) you end up with a picture of Messy that far outstrips or, maybe, exactly parallels Anglicanism.
Will we end up like the Eastern Orthodox, will we end up like the Roman Catholics, or will we remain distinctly Anglican?
I want to remain Anglican, frankly. Let those who want a pope cross the Tiber, let those who want the Orthodox model go over to Constantinople, but why do they insist that Anglicans cannot or should not remain, well, Anglican?
Well then…
Well, Gene Robinson, the Bishop of New Hampshire and the fulcrum of the Troubles, is present in Kent, England. On his blog he is detailing his experience around Lambeth. He is forbidden to attend any of the official events.
His most recent post details an incident that frankly shocked me. I’m really not easily shocked any longer, but I just don’t know what to say.
In his words, here is part of what wrote:
Since arriving in Canterbury, I had not yet visited the Cathedral. I went nowhere near the place on Sunday’s opening service. The ever-anxious leadership had provided the Cathedral security guards with a large photo of me, posted at the security checkpoints, presumably to keep me from “crashing the gates” of the opening service. No one believed that I would be true to my promise to the Archbishop not to attend.
On Thursday, knowing that the conference attendees would leave early in the morning for London — for the MDG walk, lunch at Lambeth Palace, and tea with the Queen — it seemed like a good, low-profile time to make my own pilgrimage to our Mother Church. I told no one of my intentions to attend — except I had my security person follow the properly courteous protocol of alerting the Cathedral to my visit. I had him also seek permission for a videographer to accompany me on my visit for a documentary to be released sometime in 2010. We were informed that the videographer could NOT accompany me or film me inside the Cathedral. Fair enough. We were told that he could accompany me to the gate onto the Cathedral grounds, and, standing in the public street, could at least film me walking into the Cathedral through the gate’s archway.
We contacted Cathedral security to let them know of our imminent arrival, as had been requestd. When we got there, we were met by a gentleman, representing the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral, I think. He intercepted me and told me that I could not be filmed walking into the Cathedral (even from the public street outside) after all. The reason he gave took me by surprise, rendering me speechless (an uncommon experience for me!). “We can’t have any photographs or film of you entering the Cathedral,” he said, “because we want this to be a church for ALL people.” Presumably he meant that my being seen walking into the Cathedral would cause others not to want to come.
This was one of those breathtaking moments when you just can’t come up with the right thing to say. The rest of the day I thought of all the things I SHOULD have said. Like, “so you mean that I am not included in ‘ALL people?!'” Or, “isn’t this MY cathedral too?!” Or, “so what am I, chopped liver?!” The moment was so surprising, after having been so forthright in our notification of our visit and going through all the channels to ensure courteousness, I just couldn’t come up with anything to say except, “okay,” and accede to his wishes.
We were taken to the Cathedral’s visitors office, where we were introduced to Theresa, a competent and warm guide who provided me with a wonderful, informative and hospitable tour of the Cathedral. But I simply couldn’t shake the feelings engendered by the previous “welcome” a few minutes before.
I just don’t know how to respond to this happening at Canterbury Cathedral, in Canterbury, in England where same-sex relationships are fully legal. If this man enters the cathedral while being filmed, it will cause the cathedral not to be a place for “ALL” people. ALL people. Really, they want it to be for “ALL” people? This is the way?
Anyone who knows me knows that I am certainly a moderate if not a conservative on many things. This just astounds and angers me. I’m reading the 5th Harry Potter book right now, and I feel like Harry in the midst of so many who were lead to believe that he is a lier and crazy and only out for attention. The incident detailed by Bishop Robinson didn’t happen to me, but in the face of such a statement I feel by proximity.
He wrote earlier of his encounter with a number of bishops from around the world in a meet-up organized as an attempt at fulfilling the “Listening Process” called for by previous Lambeths.
One telling comment, from one of those who had chosen to accept a brother bishop’s invitation despite his misgivings, was moved to lament how easy it is to believe what one reads and hears about a fellow Christian, and to find in meeting him that that impression was distorted. He comes from a country torn by internal strife and with more than enough problems of its own, yet found time in his schedule to participate in this effort at reconciliation. Profoundly moving.
WELL THEN, I just got home and picked up my new copy of Newsweek, and the cover copy is this:
Murder in the 8th Grade: At 10, Lawrence King declared he was gay. At 15, a classmate shot him dead.
And who wants to claim we are a “Christian country?”
The Cobert Report and Lambeth
For those who care and may have missed it, here is the report on the Lambeth Conference and Anglicanism that recently appeared on the Cobert Report.
Link to the video
The first words out of his mouth have to do with the Lambeth Conference. Then about 5 minutes of other stuff, and finally about a 4 minute or so piece, including a interview.
As the world turns…
CORRECTION: The commenter did not comment on my post about the Sudanese Archbishop’s comments, but about the Ekklesia article. Sorry about that! However, it all gets mixed up in the same pot, I think.
A person posted a comment to one of my recent posts covering the Sudanese Anglican Archbishop’s call for the resignation of the Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire. During the press conference at Lambeth, the archbishop comments on difficulties he has with Western/American ways of living the faith and the competition for souls he is engaged in with other religions in the Sudan (and like experiences in other Global South states). For the archbishop, the reality that Anglicanism is shrinking in the West while growing in the developing world is proof that we are wrong and they are right.
The commenter wrote, “Yes, the church in the West has been shrinking, but that won’t last forever. And people who live in wealthier countries need faith, too, don’t they?” I absolutely agree, but the contexts in which we live really are different. That with which we in the West compete is not a fundamentalist Islam, but more of a fundamentalist secularism. The way both of us should proceed is not to become like the other – more fundamentalist or more permissive – but rather a third way. How we “prove†the significance and viability of our faith-system/religion is the rub, I think.
I have to look at my own “spoiled Westerner” status, too, even though because of what I’ve had to endure and struggle through I know just a little bit of the emotional and psychological and spiritual stuff that other oppressed people have had to endure. The humbling aspect for me concerning the good archbishop is that he and his folk have endured struggles I can’t imagine – 10 fold. I can’t just dismiss him like I can someone like James Dobson or Pat Robinson. They are tired and pathetic in their Culture War crusade in so many ways.
One of the problems I see is that too many and large segments of the Church universal will not or cannot understand that the West has been moving into post-modernism for a while now. This IS the way of thinking of the younger generations, and it isn’t going to change because a bunch of old men demand that these people “correct†the very constructs by which they make meaning of life. This isn’t a matter of “worldly†thinking, any more or less than Modernism is “worldly.†I content that post-modernism presents to the Church a fantastic opportunity for evangelism at least in the West, if only we can accept the challenge.
Too many Christian groups would rather demand the culture(s) not be post-modern and condemn the system as if they can stop the process/progress, rather than spending all that energy learning how to be witnesses within it. One of the problems, I think, is that post-modernism demands that Christians actually live what they say – action over words, orthopraxis over the words of orthodoxy.
If we prove the inadequacy of Christianity by our hypocrisy, then why should anyone consider Christianity or a culture/society give it a privileged position? They, it, shouldn’t. The “competitive marketplace†of ideas and the leveling out of the playing field for all competing religious systems (death of meta-narrative, supposedly) forces us in the West to live the Christian life in ways that we have not had to live for centuries. How will “they†know we are Christians or that the faith is real? By our love, by the way we live our lives and not by fine sounding arguments. (I know that Modernism and Post-modernism both seek “proof†in various ways.)
For the most part, we live a deficient Christian experience in the West. Post-modernism calls us to account, for the sake of those who do not yet know Christ. In some ways, post-modernism does to modern day Christianity what Jesus did to the Judaism of his day – to the Pharisees of his time. Jesus called the religious leaders to account, corrected them, and presented what the faith was supposed to be over-and-against their misunderstanding and misapplication of God’s Way. Post-modernism is accomplishing a very similar task with us today.
This is an exciting prospect for me, frankly, and an opportunity for God to prove to suspicious and cynical Westerners the vitality and reality of salvation, redemption, and reconciliation in ways rarely experienced in the West for a very long time. It is an opportunity, but it calls us to a level of sincerity, devotion, and the giving up of self and our own agendas and wants to a degree that many are unwilling to do. We are just like the rich young ruler who gave up discipleship with Jesus (and possibly heaven) even though he obeyed the Law faithfully – he did not go and sell all that he had. He would not give up his privileged and incorrect way of thinking and living. Will we?
Of course, this dynamic is experienced primarily in the West were post-modernism has already taken hold and in many segments predominates. In parts of the world where fundamentalism reigns – Muslin, Christian, native religions, or whatever – it will not work the same. This is where the “competition for souls” takes on a temporal militancy rather than a cerebral exercise. There is a third way, if only we are willing to seek, listen, discern, and obey (oh, how we hate that last one!).
Something like that, anyway.
Just stop it, won’t you please?
Can I just say that I am sick of the forced dichotomy foisted upon us by people who cannot conceive of their own opinion being wrong and who are absolutely unwilling to consider their perspectiion or interpretation or application or life as being in error (minor or major).
One one side, we find the self-perceived enlightened “progressives” who assume that anyone who does not buy into their reinterpretation of things is somehow flawed in thinking or feeling. On the other side are those “orthodox” people and groups that demand “reform” of the Church because they insist that the Church has become heretical due to differing understandings from their own of Scriptural interpretation and application.
Just get over your bad “enlighten” and “orthodox” selves, already. Just because someone does not agree that homosexuality is a gift from God does not make them a Neanderthal, fascist homophobe, and just because someone interprets Scripture in a way that does not forbid all forms of same-sex relationships does not make them a godless, secularist, anti-Christ heretic.
This is beyond, “Oh, be-have.” This is, “Be converted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
How’s that for my own self-inflated opinion of my own thoughts and feelings? Of course I am absolutely right because – “I just love Jesus so much and because I love Jesus so much what I think must be what Jesus thinks, because I love Jesus so much and if I love him so much he isn’t going to make be believe something that isn’t right!” Right?
I just got done reading some stuff at the Anglican Communion Institute. They can put out some good stuff, by the way, but…
IN ADDITION:
You know, it makes no difference whatsoever that certain groups condemn Post-Modernism, call it unchristian, demand that the world not believe in it, and all that. Post-modernism is the emerging worldview (oh, dare I say “meta-narrative?”), and all the huffing and puffing of older generations of Christians will not, will not, will not change the fact that the world has for the most part accepted post-modernism (knowingly or unknowingly, intentionally or unintentionally).
It is not unchristian to be a “post-modernist” of some form. Post-modernism is not anti-Christ. If Christ cannot survive within post-modernism, then what legitimacy does Christianity hold? The funny thing is, within my understanding of how post-modernism works itself out the witness of the way Christians live their lives will be the thing that convinces people of the realness of Christ and redemption. Words, no matter how good they sound, and all the “proofs” convince few, particularly if the lives of those that demand the death of post-modernism hypocritically do not match up with their words.