Division and Toleration
September 6, 2009
For the first 1500 years, the Church tolerated buckets of divisive crap.
The New Testament itself tells us of the varying factions attempting to coexist in the burgeoning Hebrew turned Gentile movement. The Church fathers exhorted the body of Christ to stick to its bishops as a primary instrument of unity. Eventually the five patriarchates developed, all with unique cultural contributions to the Christian experience, and all with a degree of tolerance for the others. This toleration was aided at least in part by ignorance. Without a railroad, a printing press or an interweb these churches were often unaware of what the others were doing—especially when Christianity began to spread more extensively in geography, custom and vernacular.
It took many generations for a big movement to develop that might threaten another corner of Christian Orthodoxy . Thus, certain factions would occasionally gain too much influence and the thundering decree of a church council would have to intervene. There was, of course, that slightly embarrassing schism bit in 1054 that resulted in two Catholic churches—divided. And admittedly, in the later medieval era, Rome’s teaching magisterium flexed rather too much authoritative muscle. But when compared to today’s modern smorgasbord of gooey, western protestant nonsense—such disagreements can be put in better perspective.
Luther, in spite of his original intentions, changed all this.
Old categories were re-imagined for determining what a Church did and who Christians were. If one (even just one person!) disagreed on how these categories were to be interpreted, they had every right to institute their own rival Church. Make no mistake, the Reformers still operated with this presupposition of a single, true Church. Zwingli, Luther, Rome—someone had to be right (one’s own side of course) while the others were definitely wrong. Faced with such blatant self-justification, the Church resorted to the logical end of its unavoidable division … War.
This didn’t work. So John Locke and other Empiricists came along to rescue the western Church from the bothersome necessity of killing each other. They explained how the truths of Christianity were discernible not just via revelation but by reason as well. Each individual could discern for themselves just what it was they found most preferable to believe.
The Christian Pluralist market was born! Like today’s browser wars, competition between faiths would only improve what faith had to offer to the modern society and the modern man. Never mind those bothersome Roman Catholics with their silly exclusivist claims—this was a reasonable society, an environment of independence and free will. Faith, just like anything else, was a voluntary choice—and each particular sect had to repackage itself as the best of these choices.
Come the turn of the century, with secularism in full swing, optimism for creating the perfect society reached its zenith. Empirical Science had sliced away the mythic husk surrounding Christian faith, revealing the golden nugget of truth at its center: (something like good morals, education and democracy). Meanwhile faith had spared Science from slipping too far into cold-hearted, inhumanity. With this double-edged, Enlightened sword, the western church marched into the wilderness, into the slums and into the very crevasses that once divided it—determined to spread this new gospel.
But the vision couldn’t last.
Two world wars shattered the enlightenment vision in Europe and by the later half of the twentieth-century this disillusionment had begun to spread to North America as well. The Gospel of Reason hadn’t met universal approval and liberalism had failed to free the world of the fundamentalism it had underestimated.
At the close of the century, the hopelessly idealistic Ecumenical Movement and its ilk have reached the end of their lowest-common denominator unity and face efforts at re-identification which are sure to exclude some. Fundamentalist Islam, no longer a glimmer at the horizon, stares the Church in the face and demands attention—though it speaks a completely different language.
In just three hundred years, voluntary churches have managed to assemble 30K Protestant denominations. What hope is there for a Christian who hopes to be truly catholic? What is Orthodoxy contextualized in a world where more Christians live South of the equator than North of it? At this point, I have no idea. The best answer I’ve found is buried in my BCP, in the collects for Various Occasions.
Almighty Father, whose blessed Son before his passion prayed
for his disciples that they might be one, as you and he are one:
Grant that your Church, being bound together in love and
obedience to you, may be united in one body by the one Spirit,
that the world may believe in him whom you have sent, your
Son Jesus Christ our Lord; who lives and reigns with you, in
the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
September 6, 2009 at 10:03
I was reading this as you were writing it so I liked it before you even put it up. Great post. How to stop the hemoraging? That is the question.
September 6, 2009 at 10:45
I literally clicked “Publish” then returned to my book to read this paragraph:
From Hope Among The Fragments by Ephraim Radner pg. 75
September 6, 2009 at 20:20
Reed, I really struggled with this until I realized I was hoping not just for a catholic church but also for heaven itself. I hope still for an earthly reunion, but I believe that my deepest longing will never be satisfied until Christ institutes his rule and reign.
This doesn’t mean Jesus’ final prayer for unity doesn’t occupy my thoughts, but I also see it happening on a smaller level. Last weekend, I stood in front of a youth camp and told the kids there was more to this unity thing, and that they had to stop expecting to receive “service” and start looking for ways to serve.
Whether anyone understood me or not is inconsequential, but when I was tired from performing helping a student fight his demons (a makeshift exorcism), another brother gave me two slices of pizza. And then I felt just a little bit of micro-unity. It was good!
But this begs the question … with so much bickering among us, will the first few moments of eternity together be an awkward silence, like a family reunion gone wrong? Can that happen?
September 7, 2009 at 18:00
Andy
One of my favorite quotes on Christian unity is from Henri Nouwen. It’s something similar to: “Community is the place where the person I least want to be there is always there.” This is such a challenging thought for me and I think it represents one end of this many faceted creature.
Unity is beautiful when you’re knit so closely to someone—when your theological, personal, and practical convictions coincide. But what about the people we don’t have that with? What about the people that grind against our gears so hard that we want to kick them out and never allow them to return? What’s community look like with that Christian?
It’s a question that keeps me up at night.
As for you last question, I can only imagine what I would do in that situation: B-line for the guacamole.
September 7, 2009 at 18:09
Reed,
I agree with you starting with your points from Luther onwards.
“For the first 1500 years, the Church tolerated buckets of divisive crap.”
Well you must have skipped over St. Leo the Great, Nicholas the Great, my personal favorite Pope Saint Gelasius I, and one can’t forget of course Pope Gregory VII. Their inability to tolerate novel views is legend.
There was no need for an office to unify the early church, because the Apostles held that authority.
If we are to believe St. Clement’s letter to Corinth then the apostles recognized this problem and placed individuals “bishops” to take on this role, then apostolic succession plays a critical role in unity.
The next step was maintaining that unity among the bishops.
However the reformation pretty much killed that as a means for reunion.
Next unity done via a profession of the creed (pre-ecumenical council) and the newly installed bishop had to submit it to his fellow bishops. In turn bishops would list the name of the bishops (living and departed)they were in communion with via the diptychs. That all occurred prior to 325A.D. when Ecumenical councils can into vogue.
I think a creed is still viable to unite Christians, but for some reason American Protestants seem more willing to pledge to National Anthem then a Christian Creed.
On the topic of how many denominations we have, I don’t believe in the 30 or 50K figure. There is still enough unity amount most denominations to effectively say that there are under 50 as a guess IMO.
It’s only when one speaks of financial autonomy that you get to the 50K figure.
The issue now however is that all these various denominations are breading themselves out of existence. As you hinted at the global south is likely to be where the majority of Christians will be by mid- century and beyond.
September 7, 2009 at 18:45
Reed,
My “body” (white evangelical megachurch with a strong Latino contingency and dual classical Pentecostal/evangelical views on many issues) has a broad range of theological, practical and personal convictions, politically ranging from believers who would feel comfortable gleaning from a Jim Wallis lecture series all the way to people who daily get their talking points from Rush Limbaugh.
There a lot of things that bother me about some of the people I worship with, but I have learned to decide if it’s important enough to “rock the boat.”
I really clash with people who are very judgmental and homophobic. Xenophobes also irk me, if only because they are so behind the times. But, enough of my pet sins! I have enough of my own sins to worry about.
As for dealing with “that guy,” I’d say, first know what you believe and why.
Then, be willing to listen to their point of view and really try to understand where they are coming from. Is this a plank in my own eye issue? Often, it is! Am I approaching with prayer and love, rather than an ideology-driven agenda?
In dialoguing, I wonder if we have forgotten the virtues of courtesy and hospitality. I understand that one or more regular contributors to theophiliacs would classify themselves as religious pluralists. And, as I’ve read, this implies working towards civility.
Or are you going for something else, like how to deal with the militant fundies or the God Hates Fags people? Are you asking how we should have unity with them?
Andy
September 8, 2009 at 10:03
I’ve been lurking around here for a while, this article really caught my attention. Witty and concise.
I see little hope of a unified church. Egocentricity has consumed “the church” along with humanity.
The best hope, in my opinion would be for the Catholic Church and Eastern Church to reconcile and unite, a hope for which I pray.
September 8, 2009 at 12:22
Nate,
I think it would be possible that the Covenanting Anglican bodies would eventually have Roman recognized ordinations. Though the ordination of women complicate that matter. It would be interesting if, as our Roman Catholic friend quickbeamoffangorn thinks should be done, there was an Anglican Rite adopted by the RCC.
I would be quite tempted by such a thing.
Our talks with the Eastern Orthodox have also been quite fruitful.
September 8, 2009 at 13:06
As I am of the Catholic persuasion, I have been observing talks between Byzantine and Rome and see the hope for some sort of reunification.
By “Covenanting Anglican Bodies” are you referring to Anglo-Catholics?
I would be quite surprised to see the RCC offer recognized ordinations, although as they recognize the apostolic succession for their Eastern brothers, depending on who oversaw such an ordination i suppose it is a distinct possibility.
I should note that a reunification of the East and West would be helpful in spreading unity in a “lead by example” sense of things.
September 8, 2009 at 13:31
By “Covenanting Anglican Bodies” I am referring to those Anglicans who are helping intensify inter-anglican relationships by developing a sort of ‘accountability’ system whereby consenting bodies commit to be mutually submissive in matters that can be controversial.
This is being termed the/an “Anglican Covenant” which is both the fruit of long work done over the last 100 years and a “way forward” from the controversy surrounding partnered homosexuals.
Rome and Constantinople have been surprisingly influential in this development.
Certainly East and Rome are closer, but again, having read the official works of Anglican/Roman and Anglican/Orthodox dialogues I am continually surprised by overlap, even on matters like the Eucharist.
To be honest, we don’t need Rome’s ‘recognition’ of our Apostolic Succession. It is simply factually true that no Anglican bishop has ever been consecrated by less than three other bishops in Apostolic Succession, which is even more than can be said for every Roman Catholic bishop since Trent!
September 8, 2009 at 13:36
Yes (apostolic succession) but Pope Leo XIII ruled the succession broken. Keep in mind, I am just pointing out that RCC recognizes the East, and not the COE and ensuing bodies, not arguing over a traceable “laying on of hands”
September 8, 2009 at 13:59
Oh those Pope’s and their ‘declaring’ stuff. I think we should invest the Archbishop of Canterbury with the authority to ‘declare’ our own stuff
I kid ’cause I love.