Unfortunately, I cannot think of a better proposal to put forward to amend or replace it!
Perhaps silence is best. Or is that, too, avoidant?
Friday, March 13, 2009
NH: Thesis 21: Strikethrough
In the sidebar at right (scroll down), I have decided to put Thesis 21 in strikethrough text. This is not because I wish to remove it entirely, but to denote that I now find the methodology enshrined in Thesis 21 to be provisional at best, and counterproductive to the aim of Conflict Ecclesiology at worst. It now strikes me that Thesis 21 is too conflict avoidant to address adequately the situation of a church in conflict.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
NH: The Seminar on Hiatus
The Seminar on Conflict Ecclesiology is on hiatus until one of the following things happens:
1. A member of the seminar responds to a post, either in a comment or a responding post.
2. A member of the seminar posts a new topic question.
3. A reader of past posts decides to comment, and this sparks an ongoing conversation.
4. A reader of this blog requests to become a member of the seminar and begins to post.
In the meantime, I am going to focus on my "bully pulpit" blog, Communion in Conflict, and make the occasional contribution to the group blog Covenant. I may also post elsewhere from time to time.
I wish the other members of this seminar well on their own projects, which include a doctoral dissertation, a new book deal, and new jobs.
I hope that visitors who happen across this blog will read the archives and feel free to comment. I am always interested in what other people think on these topics.
1. A member of the seminar responds to a post, either in a comment or a responding post.
2. A member of the seminar posts a new topic question.
3. A reader of past posts decides to comment, and this sparks an ongoing conversation.
4. A reader of this blog requests to become a member of the seminar and begins to post.
In the meantime, I am going to focus on my "bully pulpit" blog, Communion in Conflict, and make the occasional contribution to the group blog Covenant. I may also post elsewhere from time to time.
I wish the other members of this seminar well on their own projects, which include a doctoral dissertation, a new book deal, and new jobs.
I hope that visitors who happen across this blog will read the archives and feel free to comment. I am always interested in what other people think on these topics.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
NH: The Utility of This Exercise (and Thesis 21)
Over a month has passed since the last post on this conversation, but it has often been on my mind. Holy Week and Easter intervened, however, and even now I ought to be editing an over-long sermon, but I will take a few moments for a brief response.
I will get to Thesis 21 itself in just a moment, but first I want to express my gratitude to the members of the Seminar who have engaged this topic for helping me refine my thinking on the notions of "sacrifice" and "martyrdom." I still may not be able to articulate very well what I think, but here's a first attempt:
I do not believe it is appropriate to call any other person or group to make a specific sacrifice or to become literal or metaphorical "martyrs" to a cause or for the sake of any person, group, or ideal, even if I am personally willing to make the same sacrifice or be similarly martyred. In other words, I believe the call to sacrifice and martrydom--two concepts that I would combine in the word kenosis, or "self-emptying," can come only from God; though it may be mediated through others, it cannot originate in an "other." Thus, the statement, e.g., "I believe God is calling all gay and lesbian people to refrain from offering themselves for holy orders as a 'sacrifice' or 'martyrdom'" is inappropriate and theologically indefensible.
I do believe, however, that the Christian vocation (that is, the vocation of every individual Christian and thus collectively the whole Christian Church) necessarily involves (at some stage) a Christlike kenosis; indeed, the whole of Christian life could be described as the discipline of learning how to be kenotic.
The particular shape and content of this kenotic life must be carefully discerned. The Christian community may assist in this discernment (though it is just as likely to serve as an obstacle to it), and what is "edifying" is a key component of discerning the shape and content of the kenotic life.
I'm sorry if this sounds a bit esoteric, so let me try to put it in the language of praxis: When discerning God's call to you, figure out what's worth dying for. If something is not worth dying for, its eschatological and existential value is limited. If it is worth dying for, then pour yourself out for it.
Were everyone to engage in a kenotic praxis, people would be pouring themselves out for opposite causes, most likely, but in that self-emptying, they would be providing a witness (martyrdom) to the Church--and by "Church" I simply mean "all the baptized." When the people of the Church see how people are pouring themselves out for the sake of something, if that kenosis is truly of God, the people of the Church will see that it is marked by the Fruit of the Spirit, as Galatians 5:22-23 lists them: "But the Fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”
Clearly, the ability of the people of the Church collectively to discern such Fruit is, as I believe Christopher Evans has pointed out in many of his own reflections on his blog, limited by the individual and ecclesial sin of those who are doing the discerning. And the purity of the witness of those called by God to a particular kenotic life will likewise be in direct proportion to the measure of the fullness of Christ that any person has, by grace, attained.
I don't know whether this clarifies or mollifies anyone. In any event, what about Thesis 21?
I am now convinced that Thesis 21 goes too far in suggesting a specific methodology for discernment and praxis. The Thesis states:
I might amend it, at the very least, to:
Or even:
I'd appreciate some help here.
And finally, do I think this exercise has any utility? Only insofar as it is equipping me and others to be more loving people in the Church and in the world. For in the final analysis, only love is edifying in the truest sense of that word.
I will get to Thesis 21 itself in just a moment, but first I want to express my gratitude to the members of the Seminar who have engaged this topic for helping me refine my thinking on the notions of "sacrifice" and "martyrdom." I still may not be able to articulate very well what I think, but here's a first attempt:
I do not believe it is appropriate to call any other person or group to make a specific sacrifice or to become literal or metaphorical "martyrs" to a cause or for the sake of any person, group, or ideal, even if I am personally willing to make the same sacrifice or be similarly martyred. In other words, I believe the call to sacrifice and martrydom--two concepts that I would combine in the word kenosis, or "self-emptying," can come only from God; though it may be mediated through others, it cannot originate in an "other." Thus, the statement, e.g., "I believe God is calling all gay and lesbian people to refrain from offering themselves for holy orders as a 'sacrifice' or 'martyrdom'" is inappropriate and theologically indefensible.
I do believe, however, that the Christian vocation (that is, the vocation of every individual Christian and thus collectively the whole Christian Church) necessarily involves (at some stage) a Christlike kenosis; indeed, the whole of Christian life could be described as the discipline of learning how to be kenotic.
The particular shape and content of this kenotic life must be carefully discerned. The Christian community may assist in this discernment (though it is just as likely to serve as an obstacle to it), and what is "edifying" is a key component of discerning the shape and content of the kenotic life.
I'm sorry if this sounds a bit esoteric, so let me try to put it in the language of praxis: When discerning God's call to you, figure out what's worth dying for. If something is not worth dying for, its eschatological and existential value is limited. If it is worth dying for, then pour yourself out for it.
Were everyone to engage in a kenotic praxis, people would be pouring themselves out for opposite causes, most likely, but in that self-emptying, they would be providing a witness (martyrdom) to the Church--and by "Church" I simply mean "all the baptized." When the people of the Church see how people are pouring themselves out for the sake of something, if that kenosis is truly of God, the people of the Church will see that it is marked by the Fruit of the Spirit, as Galatians 5:22-23 lists them: "But the Fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”
Clearly, the ability of the people of the Church collectively to discern such Fruit is, as I believe Christopher Evans has pointed out in many of his own reflections on his blog, limited by the individual and ecclesial sin of those who are doing the discerning. And the purity of the witness of those called by God to a particular kenotic life will likewise be in direct proportion to the measure of the fullness of Christ that any person has, by grace, attained.
I don't know whether this clarifies or mollifies anyone. In any event, what about Thesis 21?
I am now convinced that Thesis 21 goes too far in suggesting a specific methodology for discernment and praxis. The Thesis states:
21. The primary task of the Church in conflict is to discern that which is edifying to the Church, and to engage in that; likewise, the Church must discern what is unedifying to the Church, and however good or true such a thing may be in and of itself, must be refrained from unless (or until) it can become edifying to the Church.
I might amend it, at the very least, to:
21. The primary task of the Church in conflict is to discern that which is edifying to the Church, and to engage in that.
Or even:
21. The primary task of every person in the Church is to discern individually and collectively as best as possible what is, in that particular time and place, edifying to the Church, and to engage in that.But does this reformulation simply take the teeth out of the thesis altogether? Isn't there a necessary juxtaposition of "edifying" with "unedifying," and a concommitant responsibility to show restraint when something is suspected of being "unedifying?" Or is such a method too timid, too ready to quench the Spirit in its eagerness to test the spirits?
I'd appreciate some help here.
And finally, do I think this exercise has any utility? Only insofar as it is equipping me and others to be more loving people in the Church and in the world. For in the final analysis, only love is edifying in the truest sense of that word.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
PC: The Utility of this Exercise (and Thesis 21)
Ah,...I think that things are getting interesting, perhaps enough to rouse me from my slumber...
NH stated:
Thesis 21 may, indeed, have "all the makings of disordered self-absorption that characterize the church at its historic worst: that is, the church's self-obsession to the exclusion of its mission, leading, paradoxically, to its greater fragmentation rather than greater cohesion and unity." But if this is true, what are we to do about it? For I maintain that Thesis 21 describes rather accurately the methodology of the Windsor Report and its strategy of "moratoria" as the way of "creating space" for conflicts to be worked through and...eventually, perhaps, resolved. If this is wrong-headed--indeed, Pharisaical--then it needs to be revealed as such, with compassion, humility, and for the sake of us Pharisees.
Friends, we have a conflict in this Seminar. Shall we address its content, or shall we simply avoid talking to each other, convinced of our own right(eous)ness?
Is "withdrawal" your best answer to these questions?
I think that we have been dancing around the many questions inherent in Thesis 21, and I generally agree with NH that "Thesis 21 describes rather accurately the methodology of the Windsor Report." And I know just how emotionally charged the words "Windsor Report" can be for many of those Episcopalians from various places in the church. At my diocesan convention just last month my bishop renamed a study group that was looking at the "emerging consensus about same-sex blessings" from the rather uninteresting "R-5 Report" into the "Windsor Listening Group" (or something like that). Several people I talked with were so angry that "Windsor Report" language were being used, and felt like the views, feelings, and stories of gays and lesbians would not be heard, for this was how the people I talked with understood what the "Windsor Report" was.
In answer to the question about "withdrawal," I say that no, I don't feel called to withdrawal, and I actually feel engaged to reflect upon Thesis 21. Now, I certainly see that some of these discussions can seem downright futile in the face of the larger mission of the church, however, thinking through how the church might hang together (or hang apart) ...(to oversimplify things) seems very important to me -- not more important than feeding the poor or preaching the gospel, but going along with them hand in hand, since mission follows out of a sense of the body of Christ...
Thesis 21 states:
21. The primary task of the Church in conflict is to discern that which is edifying to the Church, and to engage in that; likewise, the Church must discern what is unedifying to the Church, and however good or true such a thing may be in and of itself, must be refrained from unless (or until) it can become edifying to the Church.
In some ways this thesis really gets my goat, and gets me really riled up ... who is "the Church" that "discerns" what is "edifying" anyway? I think of a post by Lauren Stanley over at The Episcopal Cafe who was sick of people calling "The Anglican Communion" something that is "out there" rather than affirming that we, too, in The Episcopal Church are a part of the body of the Anglican Communion. So, who is this "the Church"....? Lambeth, the ABC, the ABofNigeria, the House of Bishops of TEC, the General Convention...or, pushing beyond our Anglican waters...Ecumenical Councils, bodies, etc? Who is "the Church" that could ever really "discern" what is "edifying"...
...my thought is that depending upon what group one chooses, one's boundaries between what is edifying and what is not would change radically (this seems so obvious, I feel silly even saying it). The Diocese of New Hampshire would go through a different process (and have a different result) than a Covenant Design Team currently constituted as it is.
On the other hand, having some sense that we are connected one to another may involve some sense of "refrain" in order to lift up the importance of Unity. This sounds pretty appalling even as I type it into the computer, refraining from one's identity? Refraining from who one loves? Refraining from healthy, loving, relationships? Refraining from building up, supporting, choosing and electing ordained (and lay) leadership no matter what their sexual orientation? Hmm....I can see already the difficulty with thesis 21.
However, we do strive to be in communion with others who might not see things as we do, who might ask us to step back from some decisions. I have made plenty of errors in my life, and I have tried to listen to those who are critical of me, and I try to work to see things in a broader way -- to see things perhaps even as the "other" does. I have even, reluctantly, sacrificed some of my own needs for the greater needs (of family, of workplaces, of friendships...).
However, I am moved by what TH said about sacrifice, and about the danger of asking someone else to sacrifice for the good of the whole --- which sounds all too much like an Orwell or Huxley-esque novel which critiques our humanity.
TH stated:
Which brings me to the most troubling aspect of this rhetoric: the suggestion that some should offer themselves sacrificially in order to preserve the "unity" of the church/communion. This borders, I'm afraid, on a recapitulation of the advice of Caiaphas: that it is expedient someone else should be made to suffer for the good of the many. While not a Girardian myself, I can also see distinctly troubling Girardian underpinnings in this suggestion; coupled with images of Moloch and the slaughter of the innocents. For while it is always moral to offer oneself, to sacrifice oneself, for the good of others; it is never, absolutely never, permissible to sacrifice -- or suggest the sacrifice of -- others for the sake of ones own good.
So, where does this leave me on thesis 21... well, I guess I have no clear answer ... I struggle to see how we can "refrain" from doing things that we've discerned that the Spirit has led us to do. On the other hand, I grieve for us, and for those who have left our body, and I yearn to find a way to make it known that there room for them at the table and at the foot of the cross.
What say the other members? Are there other thoughts ... I think 21 is pretty challenging!
asdf
NH stated:
Thesis 21 may, indeed, have "all the makings of disordered self-absorption that characterize the church at its historic worst: that is, the church's self-obsession to the exclusion of its mission, leading, paradoxically, to its greater fragmentation rather than greater cohesion and unity." But if this is true, what are we to do about it? For I maintain that Thesis 21 describes rather accurately the methodology of the Windsor Report and its strategy of "moratoria" as the way of "creating space" for conflicts to be worked through and...eventually, perhaps, resolved. If this is wrong-headed--indeed, Pharisaical--then it needs to be revealed as such, with compassion, humility, and for the sake of us Pharisees.
Friends, we have a conflict in this Seminar. Shall we address its content, or shall we simply avoid talking to each other, convinced of our own right(eous)ness?
Is "withdrawal" your best answer to these questions?
I think that we have been dancing around the many questions inherent in Thesis 21, and I generally agree with NH that "Thesis 21 describes rather accurately the methodology of the Windsor Report." And I know just how emotionally charged the words "Windsor Report" can be for many of those Episcopalians from various places in the church. At my diocesan convention just last month my bishop renamed a study group that was looking at the "emerging consensus about same-sex blessings" from the rather uninteresting "R-5 Report" into the "Windsor Listening Group" (or something like that). Several people I talked with were so angry that "Windsor Report" language were being used, and felt like the views, feelings, and stories of gays and lesbians would not be heard, for this was how the people I talked with understood what the "Windsor Report" was.
In answer to the question about "withdrawal," I say that no, I don't feel called to withdrawal, and I actually feel engaged to reflect upon Thesis 21. Now, I certainly see that some of these discussions can seem downright futile in the face of the larger mission of the church, however, thinking through how the church might hang together (or hang apart) ...(to oversimplify things) seems very important to me -- not more important than feeding the poor or preaching the gospel, but going along with them hand in hand, since mission follows out of a sense of the body of Christ...
Thesis 21 states:
21. The primary task of the Church in conflict is to discern that which is edifying to the Church, and to engage in that; likewise, the Church must discern what is unedifying to the Church, and however good or true such a thing may be in and of itself, must be refrained from unless (or until) it can become edifying to the Church.
In some ways this thesis really gets my goat, and gets me really riled up ... who is "the Church" that "discerns" what is "edifying" anyway? I think of a post by Lauren Stanley over at The Episcopal Cafe who was sick of people calling "The Anglican Communion" something that is "out there" rather than affirming that we, too, in The Episcopal Church are a part of the body of the Anglican Communion. So, who is this "the Church"....? Lambeth, the ABC, the ABofNigeria, the House of Bishops of TEC, the General Convention...or, pushing beyond our Anglican waters...Ecumenical Councils, bodies, etc? Who is "the Church" that could ever really "discern" what is "edifying"...
...my thought is that depending upon what group one chooses, one's boundaries between what is edifying and what is not would change radically (this seems so obvious, I feel silly even saying it). The Diocese of New Hampshire would go through a different process (and have a different result) than a Covenant Design Team currently constituted as it is.
On the other hand, having some sense that we are connected one to another may involve some sense of "refrain" in order to lift up the importance of Unity. This sounds pretty appalling even as I type it into the computer, refraining from one's identity? Refraining from who one loves? Refraining from healthy, loving, relationships? Refraining from building up, supporting, choosing and electing ordained (and lay) leadership no matter what their sexual orientation? Hmm....I can see already the difficulty with thesis 21.
However, we do strive to be in communion with others who might not see things as we do, who might ask us to step back from some decisions. I have made plenty of errors in my life, and I have tried to listen to those who are critical of me, and I try to work to see things in a broader way -- to see things perhaps even as the "other" does. I have even, reluctantly, sacrificed some of my own needs for the greater needs (of family, of workplaces, of friendships...).
However, I am moved by what TH said about sacrifice, and about the danger of asking someone else to sacrifice for the good of the whole --- which sounds all too much like an Orwell or Huxley-esque novel which critiques our humanity.
TH stated:
Which brings me to the most troubling aspect of this rhetoric: the suggestion that some should offer themselves sacrificially in order to preserve the "unity" of the church/communion. This borders, I'm afraid, on a recapitulation of the advice of Caiaphas: that it is expedient someone else should be made to suffer for the good of the many. While not a Girardian myself, I can also see distinctly troubling Girardian underpinnings in this suggestion; coupled with images of Moloch and the slaughter of the innocents. For while it is always moral to offer oneself, to sacrifice oneself, for the good of others; it is never, absolutely never, permissible to sacrifice -- or suggest the sacrifice of -- others for the sake of ones own good.
So, where does this leave me on thesis 21... well, I guess I have no clear answer ... I struggle to see how we can "refrain" from doing things that we've discerned that the Spirit has led us to do. On the other hand, I grieve for us, and for those who have left our body, and I yearn to find a way to make it known that there room for them at the table and at the foot of the cross.
What say the other members? Are there other thoughts ... I think 21 is pretty challenging!
asdf
NH: The Utility of this Exercise
I find it sadly ironic that at the very point where things start to look promising, Members of this Seminar are indicating a desire to "withdraw" from it. Is this withdrawal tantamount to "walking apart," as the Windsor Report so euphemistically calls schism?
The twenty-one theses are of my own devising, yet Thesis 21 has been the one that I have felt the most ambivalent about, and which I have from time to time thought of unilaterally disowning--taking it off the table of the Seminar and thus off my conscience. It is an inconvenient thesis (not to be confused with "an inconvenient truth") because it goes to the heart of some of the most vexing questions of ecclesiology, discipleship, and mission.
The very first post of this Seminar, An Invitation to Critique and Revise these Theses, asked: "After reviewing the twenty-one theses of Conflict Ecclesiology listed to the right, how would you revise them so that they are more theologically adequate to the tasks of ecclesiology? (Corollary to this is the question: What are the tasks of ecclesiology?)" All along I have been waiting for people (Members, commenters) to take on the assumptions inherent in Thesis 21, to point out its apparent inadequacies, to engage each other in asking the hard questions.
Instead, what I see here is conflict avoidance.
Thesis 21 may, indeed, have "all the makings of disordered self-absorption that characterize the church at its historic worst: that is, the church's self-obsession to the exclusion of its mission, leading, paradoxically, to its greater fragmentation rather than greater cohesion and unity." But if this is true, what are we to do about it? For I maintain that Thesis 21 describes rather accurately the methodology of the Windsor Report and its strategy of "moratoria" as the way of "creating space" for conflicts to be worked through and...eventually, perhaps, resolved. If this is wrong-headed--indeed, Pharisaical--then it needs to be revealed as such, with compassion, humility, and for the sake of us Pharisees.
Friends, we have a conflict in this Seminar. Shall we address its content, or shall we simply avoid talking to each other, convinced of our own right(eous)ness?
Is "withdrawal" your best answer to these questions?
The twenty-one theses are of my own devising, yet Thesis 21 has been the one that I have felt the most ambivalent about, and which I have from time to time thought of unilaterally disowning--taking it off the table of the Seminar and thus off my conscience. It is an inconvenient thesis (not to be confused with "an inconvenient truth") because it goes to the heart of some of the most vexing questions of ecclesiology, discipleship, and mission.
The very first post of this Seminar, An Invitation to Critique and Revise these Theses, asked: "After reviewing the twenty-one theses of Conflict Ecclesiology listed to the right, how would you revise them so that they are more theologically adequate to the tasks of ecclesiology? (Corollary to this is the question: What are the tasks of ecclesiology?)" All along I have been waiting for people (Members, commenters) to take on the assumptions inherent in Thesis 21, to point out its apparent inadequacies, to engage each other in asking the hard questions.
Instead, what I see here is conflict avoidance.
Thesis 21 may, indeed, have "all the makings of disordered self-absorption that characterize the church at its historic worst: that is, the church's self-obsession to the exclusion of its mission, leading, paradoxically, to its greater fragmentation rather than greater cohesion and unity." But if this is true, what are we to do about it? For I maintain that Thesis 21 describes rather accurately the methodology of the Windsor Report and its strategy of "moratoria" as the way of "creating space" for conflicts to be worked through and...eventually, perhaps, resolved. If this is wrong-headed--indeed, Pharisaical--then it needs to be revealed as such, with compassion, humility, and for the sake of us Pharisees.
Friends, we have a conflict in this Seminar. Shall we address its content, or shall we simply avoid talking to each other, convinced of our own right(eous)ness?
Is "withdrawal" your best answer to these questions?
Monday, February 25, 2008
TH: The Utility of this Exercise
I have not posted for a while, and this is only partly a result of my being rather busy with a number of other projects. The other part of my reticence derives from an increasing sense that the conversation to some extent becomes a substitute for action; as well as a growing discomfort with the general focus upon "what is good for the church."
I suppose this comes to a head with the ultimate thesis, which in its present form reads:
I suppose this comes to a head with the ultimate thesis, which in its present form reads:
21. The primary task of the Church in conflict is to discern that which is edifying to the Church, and to engage in that; likewise, the Church must discern what is unedifying to the Church, and however good or true such a thing may be in and of itself, must be refrained from unless (or until) it can become edifying to the Church.
I am, in light of ongoing witness from groups who press for some form of Covenant for the Anglican Communion, beginning to feel that this thesis has all the makings of disordered self-absorption that characterize the church at its historic worst: that is, the church's self-obsession to the exclusion of its mission, leading, paradoxically, to its greater fragmentation rather than greater cohesion and unity.
The question that must be asked is: Is the church's preservation, edification, or anything else along those lines, demonstrably intended by God as the primary reason for its continued existence? The church is not, in short, its own object. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
The notion that some act or concept "good or true... in and of itself" must remain unacted or unconceived "unless or until it can become edifying to the church" strikes me as completely backwards -- as if the Good and True existed for the benefit of the Church, rather than the Church existing as the servant of the One who is Good and True. This kind of talk about the "good of the church / communion" appears to me to be more and more the language of the Pharisee (not the villain of popular imagination, but the real Pharisee who meant so terribly well, but was so terribly wrong, as elucidated by Bonhoeffer.) Such "unity" and "edification" in the body of the church, at the expense of the Good and the True, seems to lose any sense of the self-sacrificial nature of the Body of Christ, the Body which must suffer and die and be reborn, to be broken and given rather than built up, rather than obsessing about its own self-preservation.
Which brings me to the most troubling aspect of this rhetoric: the suggestion that some should offer themselves sacrificially in order to preserve the "unity" of the church/communion. This borders, I'm afraid, on a recapitulation of the advice of Caiaphas: that it is expedient someone else should be made to suffer for the good of the many. While not a Girardian myself, I can also see distinctly troubling Girardian underpinnings in this suggestion; coupled with images of Moloch and the slaughter of the innocents. For while it is always moral to offer oneself, to sacrifice oneself, for the good of others; it is never, absolutely never, permissible to sacrifice -- or suggest the sacrifice of -- others for the sake of ones own good.
So I find it incumbent upon me to withdraw for a bit from these discussions, as I am more and more convinced that Unity is not the issue, if Unity is maintained at the expense of the Good and the True. Since I believe, ultimately, that the Unity of the Church is an irrevocable gift from God in any case; in short that that the Church is One -- and that what we see as divisions and fissures are matters of the sectarian and institutional squabbles that beset any reasonably large assembly of fallible human beings. I think the time would be better spent actually examining the content of the conflict, rather than the mere fact of Conflict -- which, as I've noted before, is essentially unavoidable.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
GW: Reconciliation
Paul begins and ends his recent post with reconciliation, and asks a very interesting question: "Is reconciliation possible except at those points where victory seems assured and the victors need to, or choose to, be magnanimous to the vanquished?"
My immediate response was YES! And then I stopped to wonder why he would have asked such a question. That led me to the dictionary and, I believe, a starting place for our conversation on reconciliation.
The definitions I found were thus:
(1) To restore friendly relations between.
(2) To cause to coexist in harmony; to make or show to be compatible.
(3) To make (one account) consistent with another, especially by allowing for transactions begun but not yet completed.
(4) To settle (a disagreement).
(5) To make someone accept (a disagreeable or unwelcome thing); to reconcile someone to.
As I read it, those are some widely divergent definitions. Suddenly I had a framework for understanding Paul's question. For where I view reconciling as at a minimum a process of restoring friendly relations and rejecting perceptions of enmity, it sounds like Paul might see it as settling a disagreement (at best) or (worse) forcing a decision on others under the guise of universal agreement.
One little word, and such potentially divergent understandings. I wonder if this is where we need to begin, with the simplest of questions on the subject: Just what do we mean when we speak of reconciliation in the larger sense of conflict ecclesiology?
My immediate response was YES! And then I stopped to wonder why he would have asked such a question. That led me to the dictionary and, I believe, a starting place for our conversation on reconciliation.
The definitions I found were thus:
(1) To restore friendly relations between.
(2) To cause to coexist in harmony; to make or show to be compatible.
(3) To make (one account) consistent with another, especially by allowing for transactions begun but not yet completed.
(4) To settle (a disagreement).
(5) To make someone accept (a disagreeable or unwelcome thing); to reconcile someone to.
As I read it, those are some widely divergent definitions. Suddenly I had a framework for understanding Paul's question. For where I view reconciling as at a minimum a process of restoring friendly relations and rejecting perceptions of enmity, it sounds like Paul might see it as settling a disagreement (at best) or (worse) forcing a decision on others under the guise of universal agreement.
One little word, and such potentially divergent understandings. I wonder if this is where we need to begin, with the simplest of questions on the subject: Just what do we mean when we speak of reconciliation in the larger sense of conflict ecclesiology?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
