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.
8 comments:
'What is edifying to the church.' I think that's the key to making sense of this (rather than the kenosis/martyrdom question which may belong somewhere else).
I'm thinking of Nancy Ammerman's research in "Congregation and Community" as summarized by Speed Leas of Alban Institute - accomplishment and positive change in a congregation (and in a communion by extension?) correlates directly with the congregation's (or communion's?) willingness to face conflict.
Discernment may be the final outcome but the process of hearing the Spirit telling us what is edifying may begin with a few questioning what all had assumed to be edifying, and if it does, it will inevitably take us into and through conflict. And as we make our way through, there will be a minority opinion.
I think Gene Robinson is right when he says the outcome of the present struggles is clear. But when the current conflicts are behind us, for a while at least, there will be faithful people remain convinced that neither Gene nor Katherine Jefferts Schori should be bishops.
I made an observation like this to my friend Huw Richardson, pointing to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts and the bitter debate about circumcision. It was a moment when the tables got turned. The more powerful group (so it appeared) was insisting on circumcision. Through debate, scriptural interpretation and listening to experience, enough of them were convinced circumcision was not necessary before baptism that the gathered apostolic group spoke of the change in the language, 'It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...'
BUT what followed that conflict was the death of Jewish Christianity and in fairly short order the emergence of Christian anti-Semitism. Huw was pointing this out to me from his perspective as out as an our gay Christian man who is a serious student of Judaism.
We (meaning the folks who are convinced that full inclusion of our LBGT people and women in their church's life and when called, at every level of leadership in the church) could easily move through the conflict to victory - and victory is less than continuing discernment. Sisters and brothers who disagree with us remain sisters and brothers. Discernment moves into the next conflict, when the majority shifts and keeps asking how to include.
A valuable observation, Donald. There is an "evolutionary" quality to the process of development in the church, as in much else. Dinosaurs die out -- whether suddenly at the blast of a comet or more slowly as a result of inability to adapt to new situations and increasing competition (pick your favorite theory). The entities that appear so big and powerful in one stage of human history become mere shadows in another. Some continue to exist at a low level of viability, others perish utterly, but few maintain their position of prominence if they lack the ability to adapt to changing circumstances; and as the old philosopher said, Everything Changes.
The desire to enforce stability rather than to remain adaptable is the temptation to almost certain destruction. The important thing is to both hold on to what is "eternal" while allowing active engagement with what is "temporal" -- and so to pass through the conflict into the next phase beyond it, and the evil sufficient to that tomorrow. My concern at present for the Communion is that we seem to have it almost exactly backwards; enshrining what will eventually be seen as adiaphora, while letting go of the eternal truths of the Gospel. This is what the circumcision party did (and they had the Bible on their side, after all!) -- and you summarize the consequences admirably.
Although I understand the discomfort with the 21st thesis, I am NOT in favor of your revision to simply enjoin the faithful disciple to pursue that which is edifying. Although it is uncomfortable to consider rooting out the unedifying, your revision fails to recognize the historical and scriptural witness to the option (if not obligation) to discern the spirits and then confront a brother Christian who is in error-if not successful in private, then with the counsel and presence of the elders. I am enough of a Girardian to insist that any such confrontation must be pursued without violence or retribution. However, it seems to me that your revision fails to fully acknowledge Thesis 15: inclusion without conversion is contentless. We all need more conversion, but don't abandon the content.
Daniel,
'inclusion without conversion is contentless.' I'm not sure. I certainly value and hope to practice the direct and honest conversation of confronting the brother/sister and know it's difficult to do it and that I'll avoid it and am grateful for the willingness to face that work when I find it. But I also think of the parable of the wheat and tares and the image of the Kingdom as a fishnet pulling in everything all mixed together. Both images have a harvest, winnowing, or sorting at the end, but both insist on a present where there is uncontrolled mix in the community. It seems to me it's a mixed message we're dealing with.
love,
donald
Donald, you have captured some of my discomfort with the language that appears to make "conversion" a condition for inclusion. First, I would rather see "conversion" in the Benedictine sense as a product of rather than a condition for inclusion in the community. In addition to the parabolic references, this notion that "conversion" precedes inclusion strikes me of a kind of works righteousness. Ultimately, a robust doctrine of grace holds that it is not only cheap, but free. The price was paid by Jesus Christ on the Cross, by whose act all are welcome to inclusion, within whom then the Holy Spirit works to sanctify (and "convert") into the likeness and stature of Christ. Edification happens to the church once the "many a blow and biting sculpture polish[es] then those stones elect." Just as he, the Stone himself, was perceived as not suitable to the building by those blind to his grace, so too we err if we reject those we perceive unsuited to the edifice. The call of the church is to harvest, to draw in the nets, to gather the stones: the task of sorting and building belongs to God.
OK, folks--I have thus far chosen not to participate in the blog world of the beleaguerd Episcopal Church out of a sense of, I suppose, chastity more than anything else. I can certainly appreciate TH's desire to step a way from this blog for a season because this whole thing can become so obsessive. As a result, I have, by and large, restricted my reading to the primary documents of the ABC, HOB, Primates, etc.
The previous post to which y'all have graciously responded was originally sent directly to NH off the list. He and I are old friends, but but have been out of touch recently. By happenstance I stumbled onto the blog and wanted to reach out. He asked me if he could post my comment publicly, and I agreed.
And both Donald and Tobias have responded,and out of respect for them, I feel some obligation to respond. To wit:
Donald: I agree with you that there is a mixed message, and I appreciate your stated reasons for not being sure about "inclusion without conversion is contentless". However, my reason for quoting Resolution 15 was to point out how it (Res 15) is the basis for the "uncomfortable" part of Resolution 21 that has recently been the bone of contention on this blog. Quite apart from any particular opinion I might have on the issues dividing the Episcopal Church, I was simply trying to point out that if Nathan were to revise Thesis 21, he would also probably have to revise Thesis 15. To change Th 21 as proposed will require a fairly thorough going revision of his theory of Conflict Ecclesiology. And perhaps that is precisely what is necessary.
However, even if it isn't quite right to say that radical inclusion is "contentless", I do think Nathan is on to something important when he identifies the concept of "inclusion" as part of the problem. Yes, Donald, you are helpful in reminding us of the gospel metaphors of harvest and catch. The Church gathers, God sorts--after the harvest. Well and good, and right. Judgment is God's prerogative, and God's alone. OK
But inclusion is only selectively applied by those who endorse the current rhetoric regarding "radical inclusion". That is to say that even for the "inclusionists", there are limits. We do not tolerate embezelment, or lying, or fraud. And without compuction, we confront brothers and sisters on these matters and demand accountability. And for clergy persisting in these kinds of behaviors (and other behaviors) there are canons intended to guide the process of holding them to account. I don't think that this is necessarily a trespass on God's ultimate prerogative to judge our "final account".
Of course, it is not a fair to suggest embezelment or fraud as an analogy to the kinds of committed same-sex relationships about which we struggle. I am not trying to do this. I am simply suggesting that an appeal to "inclusion" doesn't do a whole lot of work in the process of resolving (or even understanding) conflict. Your expertise regarding the history of the early church surpasses mine, but I think it is fair to say that from the pages of Second Corinthians on, the church has been struggling to discern the spirits about what should and should not be included in some sense of "orthodoxy". And issues on the table about which the church has historically taken positions (even to the point of excommunication) include the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, the resurrection, the canon of scripture, and yes, even morality (broadly construed, not just sexual).
So yes, I agree that in all of this, there is great danger in arrogating unto ourselves God's proper prerogative of judgment, yet in a more limited sense (and always tainted by our seemingly limitless capacity for sin) we must judge nonetheless. And we do so every day this side of the eschaton. Is this the mixed message about which you speak?
Tobias: Yes. Yes and Yes. Although I recognize that others have wanted to make conversion a condition for inclusion, this is not what I'm suggesting. Baptism is Baptism. Indeed, if I read Nathan's theses correctly, it would be impossible to parse conversion as a prerequisite and requirement for inclusion, precisely because the inclusion offered and effected in baptism is indissoluble. In fact, in the context of an indissoluble committment, discipline and conversion take on the Benedictine character you commend as "product" rather than "condition".
Thesis 18 states "The minimum basic commitment required of a member of the Church, therefore, is an indissoluble commitment." Guaging on some of what Nathan has said about marriage, I suspect it would be Nathan's intent (please confirm NH)that this thesis runs both ways such that the Church's minimum basic committment to a baptisand is equally indossoluble. And to state this as such may be an appropriate revision that would allay the fears of those who understadably suspect impending exclusion.
Thus, as Ephraim Radner has argued elsewhere, even excommunication is properly understood only within the context of the community of the church as a tool for restoring communion to the one(s) excommunicated. That is to say that excommunication is never intended as a final judgment of the state of someone's soul (God's prerogative only). Rather, it is intended as the last available remedial tool aimed at preserving and restoring communion within the body of Christ.
So to return to Thesis 21 which aims to encourage that which is edyfying and reform that which is not--such edification is only possible in the context of the indissoluble committment that Thesis 18 defines (if inadequately). Thus the process of rooting out the unedifying is not achieved by excluding, but by conversion and sanctification. Its not that a stone will be rejected (all the baptised are built into the edifice) but the stones are not necessarily used "as is". The stones must be worked by the master before they conform to the proper shape for their intended place in the wall. And those "many biting blows" that polish the stones of the edifice are not necessarily without pain and suffering.
In the current context, if the Anglican Communion is to live into its calling of indissoluble committment, that will require a kind of dedication to edification that cannot be resolved by either the right's short-sighted insistence on purity through division or the left's whitewashing of difference through "inclusion". The wall will have holes if either group is missing, but the kind of edification required of both the left and the right will not be easy.
So God's peace be on you all, and may he bless and guide our crazy little church. I hope I have spoken clearly, if not always well.
Dan+
Dan,
I do agree with you that mindless inclusion isn't yet Gospel. But I what I see Jesus doing in the Gospels is including and blessing (perfect as our heavenly father who makes the blessing of rain to fall on just and unjust alike) and that inclusion/welcome DOES produce repentance. The story of the notoriously sinful woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee and the story of Jesus' invitation to Zacchaeus to share table both have outraged righteous people trying to hold a line while someone is shaken to the core by Jesus' accepting love. How notorious a sinner might this 'work' for? The dying thief? What are the Gospels telling us in the two mountaintop stories - Jesus crucified between two felons and transfigured between Moses and Elijah- both murderers? Practicing inclusion or welcome because everybody is basically 'all right' or 'nice' or 'the same underneath' is just liberal tolerance. It has no heart and is dishonest. God's inclusion and welcome are challenging and can be painful - clearly to Jesus, and yes, to us too.
I have intervened in congregational conflict where someone was ready to harm someone else in the congregation, and on two occasions in thirty-five years have told someone that if they didn't stop threatening other parishioners I'd call the police. Yes, there is some line that's necessary there and a yes, there's a place for tough love. But God's kind of welcome does include all sorts of people that we don't want to be around and can (sooner or later) be their encounter with a love that moves them to repentance and change.
Like Maximus the Confessor, I do think that's ultimately what happens for all of us. Those who have fled God's love their whole lives long and lived as if love were not real or possible meet the divine embrace in the end as a burning fire and an experience of painful and initially destructive purging. It's interesting to me that C.S. Lewis describes something similar a couple of places in the Great Divorce.
03. The goal of discernment is not to resolve conflict but to know the will of God for a particular community in a particular place and time.
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 a plain reading, I can embrace 03. I cannot see a plain reading of 21 to be honest. I can only understand 21 in context of a specific conflict. That is because edifying to the Church is to me unclear. Is the Church it individual members, a local congregation, the Church Holy Catholic, or any other institution.
In some cases, it may be prudent to not make vocal a certain truth for a certain period. Such as is often done in pastoral care. But, it is wrong to deny any truth. My problem with 21 is not with the until, but with the unless. I contend that the truth is always edifying and must be spoken.
In the case of the current conflict in the Episcopal Church in the United States, the problem with the “or until” cause of 21 is major. There are those who are not only downplaying for the sake of pastoral care certain truths, they are calling sinful behavior as holy. It may be bad for the structure of the church be make this into a major conflict, but it is also not edifying to the individual to allow them to believe that which God has called sin, is acceptable or even holy behavior.
There has often been a sort of blind eye approach to Sodomy within the Church. There may have been good reasons not to engage that particular sin then. I can see pastoral and social reasons not to address the issue for a time. The difference then than now, is that while not fully engaged at times, the church never called Sodomy as holy. I cannot see how allowing this to go uncontested is in keeping with God’s will. In this light I see 21 and 03 as in conflict with each other.
Post a Comment