The fault lines



The place where separation and division are most obvious, from one church denomination to another, is in church government: the question of whose hierarchy and ecclesiology and methods of organization are going to be in control. There is nothing peculiar about that, I suppose. But it is an obstacle to unity, for it raises the question of who shall be in charge in, and after, any unification effort. People can be a bit touchy about that. Defending their doctrines and stances and historical witness becomes wrapped up with, simultaneously, protecting their own power and prestige.

No one seems willing to become the lesser so that unity can be gained, as the greater objective. That is human nature, but we will need something beyond merely human nature to solve our schisms. Thus I propose a little challenge, a thought experiment. Can you conceive of any circumstances in which you would support surrendering your accustomed form of church government, and/or putting new people in charge, if it served the cause of unity?

Be honest. Most of us say no.


Comments

  1. AnonymousFebruary 22, 2013 at 5:12 PM

    I like your reflection and you touch on a good point. Actually I think surrounding issues of church authority is less touchy then doctrinal issues. But it's all relative really and none of them are easily let go of.

    As a Roman Catholic when it comes to Church government and it's structure I'd say both yes and no. Yes, to changing how leadership roles of the Church are implemented or lived out but the actually replacing them.
    So I'd say Bishops have to stay, but how they're elected, could change.
    Also, the sheer size of Catholic dioceses needs to be reduced. So that many smaller dioceses wouldn't structurally be different but would function more like Churches which have greater local control of their Churches, because now the regional authority is much more local. And that bishop has much more time to take part in the local affairs of his local Church.
    And the Pope? same thing wouldn't give it up, like bishops it's central to our theology, but how the authority of Rome is exercised, that is a different issue. History has many models of it.
    Right now Rome has a somewhat significant relationship with every local diocese. But that could change back to simply caring to the concerns of Italy except when there was an emergency that required Papal intervention. Or Rome could just go back to being available as the highest court of appeals, when local and regional Churches can't resolves problems. Then the Pope's authority is called on to resolve it.

    -Daniel

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kendal BlackFebruary 23, 2013 at 8:23 AM

      Thanks, Daniel. Excellent observations.

      It is interesting to me that the theme of a three layer clergy, bishops, priests and deacons, repeats itself sometimes even in churches far removed from the liturgical tradition. Some charismatic denominations have regional "overseers" or "supervisors." Both words could be worked out as equivalent to "episkopos." There is a pastor for each congregation and if you want to get anything done you talk to the deacons.

      As to the Papacy, both the Orthodox to the east ant the Protestants to the west are generally willing to grant the Pope the place of 'first among equals,' but I am not sure either group will ever go beyond that. As you are aware, the history is somewhat involved.

      Best,

      KB

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reality, fantasy and ecumenism

By Charles Marsh Recent conversations online and off have shown me something very curious. Some of what I believe to be Christian verity some other Christians take to be mere fantasy. They are cessationists and I am not . According to them, the things that I believe about tongues and prophecy and words of wisdom and of knowledge are sheer moonshine. So while in some churches I am thought orthodox enough, in others I am regarded as delusional or something rather like it. There are other matters in which, in like manner, some Christians view certain beliefs of other Christians as no better than free imagination, runaway fantasy or perhaps something worse: damaging falsehoods not harmless nuttiness. I admit to being somewhat dismayed by other Christians' newspaper novenas and Facebook prayer schemes. I do not think that is how prayer works. Their idea seems to be that if you repeat such and such a prayer x times, or republish it or "like" it or retweet it, then you w...
Read more

Science versus religion is a phony issue

By Charles Marsh The problem is that science, well suited to look at repeatable events, is at a loss about singular ones.  Some people suppose that science trumps religion, that a modern understanding of the world through science renders religious understandings obsolete. Some others suppose that religious understanding can be used to refute science. Both views are wrong. Science is rooted in philosophical naturalism. That is the stance that says we will explain what we see without reference to supernatural agencies. Science describes what happens without recourse to explanations involving angels, demons, gods, fairy godmothers, humors, vapors or ghosts. Acting on this basis, science has done a great deal of good. It has gotten rid of superstitions about what causes disease, where insects come from and a good many other misunderstandings. Notice that science is morally neutral. The same disciplines that give us vaccines and disease prevention can as...
Read more

What is a "Francisism"?

The first time I used the word I used it in attempting to explain some of Pope Francis's headline-grabbing remarks. This is what I said: This strikes me as another one of those Francisisms that generates lots of good press for Francis and then is walked back via more careful statements by others in the Church. I have remarked before on his tendency to do things like this. But it was not the first time I had encountered the concept. My remarks on this habit of Francis's go back a couple of years, to the early days of his pontificate. Francis tends to make sweeping-sounding statements that sound nearly un-Catholic in their generosity, toward gays, socialists, atheists, Lutherans and others. But when the statements are unpacked in light of Catholic faith and practice, they do not mean all that they seem to suggest. The statements are narrowly and logically true in some sense but really say less than they seem at first to say. Before I coined the word I wrote Pope Franc...
Read more