This afternoon, in forum 3 of 4 in regards to General Convention, two of our professors were set to the task to see if/when schism is every theologically justfied. I'm not entirely sure they'd be ok being named, so I will express the position of one in particular without using his/her name.
The ecclesiology that has within recent tradition defined our discussion around schism is to make the church catholic analogous to the relationship of the Godhead. This creates an idea that all forms of schism fail to live up to this ideal. Failing to live up to this ideal taken to its logical end means that all forms of schism end with one party still "in" and one party "out."
A new ecclesiology (which is actually quite old) sees the church as the body of Christ (see I told you it was old). This ecclesiology sees schism in the same way we see the body as open to infection from outside forces (the devil perhaps?), having the possiblity of being wounded (breaks, cuts, etc.), and even fighting unto itself. This view allows one to see schism not ending as "in" and "out" but as the wounded body of Christ. It is only when a church (see Germany 1930s) turns away from the faith it has held from its baptism (seeking Christ in all people, for example) the claim is no longer schism (a division within the body) but the claim is apostacy (a part that has, by its decisons, left the body of Christ).
I found this to be quite interesting in the current debate in ECUSA and the Anglican Communion (no matter how you define it). The debate over human sexuality or the authority of scripture/the interpretation of scripture are not, in this faculty members opinion, not a matter of apostacy, but rather a division within the body. The possiblitiy of a break is there, but ultimately a break healed is stronger than the bone was before.
The discussion brought to my mind Brian McLaren's 7 Jesuses. In the midst of our deep divisions (the church visible), we each hold a piece of the truth (the church invisible) and it is from this understanding we seek out the truth in the other (reconciliation/healing in the body).
What do y'all think?
1 comment:
Hi Steve,
Glad I found your blog! This view seems healthy to me. Since schism seems inevitable (heck, since it's been going on for years at the congregational level), I admit I'm a bit hungry for a theological interpretation of how such a division could be healthy for Christ's body. Be that as it may, this seems like sound theology. My prayer is that we on either "side" can see this division as a wound, not an amputation, and continue to regard - and love - those on the other side of the wound as brothers and sisters.
Peace,
Mike
Post a Comment