unity and uniformity

Dr. McCoy:

I like what the the BCP has to say. I am in accord with the definition. Yet I find something missing. Perhaps simplicity.

When I think about these questions such as what is church, I think about Jesus, his direct contact with people, his personal touch, his sharing of meals. Even when he was with those who did not share his beliefs, I believe he was setting up church every time he met with people. Of course, when you are the head of the church, literally and figuratively, maybe it's different. But it makes we wonder if we don't make things more complicated than they have to be. Whenever we share a meal, we can share Jesus too.

Just some thought.

Kate

Yes, Kate. One of my Bishops said recently: "NEVER say to people anything about 'going to Church' because we all ARE the church and it doesn't make any sense to say we are 'going' to each other."

I think that is a good sentiment, but I LOVE our BCP catechesis because of its broad-Church inclusivity.

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)

I agree Kate, [my daughter's name] When we share a meal we share the message and the mission. When was the last time all the messengers [Catholic,Baptist,Presbyterian,Episcopal,Methodist etc etc were invited to sit down together at a meal for mutual support.....no conversions no poaching etc just, what can we do together for His mission?

It does happen, here and there, and on a regular basis. I am aware of cases, at the very local level where clergy of various faiths meed informally, congenially and faithfully. They discuss the various issues, readings coming up and share lessons, views and ideas. Great if there was more.

Sevenup,

What a wonderous idea. All God's friends gathered for a meal, to hearten one another and give each other hope. Oh, if only we could make it so. Dear God, you could tell us how. Please Lord show us the way.

Kate

Whose turn is it now? NCR is in a position to set the table.So Why doesn't NCR invite a few Christian leaders to a 'get to know each other meal' It does not have to be anything lavish, just poverty level food. It could start on a local level or on a national level. It would be a great way of finding what HIS church thinks of THE church.What can be done ? This can be done.

I was thinking on a world wide basis but most pastors of parishes do not know the other workers in their vinyard and most do not want to know them. It is sad beyond words. What is the matter with sharing a meal? [Pastors in Nebraska might be excused.]

We could start on a local level and work up. Or start with NCR,and expand. Then link the local groups. Surely there's a way. Hey, NCR Staff, are you listening?

Kate

Yes, we are listening here at NCR. Thank you for offering the discussion.
Rita Larivee, SSA
Publisher

Well it's been three monthes and I don't see any ation or table setting on the part of NCR yet. Would you pick up the tab?

sevenup:
But is it not a dogma that we must feed the hungry and clothe the naked? And if we do not do those things, are we not heretics against Christ? Is it not a dogma that we love our enemies? That we bless those who curse us? And if we cast out from our midst those who disagree with us on the above points, are we not in fact excommunicating them?

True Bob, but I'm thinking of dogmas being what we believe and yes I believe as dogma that Jesus told us to do those things--I don't remember too much of what He told us to believe for believing sake.

Ninja,
I think the hierarchy thinks that the church is the hierarchy and I think that is the failure of All of Christianity--and Christiantiy is failing. It may be growing in numbers but not in percentage of people served.

Sevenup and Ninja, I quite agree with you. How has Christianity come to the sorry situation that "hierarchy thinks that the church is hierarchy"? Let me take a try at answering this bedeviling question:

Historical Background
At the time of Christ and in early Christianity, “end-time expectation” dominated public thinking. The larger populace was persuaded in apocalyptic expectation while a lesser group of intellectuals drew back into perhaps a more insightfully reasoned approach. This group morphed into a band of people called Gnostics and their movement became known as Gnosticism, which in a matter of several centuries was effectively suppressed.

Between the extremes of Apocalypticism (end-time fixation) and Gnosticism sprouted a “wild” field of speculation. This proliferation of speculation agitated Bishop Irenaeus (c. 130-202). He believed the havoc needed quieting before Christianity could get on with its mission. So he took up a crusade to quash “heresy” (choice). In this work he was joined by Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (lawyer by training) who wrote well in Greek and Latin. The destiny of Christianity has been very much determined by these two early patriarchs. (Search Irenaeus and Tertullian at google or wikipedia.) Remarkably, their writings largely contain Catholic dogmatic theology.

Early church conflict was between institutional authority and personal authenticity. From the beginning there was conflict over the orthodoxy of belief and the authority of bishops to control the public flow of ideas, the freedom of people to choose, and what canons of scriptures would be institutionally adopted. Church orthodoxy then and now is about controlling ideas and individual freedoms. To this day, the conflicts between lay freedom and church are over the same root matters, the tensions between faith and reason, control of public discourse and individual freedoms.

“Gnosticism” takes its name from the Greek word “gnosis” which means knowledge. Because it intellectually challenged the culture of patriarchy and beliefs long in place, it was distrusted and derogated by those who were determined to systemize the work and words of Jesus Christ and bring about institutional order. Gnosticism was a movement mostly of intellectuals; ordinary people were more inclined to respond to ideas of apocalypse and liberation from oppression.

Bishop Irenaeus obtained Episcopal approval of the proposition that, bishops as a group had the authority to impose faith obligations on the people and to determine which scriptures were orthodox and which weren’t. Among their concerns in choosing orthodox scriptures was selection of scriptures that supported church institution. Though the tactics and objectives of the early bishops may be problematic today it is clear that what they did has well served the establishment of a belief system and method of transmission.

Knowledge is a good thing. Who in his right mind can deny that? Knowledge is a tool of greater understanding and accommodation, what is the process and product of reason and of understanding. It cannot be known if respect for knowledge is greater today than it was in earlier times even if the deposits of knowledge are greater today and more accessible. It was true then and is now that knowledge is acquired by way of communication and experience; we continue to grow in knowledge by their coming together. These are tools of intelligence. Intelligence is conflicted when experience and communication conflict. Conflicted intelligence is reconciled with clarification of communication and experience.

In the early years of Christianity, as now, the political and social culture of patriarchy favored the authoritarian approach of institutional order; perhaps for the practical reason that opportunities to pursue intellectual professionalism were limited while patriarchy was already familiar. So it is hardly surprising that Gnostic professionalism is even now distrusted by many, and that such distrust is encouraged by patriarchal institutions.

The anti-institutional bias of Jesus was a problem for early hierarchs who meant to make church an institution based on the teachings of Jesus. Unlike Jesus and for cultural reasons, early church authoritarians put their trust in institutions rather than in the people. What occurred early was the spread of the good news of Jesus. The people developed their own stories, recollections and interpretations of the Jesus experience. They weighed their experiences against ancient and contemporary scriptures and gave their wildly variant interpretations to the meaning of it all. Early Christianity was a diverse body of people who found different ways of incorporating the good news into their daily lives and relationships with each other. New scriptures came to be written with accounts and explanations of direct and indirect contact with Jesus and his teachings. The open-endedness and contagious excitement of early Christians was bothersome to people cultured in institutional structure.

While the action of early authorities in establishing institutional policy was not malicious, the fact is that they meant to erect walls against public dilution of belief and authority. Even though their beliefs of orthodoxy were rationalized on premises of the worldview of the time, Bishops arrogated unto themselves claims of authority, even inerrancy, which they intended also for successor bishops. Their actions are credible if it can be presumed that their worldview understanding and orthodoxy would apply for all time. They set up policies in anticipation that their successor bishops would advance the same orthodoxy and would safeguard the institution. However, what they did was attach presumptions of a defectively understood worldview to faith, dogma and culture.

The meager deposits of knowledge in antiquity do not compare to today’s cumulative learning. Does that mean that people are more authentic or religious today than in the past? Certainly not! Authenticity is about how we individually inform our intelligence and how we commit ourselves to the moral, communal obligation of loving one another in the context of the times. It isn’t knowledge or faith that determines authenticity, but it is fidelity to the requirements of love as faith and reason inform. Through history, the relationship between faith and reason has been stormy. This is true for Church today as it was for early Christianity.

Christianity was born from Jewish tradition and culture, a culture that was oppressive and intrusive in intimate aspects of everyday life. Because of the harsh culture of religious pretense and the hurt compounded by the violence of imperial Rome, Jesus made it his life work to seek the liberation of the people from manifold religious/political abuses. Jesus unabashedly frequented the company of the disenfranchised and sought to bring them hope and relief from desperation, disease and oppression. Jesus bared his prejudice against institutions. His church and his kin(g)dom was the people. Jesus believed in the people while he eschewed the institutions. Jesus was vigorous in showing his scorn for church authorities and his anger for the crass abuse of the temple as a market bazaar.

At the time of the Reformation, Gnosticism somewhat revived due to crass corruption within the church, the rise of science and the spread of new knowledge. The Counter-Reformation reaffirmed orthodox faith traditions against reason and enlightenment. The divide between faith and reason grew wider due to the polarizing actions of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Catholicism in practice today is the Counter-Reformational inheritance of Vatican I set against the cumulative enlightenment of modernity.

Over time, the errors of worldview attached to dogma have become practical and political problems. This gathering defect has incrementally caused church to lose credibility; as its old worldview fails, belief and credibility are lost. Vatican II recognized the problem and acted in the interest of regaining authenticity and credibility. Vatican II opened church to an analysis and synthesis of new problems caused by change to the evolutionary world view (EWV).

Bishop Irenaeus is emblematic of what bishops do, in the past and even now, namely, control the orthodox content and faith rituals that sustain institutional authority against lay liberalization. This is increasingly problematic for the church because as ancient orthodoxies fail so does the institution unless it reforms to the renewed sensus fidelium. This is a crisis circumstance throughout Christianity. Faith disconnected from reason has lost credibility. The fact that belief and authority always link back to prior authority (the static world view (SWV) of early church) is an obstacle frustrating change to EWV.

Everything happens in context, and for church, context is history and tradition, but also cultural worldview. People are appointed to hierarchy today based on fidelity to church’s tradition of safeguarding the institution against lay encroachment. The problem is, if the laity loses faith in hierarchy, church has leadership but no following. No one now accepts the static Aristotelian world view (SWV) or theology dependent on it. Christianity has yet to grapple with this conundrum. Catholicism has yet to move on to Vatican II ecclesiology.

It is certainly true that institutional religion, organized church, gives people occasion and place for graced opportunities of reconciling relationships. Faith experience in communal living importantly enables the learning of authentic relationships. Except for communal relationships and interpersonal regard for one another, it is difficult to learn and live faith life authentically.

In the reformation and restoration of church, the necessary role of laity needs to be recognized. The bishops need help. They should realize that people don’t become adversary without context. Nothing less than the future of the church is at issue. It remains true as always that the greatest obstacle to reconciliation is selfishness and the refusal to admit one’s obsession in it. No person is immune from being human.

Sources
Elaine Pagels, “The Gnostic Gospels”, 1979, Random House, NY, 1981, Vintage Books Edition
Charles F. Pfeifer, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible”, 1969, The Baker Book House Company, Weather Vane Books, Division of Imprint Society, Inc.

This is a great synthesis Sylvester. As I was reading it though, I kept reflecting back to John Allen's recent comments regarding the Church in the southern hemisphere. It seems to me that the Vatican determined rather early on in JPII's reign that the survival of the institution and it's current authority structure lay with the south and not in Europe and North America.

I've always thought the developed West has been pretty much written off by the Vatican as not fertile grounds for the propagation of the current structures. The one glaring exception being JPII's open courting of the youngest generations. Those generations with no foundational experience of Vatican II would not have experienced the opening of the windows of thought in quite the way we did. It seems to have been an effective strategy for a minority of youth, but certainly not the global success the hierarchy chooses to see.

The youth aside, the Vatican I style church appears to have found very fertile ground in the South. I'm not at all sure this is a good thing for the South--especially it's women and children.

I agree with what you say, Colkoch. We have to hope however, and believe, that the Holy Spirit in every time blows freely where She will and that the mind of the contemporary world evolves holistically. Awakening spirituality in Africa, Asia, Central America and South America is the wiser also for its experience with colonialism and dominion theology, and I think (hope) not amenable to returning to the enthrallment of pre-Vatican II church. (We can only pray.) The thing to worry about is the morphing of church into a multi-national corporation fixated in strategies of chasing money and losing its soul in the vain pursuit!