conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

Two quick thoughts on the last part of your post --

1. About #4, how do you envision this happening in a family with young children, or other members who are not equipped to make adult decisions for themselves?

2. How do you envision the handling of conflict between two adult members of a family over a decision that has to be made?

Tripp:

On the surface, I don't see any major disagreements. The Orthodox Church has, in general, the same basic understanding. The sacraments (of which one is the priesthood) flow from the life of the Church, and are thus conferred by the Church, and not by some individual. (As an aside, this is why some of the fringe groups calling themselves Orthodox, really aren't. They can trace certain ordinational family trees far enough back to claim legitimacy. But they forget that ordination is not about legal ties, but about living communion. If they aren't in living communion with the whole of the Church, then tracing lineages doesn't mean much.)

I suspect that when things start getting down to the nitty-gritty, however, we'll disagree. The devil is in the details, as it were.

However, there is one problem I perceive in your current account--which may be fixed by your coming post(s)--and that is in the last item (#4). If the gathered community (the Church) has voiced the will of God--for example, that the husband is the head of the wife--then how would the singular family have any authority to override the authority of the larger Church? As you've described it, the authority of the family is conferred on it by its relation to the Church, or it's being a part of that Church. But what if the singular family uses its authority to contravene that of the Church?

I don't think it's as smooth a transition from "the Church has authority to determine its affairs" so the "family has authority to determine its affairs." Unless you see the origins of the family and of the Church as distinct and different. But whether the origins are the same or different, you'll have to deal with the conflicting authority if the family determines to make its head him/her who is other than what the Church has said is the head.

And given the Baptist adherence to congregation autonomy, I'm sure you have an answer. But we can take that when it comes.

Good comments. Most will be tackled in the next post.

Re: #4

Cliff - I think the corolation works church=family because of the priesthood of all believers. Equal authority in the church means the same in the rest of our lives because we are always priests and always of equal standing under God.

Megan - I think that there is something of maturity and wisdom that plays into the dynamic. Yes. So, a two-year old does not get to make decisions. Though, there is certainly a servanthood aspect to parenting and the responsibility of having children ideally plays a part. You don't have kids in order to be in charge of them. We are responsible for what is given to us by God.

Now, I also want to say that a family is not a closed system. So, there are many influences, good and bad at play. And no parent is perfect. A child will likely have to forgive a parent. A child may likely have to take responsibility for some aspect of their own rearing at some point. And a child may very well have to make decisions for the parent, whether as adult children or younger.

Tripp:

Okay, so, if I understand you correctly, the priesthood of all believers, in your understanding, levels all authority. The only one with any authority is Christ.

So what about a situation in which two priests/believers (in Church or in family) come into conflict? How do you resolve the dispute? Both could potentially appeal to Christ. How do you avoid schism?

Let's take a pertinent example: one believer understands homosexual practice to be sinful, the other believes it to be holy. (You may insert any sin, but this one seemed especially relevant to you point because it is an act about which there is equally strong disagreement, and the disagreements could occur between members of the Church and/or members of a family.) Since it involves sin (for at least one conscience), how does one reconcile the two authorities in conflict? The one against the sin/behavior cannot, in good conscience, share in communion with the other because to do so would be to fail to recognize the body of Christ and its holiness. The other, a proponent of the behavior, would likely want to remain in communion with the other, but how could they avoid the inherent schism?

Why is conflict a problem? The Bible is all about conflict. Forgiveness, repentance, humility, love...these are Christian disciplines, and ones that Matthew suggests are directly related to our salvation. This is what makes being Christian hard. Christianity is not to make our lives easier to live, but to make them true.

So, conflict comes with the territory.

In your example, we may never see reconciliation. I know in my heart that we will not see such in our lifetime. I wish it were different, but forgiveness is asked of us as is repentance. We must ask even the unrepentant for our forgiveness. If we ask ourselves honestly, there are always sins we do not repent from. Repentance is a discipline.

Where differences in interpretation and opinion and scholarship occur, we have to say "glass darkly," "here but not yet." The Kingdom is with us. We cannot see it. We do not always seek it. It is poured out upon us, but we cannot taste it. Why? We are fallen.

This seems to be an odd question to come from one who is pursuing Orthodoxy. There is conflict even in that tradition. Why? People. I am not suggesting utopia in my ramblings.

I am trying to suggest, and hopefully will get to in the next post, that egalitarianism (not utopianism) is normative in the Gospel, the whole of it.

Tripp:

I'm not suggesting for a moment that there is not any conflict, nor that there should not be. Jude wrote to the New Testament flock he was addressing to "contend for the faith once delivered to the saints" implying some sort of conflict. Indeed, both Jude and 2 Peter have much to do with false teaching.

Rather, my point has been to point out what I take to be an inherent weakness in what I've seen you offer thus far: if all authority is level, how does one resolve conflict?

Asserting that we should "stay in dialouge" or that we should keep on loving one another, while you do acknowledge this is hard work--it ain't after all, all tea and crumpets with the bish during coffee hour--I don't see how what I take to be your direction of pursuit, that is to say, radical egalitarianism, actually fosters unity, since I don't yet see there being a "mechanism" (or if you prefer, dynamic, resource, what have you) for dealing with conflict.

As you know, I'm going to push you on the issue of authority, because it's all going to come down to that very question.

Re homosexuality, Tripp, you said, "I know in my heart that we will not see such in our lifetime."

Why are you copping out like this? Why are you abandoning this problem?

And I echo Clifton's question about conflict resolution. If conflict is never resolved, schism seems inevitable.

It is not a copout.

There are people younger than I am who hold that homosexuality is directly against the teaching of scripture. They will most likely outlive me. It is also possible, as Christians, to engagae communities that support our views and hide in them and not dialogue with people of opposing theologies. In fact, there are some traditions that would say that one should not engage in dialogue with those who push the bounds of traditional theology. SO, conversation simply will not happen in some circles.

Where homosexuality is concerned, we may always be in two camps. One camp may be larger or smaller than the other, but there you go.

So, not a copout. Just a reflection of reality.

As far as conflict in the family is concerned, let me respond in the next full post.

I'm looking forward to that next full post.

But in this one, if I understand your most recent comment correctly, you're basically giving up on trying to get your church to embrace its gay members in Christ's love. That's not only incredibly disappointing to me personally, it's also in opposition to the command that we shall love one another as ourselves.

You misunderstand me...or I do not express myself clearly.

I will never give up that task. However, I know that there will always be those who directly oppose it...and those who are apathetic. Maybe eventually the church as a whole will one day embrace homosexuality and homosexuals. I just know some of those opposed to it, and they show no sign of changing their minds, so I will not expect them to change.

I will always support and invite homosexuals into the churches I serve.

I think it a false dichotomy that you present: either embrace homosexuality and homosexuals or not.

For the record: the Orthodox Church fully embraces homosexuals in its membership, while it at the same time opposes homosexual sexual activity.

Like Tripp, I will always embrace homosexuals, and in love warn them of the scientific facts which reveal the dangers of homosexual activity as well as the spiritual dangers that also go along with that behavior.

I don't think it would be out of turn to reference as evidence of my claims one Huw Richardson, who is a fellow blogger. (www.doxos.com)

How does that embrace work, then? "I love you only as long as you're not really you"?

That of course assumes that we are reduceable to our actions. Christians submits that that is not the case, but that we can, by God's grace, transcend ourselves.

Or, to put it another way, the embrace is much more deep and sincere than the one which says, "Go and do that which will destroy you."

And that, of course, presumes that a person is separable from his or her actions, which are the expressions of his or her self.

But if you believe that gay sex is somehow inherently destructive, then again we find ourselves at the point of fundamental disagreement.

Honestly, I'd take your view of gay sex more seriously if I knew you had any actual experience of it.

"I'd take your view of gay sex more seriously if I knew you had any actual experience of it."

If you can't accept Clifton's argument on its own terms, check out the previously mentioned Huw Raphael.

If anyone can speak authoritatively and experientially to the inherent spiritual destructiveness of *unrepentant* homosexual behavior, it is Huw.

His "I Was in Hell" essay in the May issue of Touchstone is excellent.
The original blog post can be found here:

http://www.doxos.com/comments.php?id=524_0_1_0_C

Megan:

You should also review the information given at a conference held by the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association in January of 2000 regarding the increased health risks of homosexual behavior, particular the high rates of cancer among the homosexual population. (And I would point out that the information comes from a GLBT task force and not some anti-gay group.)