March 31, 2005

responding to the orthodox

Cliff, in one of the Blogodoxy conversations on the Emergent Movement and how it relates (or does not relate) to the EOC, posed some interesting points reflecting on my understanding of ecumenism and allegiance to a specific denomination, namely the ABC-USA. He suggested that I have refused to make a decision. I simply disagree. Here is what I stated in the comments. It is a long thread, so be patient with the seemingly missing pieces. This is what I said that drew out Cliff's response.

If I were to leave the ABC, prefering another community of the faithful, say the RCC, then I would be commiting the sin you suggest. Preference is not the issue. Pretty things are not the issue. What is at issue is truth. I agree with you. But history suggests that there are breaks in the West that need healing. There may be more than one approach to that healing. Maybe I should leave my ordination behind and "become" Catholic. But the trouble is that God found me a Baptist. I found God in a Baptist Church. This is not to say that I have not found God in an RCC parish. I certainly have and in spades. But I will not choose one over another, but instead suggest that reconciliation bvetween communities needs to happen. It is not simply my individual relationship with God and the Church that is at stake.
So, here are my responses to Cliff's excellent points. Cliff said:
It seems to me that it is precisely your refusal to make a decision that locates you as an individual; you're simply refusing full allegiance to any one body, you want to have connections to a few bodies, but no unreserved commitment to any one of them.

This is the mission statement for Reconciler:

A church committed to the visible unity of divided Christians within the church, the Living Body of Christ. We seek the reconciliation of all in the Body of Christ. We seek this unity by living as one reconciled body, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, witnessing to the Good News of Jesus Christ through worship, service, teaching and justice.
I am not sure that your remember what it is to be Protestant, brother. At least in my tradition, the separation in denomination is not a division in the Church as in the creation of another Church to supplant the existing. Some in the SBC may suggest that only they are Christian, but it is different for the ABC. We suggest that the EOC is The Church along side the ABC. I may not take that logic as far as many (ultra-relativism?), but that is still the prevailing logic. On some level, I am aware of a different tension and am responding to the brokeness in the Church. I do not see myself as outside of it. Thus, I am not borrowing anything but making use of what is already there for me.

Does the Church need healing? Yes, we in the Church need healing, a witnessing to the brokeness within the Body. I understand that this is not the EOC perspective, but until you recognise (recall?) that this is the perspective of the EM and this here Baptist, you may always be confused. Also, this colors your understandings of why we may want to convert. What am I converting to? I am already Christian. I may be switching gears, but I would perceive it as moving to another neighborhood in the same city. I like my neighborhood.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Frankly, I'm glad of it. But from the outside, it sure doesn't look like you have a substantive allegiance to the ABC. And your allegiance to Reconciler is a case in point. It's not located in any one tradition. Or, rather, it is creating its own new tradition, but one not organically connected to the rest.
Thanks! We are, however, seeking those organic connections.
The Church of Jesus Christ, Reconciler is a congregation seeking affiliation with the Episcopal Church USA, the American Baptist Churches, USA and the Evangelical Covenant Church.
It is a matter of time, I pray, before all three traditions recognize the congregation as one of their own and shared by all three as a response to the work of the World Council of Churches (WCC). We are not starting anything new, but responding to what the Spirit has been doing in the WCC for a century...reconciling the Church to itself and to Christ. As far as I am concerned, there is not greater allegiance possible to the ABC, but to call it to its own work of proclaiming the Gospel. That Gospel states that we who follow Jesus are to be known by our love for one another. This congregation is a reflection of that love.
Furthermore, is it realistic to suppose that the Western churches can be healed before you can join one of them? Isn't this just simply putting off a decision to commit? Don't get me wrong, it's a noble gesture. And even if you don't mean to wait till visible unity in the West is accomplished, what church bodies have to unite? And why predicate your lack of allegiance on schism?
I think I have pretty well addressed this, if I am understanding your point. I have an allegiance. It is to the Church. There is One Body...and it happens to be broken. I understand that this is not the EOC position. Reconciliation for the EOC as I understand it means everyone becomes Orthodox. And, perhaps someday, this may be the institutional reality. For the present, however, there are other steps along the way. Will I see such reconciliation in my lifetime? Doubtful. But that does not diminish the call of the Spirit not the Truth behind the reconciling work of the WCC and, prayerfully, Reconciler. Posted by tripp at March 31, 2005 10:00 AM
Comments

Well said Pastor, well said.

Posted by: justin at March 31, 2005 11:18 AM

Thank you, Brother Justin. Thank you.

Posted by: Tripp at March 31, 2005 11:46 AM

Well Tripp I think you said what I was trying to say yesterday on my blog., better than I did.
Cliffs points make sense if and only if you believe the body of believers you are committing to is the only true Church. They don't make much sense if as we believe our traditions are only part of the Church, and the divisions aren't between the true church and heterodox, but between members of the same Body.
You clarified that nicely I think.
If anyone is interested in my attempt to say what Tripp said less well

Posted by: Larry at March 31, 2005 12:28 PM

Tripp:

I certainly admire your tenacious hold on your convictions. Far be it from me to disabuse you of them. (Really. Don't roll your eyes at me.)

It is clearer than it could ever be that you and I hold two opposing ecclesiologies, neither of which can be true at the same time.

On those contrary views is predicated our disagreements here.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at March 31, 2005 04:08 PM

Um, thanks?

And I would say that they are both True because they are not in opposition in any real sense. The ecclesiology I suggest contains yours and may actually lead to yours should reconciliation on an institutional level come to fruition.

And this is most likely what keeps me on the little red theological short bus.

Posted by: Tripp at March 31, 2005 04:20 PM

Yes, if your ecclesiology is true it can accomodate mine.

But if mine is true, yours cannot be true.

And this is where we stand.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at March 31, 2005 08:07 PM