conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

I don't think churches change under any stimulus short of mass exodus. In my experiences, churches tend to status quo so incredibly strongly that only when they lose significant fractions of membership (and those departing make it incredibly clear WHY they're leaving) do churches even think about changing.

And of course, that creates tension in the churches, who thought they were doing the right thing in the first place. Do you change your policies, practices, or doctrines in order to attract enough members to continue to exist? This is a pretty big theological question.

Frankly, though, I don't buy the "patience, work from within" argument. We've had better than 2,000 years, and there are still incredibly basic things that are incredibly fucked up. I'm finished waiting.

Just a clarification...it is the conservatives who are leaving the ABC, and not the liberals.

I was responding to the Oden quotation.

Ah, sorry. The Oden quotation is interesting to me. It reveals how his ecclesiology plays into the virtue of steadfastness. If we are to "all be one" as Jesus asks, each tradition will have different ways of living into that. Perhaps strangely, Baptist are congregationalist to avoid conflict. If you don't want to associate, then don't. We are all in the Body, just not gathering in the same place on Sundays.

I am still not certain if this is the healthiest of attitudes for us.

Just to expand the conversation a bit, I am wondering about the John passage...17:22-23. It comes near the end of his "sermon" to the disciples in the upper room. John's writing is so dense at times. I find it difficult to wade through. But these two verses are pretty clear, even within the context.

When we endeavor to be one, we endeavor to follow Christ. To do otherwise is to live in witness to our limitations and not to Christ's desire.

But his request is amazingly difficult, is it not?

I think that you've chosen to infer a causal relationship that the passage doesn't actually articulate, there, Tripp.

Given that approach, one could as easily argue that the effort to emulate Christ will cause us to become as one -- which, clearly, ain't happenin'. The causal relationship doesn't exist, in either direction.

For me, obedience to "love one another" is the highest priority. Anything else, including what other people might interpret as unity, is less important.

Okay, I think we are saying exactly the same thing. To be in unity with Christ is to love one another. To love one another is unity in Christ. And, as we both know, this is supremely difficult.

It is good, right and true. But it is hard.

This is the same Gospel where Jesus says (Chp 14) "If ye love me...keep my commandments." They are of a piece, a whole. One cannot have unity without love of Christ and love of one another...

... And, we're back to the slippery distinction between the Body of Christ, and earthly affiliation of persons into recognized organizations which may or may not be further affiliated with one another.

Here's a thought: love of Christ might create a kind of unity that doesn't look like churches getting along with each other. What do you think of that?

Hmm...What do you mean bu not getting along?

I don't expect agreement. But I think villification (Is that a word?) is out of the question. Our salvation (this is connected to love and unity), either as individuals or as congregations, is dependant upon and realized through our love for one another. You and I do not always agree. This is a given. Do we love one another less? I don't think so.

But if the disagreement leads to a losss of love, then there's a problem...there is a denial of Christ.

What indicates loss of love to you? Does a schism between organizations, each of whom thinks the other's wrong, indicate loss of love?

Does the expression of disagreement automatically equal vilification?

Disagreement by no means equals villification. Not at all. So, one can disagree with love and even kindness. Disagreement is one of many ways that we learn from one another. Why would the church be immune from that...or better off without it?

Some denominational structures came about from disagreement...Some from villification, some from simply logistical necessity. So, denominations...institutional structures can come part ways even in love. But the reasoning for parting ways must be made clear. It may be better to understand this as a change in the relationship. From friendship to dating back to friendship...potentially massive shifts, but the relationship may not be severed. It simply may shift.

A loss of love is indicated by the loss of the fruits of the Spirit...by the loss of virtue...Can we still lay down our lives for one another? Can we think of the other as Christian? There is a certain humility involved if any health separation is to occur.

But, again, color me idealistic, the desires of Jesus seem to be pretty clear if John's telling is at all true. We are to be one. Though many, we are one. Some institutional conections that reflect this primary theology would be wise.

I don't see why it would be wise.

Howdy, roomie!

Why would it not be? Ha! How's that for a snappy reposte?

Seriously, if an institution (Work with me if you will.) is to reflect the desires of Christ, would it not be wise to do so within its structures? If Christ desires unity, explicitly asks for it in the Gospel of John, why would an institution not attempt in some formal way to engage that request?

I just wanted to remind us of a conversation from a while back regarding community and the like. Somehow it seems appropriate to link and share...

http://www.anglobaptist.org/blog/archives/2004/01/oh_nomore_on_co.html

It is this dynamic of community that matters in the midst of speaking of unity...and separatism.

I had a thought about this as I was going to sleep last night, Tripp. I have been responding to your use of the word "unity" as though it meant "agreement," and even "sameness."

But last night, I thought you might mean something more like plurality, in a loving spirit that has room for disagreement and diversity but avoids the vilification that clearly bothers you.

Which of those two approaches is closer to what you actually mean when you say "unity"?

Re your comment that begins "Seriously, if an institution (Work with me if you will.) is to reflect the desires of Christ, would it not be wise to do so within its structures?" -- I bet you have some sense of what my opinion is. :-)

If an institution wants to reflect the desires of Christ, it should begin by getting its head out of its ass regarding gender and sexuality. After that, we might be able to talk. Absent that, I'll love it from afar.

I would have to say the second approach is closer to how I understand "unity." The church is not Borg. We are individuals after all. And we are created by God as unique. It makes no sense to make us all the same...and our disagreement is simply evidence of this. But so is the reconciliation that can occur as we continually turn away and turn back toward one another.

I think Christ gives it as a commandment because he knows it does not come easily. I know that is reading into the scripture. But he never says "Follow me! It's a snap!"