The Sticky Issue of Divisions In Modern Christianity
So I'm new to this blog thing, but I realize now that my long posts may be annoying to some who don't have the time or inclination to read them. So today I will attempt to use the LJ Cut tag...
Today I was thinking about the divisions among Christian groups and what it means for us...
One of the most unfortunate facts is that Christianity today is incredibly divided. Or maybe what's unfortunate is the nature and severity of these divisions, and not their existence. Perhaps if Christians with irreconcilable differences throughout the ages had been able to part ways amicably like Paul and Barnabas, then this topic wouldn't bring about such intense and disproportionate emotions in Christians of every tradition. But perhaps that notion pays too little attention to the importance of many of the issues that led to divisions. Take the Protestant Reformation, for example. No one could expect that the question of whether lay Christians can interpret Scriptures, or if they instead should simply trust in the interpretation of the Church, or the questions of the papacy, the priesthood, holy relics, etc. could be anything but deeply divisive.
It interesting to note that the sociological rift was already there before Martin Luther and others came along and placed theological reasons for division there as well. The clergy/laity division, rich/poor, educated/uneducated divisions were there waiting to be exploited. So when someone came along insisting that all men should be bound by scriptures not by the authority of the priests, of course the division fell mostly along sociological lines. Certainly many of the poor and uneducated liked the sound of these new ideas. The laymen, who were forced to follow whatever interpretation was handed down from above were surely easily convinced that they should interpret scriptures for themselves rather than rely on a priest. Those who could least afford to view sacred relics and make pilgrimmages and purchase indulgences no doubt durned out to be the most easily convinced of their theological odium. Whereas the intelligensia, the educated, the clergy, the powerful in the church, surely saw most clearly the danger of division and anarchy that lay down the path of allowing any individual to interpret scripture for themselves, themselves knowing how impossible the task had turned out for the most educated and holy among them. It was surely they who most clearly saw the value of the centralied authority of the Church, and they to whom the cost was closer to insignificant who could most clearly see the spiritual value of relics, sacraments and indulgences.
Interestingly, the same sort of analysis can be applied to most, if not all, of the great divisions in church history, even going back to the book of Acts, when the Jewish Christians wished to retain requirements from the Law in their new religion but gentile converts to Christianity almost certainly comprised the majority of those opposed to requiring converts to become circumcised.
Of course, despite the descriptive or explanatory value such sociological analysis, it cannot begin to address the important task of actually resolving these theological disputes, or prescribing a method for dealing with them in the future. But it does give us cause to look at ourselves, examine our motives, and admit that at the end of the day, we cannot possibly know with complete accuracy all of our own motives for ending up with the denomination or tradition that we choose. We can never escape the bias in our judgement.
So here we are as post-modern Christians. The Church is split on so many issues in so many ways. The issues are many, and they are complex. To discern requires much reading and learning and thinking. It also requires that we separate ourselves from our place in all this mess. If it were truly our responsibility, as some Christians think it is, to sort out all the divisions and find the "right" Church and the "right" interpretation, then we would be doomed, for this is a task I fear is beyond any of us.
So its not as simple as attacking the issues boldly, finding the answers and moving forward. Or maybe it is, but while we do that, we recognize that we are simply doing our best, and rely on God to fill in the gaps for us. It is hard for many Christians to accept the idea that God's grace could go across denomination lines! But I for one sincerly hope and totally believe that it does. I believe God's grace extends to whoever simply humbles themself and asks for it. So the best we can do is just that: the best we can do. We should be willing to examine ourselves, be willing to listen to the ideas of others, and we should as forgiving of disagreements as we would want God to be with us.
And in an effort to keep these things shorter, I think I'll leave it at that for now. In the next few days I'd like to write about the really important questions that follows from all this: what does this mean for Christian unity? If we can't figure out which church is "right" with certainty or answer all dividing questions with absolute certainty, then is Christian unity as Jesus prayed for and Paul admonished us to have just a pipe dream? My short answer: I don't think so. Long answer to follow soon...
Today I was thinking about the divisions among Christian groups and what it means for us...
One of the most unfortunate facts is that Christianity today is incredibly divided. Or maybe what's unfortunate is the nature and severity of these divisions, and not their existence. Perhaps if Christians with irreconcilable differences throughout the ages had been able to part ways amicably like Paul and Barnabas, then this topic wouldn't bring about such intense and disproportionate emotions in Christians of every tradition. But perhaps that notion pays too little attention to the importance of many of the issues that led to divisions. Take the Protestant Reformation, for example. No one could expect that the question of whether lay Christians can interpret Scriptures, or if they instead should simply trust in the interpretation of the Church, or the questions of the papacy, the priesthood, holy relics, etc. could be anything but deeply divisive.
It interesting to note that the sociological rift was already there before Martin Luther and others came along and placed theological reasons for division there as well. The clergy/laity division, rich/poor, educated/uneducated divisions were there waiting to be exploited. So when someone came along insisting that all men should be bound by scriptures not by the authority of the priests, of course the division fell mostly along sociological lines. Certainly many of the poor and uneducated liked the sound of these new ideas. The laymen, who were forced to follow whatever interpretation was handed down from above were surely easily convinced that they should interpret scriptures for themselves rather than rely on a priest. Those who could least afford to view sacred relics and make pilgrimmages and purchase indulgences no doubt durned out to be the most easily convinced of their theological odium. Whereas the intelligensia, the educated, the clergy, the powerful in the church, surely saw most clearly the danger of division and anarchy that lay down the path of allowing any individual to interpret scripture for themselves, themselves knowing how impossible the task had turned out for the most educated and holy among them. It was surely they who most clearly saw the value of the centralied authority of the Church, and they to whom the cost was closer to insignificant who could most clearly see the spiritual value of relics, sacraments and indulgences.
Interestingly, the same sort of analysis can be applied to most, if not all, of the great divisions in church history, even going back to the book of Acts, when the Jewish Christians wished to retain requirements from the Law in their new religion but gentile converts to Christianity almost certainly comprised the majority of those opposed to requiring converts to become circumcised.
Of course, despite the descriptive or explanatory value such sociological analysis, it cannot begin to address the important task of actually resolving these theological disputes, or prescribing a method for dealing with them in the future. But it does give us cause to look at ourselves, examine our motives, and admit that at the end of the day, we cannot possibly know with complete accuracy all of our own motives for ending up with the denomination or tradition that we choose. We can never escape the bias in our judgement.
So here we are as post-modern Christians. The Church is split on so many issues in so many ways. The issues are many, and they are complex. To discern requires much reading and learning and thinking. It also requires that we separate ourselves from our place in all this mess. If it were truly our responsibility, as some Christians think it is, to sort out all the divisions and find the "right" Church and the "right" interpretation, then we would be doomed, for this is a task I fear is beyond any of us.
So its not as simple as attacking the issues boldly, finding the answers and moving forward. Or maybe it is, but while we do that, we recognize that we are simply doing our best, and rely on God to fill in the gaps for us. It is hard for many Christians to accept the idea that God's grace could go across denomination lines! But I for one sincerly hope and totally believe that it does. I believe God's grace extends to whoever simply humbles themself and asks for it. So the best we can do is just that: the best we can do. We should be willing to examine ourselves, be willing to listen to the ideas of others, and we should as forgiving of disagreements as we would want God to be with us.
And in an effort to keep these things shorter, I think I'll leave it at that for now. In the next few days I'd like to write about the really important questions that follows from all this: what does this mean for Christian unity? If we can't figure out which church is "right" with certainty or answer all dividing questions with absolute certainty, then is Christian unity as Jesus prayed for and Paul admonished us to have just a pipe dream? My short answer: I don't think so. Long answer to follow soon...