A 19th century missionary (Anthony Norris Groves) tried hard to encapsulate a principle on this issue. Something like this from memory.
“I would rather remain in fellowship with those with whom I seriously disagree, for the sake of the spark of faith which may still be in them. Than part with them and by doing so kill that spark.”
And in this fractious age, where there do appear to me to be quite a lot of obvious wolves wearing sheeps’ clothing. that’s pretty hard to live by.
My reading of Matthew 18 is that any final departing is a collective decision. Individually we can do two things. Firstly, do our level best to resolve the issue with the person or persons involved. Secondly alert our collective leadership about the issue.
Then we are subject to the view of that collective leadership.
As an active believer in the value of dissent as a matter of conscience, I feel free to depart myself. I’ve spent time away. But I’ve never left the collective I’ve been a part of for over 50 years.
That’s been over issues which I’ve seen as bigotry. And let me be clear. I think bigotry shows that there is something unorthodox in the practical interpretation of belief, regardless of how apparently orthodox that profession of their faith may appear to be.
But I’ve discovered that hanging in, however much it hurts, has been worth it.
Loving “enemies” and forgiving 70 times 7? Gosh they are hard! But sometimes I’ve found I was wrong, despite my belief that I was being principled. That’s a hard lesson too.
An added complications, of course, is who gets to decide which things are 'Essentials' and which are 'Non-essentials'?
What might be a non-negotiable to a Pentecostal, say, might be a 'non-essential' to a Baptist, a Methodist, a Lutheran, a ...
An inerrantist conservative evangelical is going to have a different set of 'Essentials' to a liberal Protestant mainliner.
I think we'd all agree with 'In all things Charity,' but so often there seems precious little of that.
My own Church is going through a very sore patch with a grievous schism between jurisdictions. We can't point the finger at any one else nor from our own glasshouse throw stones.
It doesn’t depend on denominations. Some folks seem to belong to the suspicious dimension, characterised by Black Adder as “witch sniffers pursweivant”!
I think it’s a pernicious form of self-righteousness. And I agree we all need to watch out for that sin.
It doesn’t depend on denominations. Some folks seem to belong to the suspicious dimension, characterised by Black Adder as “witch sniffers pursweivant”!
I think it’s a pernicious form of self-righteousness. And I agree we all need to watch out for that sin.
Amen! I think it’s showing up in politics as well nowadays as well (possibly especially when politics has become people’s religion…).
I'm not sure how we can end up with non-institutional churches/Christianity.
Even if we had a small group of people meeting in a garden shed we'd soon see them developing informal 'councils' and debates to define what and what not to believe.
Or what made them distinctive from a similar group meeting in another shed down the road.
As soon as we have more than 'two or three' we are going to end up with creeds and definitions.
Heck, even if we say, 'Our group is non-creedal' that in itself is some kind of 'creedal' position- 'Our creed is not to have a creed..'
As a member of a non-creedal denomination, I feel obliged to point out that 'Our group is non-creedal' is not in itself any kind of 'creedal' position, since it says nothing about what we believe - only that as a policy, we don't use institutional statements of belief.
I'm very pleased to hear that, as my wife once got thrown out of a group that, describing itself as tolerant of all, in fact strongly rejected both credal beliefs and those who held them.
I used to be part of a group that put a great deal of stress on 'covenant relationships'.
In reality we had no more 'covenantal' a relationship than anyone else. It became a 'control' thing.
There are healthy and unhealthy ways of applying these things.
It's unrealistic, I think, to expect the kind of intense and 'committed' vow-making relationships that exist in monastic communities in parish or congregational settings.
In the group I was in, 'breaking convenant' was seen as a very serious sin. It even became somewhat cult-like and we were told to 'shun' those who had apparently done so - although I never did that. I kept in touch with people who'd left and was always pleasant towards them when I met them - apart from in one instance but I quickly made amends.
However we organise ourselves we need elasticity, grace and generosity of spirit.
I hasten to add that the schism I'm referring to is at macro Big C level between Moscow and Constantinople rather than at parish level - although individual parishes are affected by it, of course.
Mercifully, it's not affected our parish in any way but I know of parishes where it's had an impact.
An added complications, of course, is who gets to decide which things are 'Essentials' and which are 'Non-essentials'?
What might be a non-negotiable to a Pentecostal, say, might be a 'non-essential' to a Baptist, a Methodist, a Lutheran, a ...
An inerrantist conservative evangelical is going to have a different set of 'Essentials' to a liberal Protestant mainliner.
I think we'd all agree with 'In all things Charity,' but so often there seems precious little of that.
My own Church is going through a very sore patch with a grievous schism between jurisdictions. We can't point the finger at any one else nor from our own glasshouse throw stones.
I think a lot of it is mission-driven. I was at a liberal Methodist Church, we could have Muslims sharing with the work of a soup kitchen. And they could visit our worship services, got along fine. That's charity. We don't need to talk theological beefs, don't need to argue over who Jesus is, don't need to get into bickers. That's not the goal, the telos of this particular gathering.
[Similarly, I'm with a very liberal Episcopal Church now with an out and proud lesbian preacher. She's wonderful, by the way. And we were talking about working with another Episcopal church in the same city that's mostly composed of immigrants and refugees, the focus of the work is ministry to refugees. Now, the leadership of that church is quite conservative, probably opposed to the very notion of women preaching, let alone gay women preaching, etc. But they got along fine because the common task was taking care of people. See how that works?]
It all depends on what the purpose of the gathering is. If you know what you're doing, you can tell where the lines are, and it will - I suspect - fall into place pretty cleanly. Just be respectful.
Comments
“I would rather remain in fellowship with those with whom I seriously disagree, for the sake of the spark of faith which may still be in them. Than part with them and by doing so kill that spark.”
And in this fractious age, where there do appear to me to be quite a lot of obvious wolves wearing sheeps’ clothing. that’s pretty hard to live by.
My reading of Matthew 18 is that any final departing is a collective decision. Individually we can do two things. Firstly, do our level best to resolve the issue with the person or persons involved. Secondly alert our collective leadership about the issue.
Then we are subject to the view of that collective leadership.
As an active believer in the value of dissent as a matter of conscience, I feel free to depart myself. I’ve spent time away. But I’ve never left the collective I’ve been a part of for over 50 years.
That’s been over issues which I’ve seen as bigotry. And let me be clear. I think bigotry shows that there is something unorthodox in the practical interpretation of belief, regardless of how apparently orthodox that profession of their faith may appear to be.
But I’ve discovered that hanging in, however much it hurts, has been worth it.
Loving “enemies” and forgiving 70 times 7? Gosh they are hard! But sometimes I’ve found I was wrong, despite my belief that I was being principled. That’s a hard lesson too.
What might be a non-negotiable to a Pentecostal, say, might be a 'non-essential' to a Baptist, a Methodist, a Lutheran, a ...
An inerrantist conservative evangelical is going to have a different set of 'Essentials' to a liberal Protestant mainliner.
I think we'd all agree with 'In all things Charity,' but so often there seems precious little of that.
My own Church is going through a very sore patch with a grievous schism between jurisdictions. We can't point the finger at any one else nor from our own glasshouse throw stones.
It doesn’t depend on denominations. Some folks seem to belong to the suspicious dimension, characterised by Black Adder as “witch sniffers pursweivant”!
I think it’s a pernicious form of self-righteousness. And I agree we all need to watch out for that sin.
Amen! I think it’s showing up in politics as well nowadays as well (possibly especially when politics has become people’s religion…).
Conversely, in c.2000, some were stressing the thought that the churches were in a "covenant relationship" with each other.
Because one can have non-evangelical nonconformists (quite a few Methodists and United Reformed folk, for a start) and evangelical Anglicans.
In reality we had no more 'covenantal' a relationship than anyone else. It became a 'control' thing.
There are healthy and unhealthy ways of applying these things.
It's unrealistic, I think, to expect the kind of intense and 'committed' vow-making relationships that exist in monastic communities in parish or congregational settings.
In the group I was in, 'breaking convenant' was seen as a very serious sin. It even became somewhat cult-like and we were told to 'shun' those who had apparently done so - although I never did that. I kept in touch with people who'd left and was always pleasant towards them when I met them - apart from in one instance but I quickly made amends.
However we organise ourselves we need elasticity, grace and generosity of spirit.
Mind you, the early dissenters did (of necessity) have a very strong covenant relationship within their churches.
True. The propensity for arguing remained however. “We may not agree about everything but we agree they have got it wrong!”
I’m not sure there was that much safety in numbers.
Of course.
@Barnabas62 - that too.
I hasten to add that the schism I'm referring to is at macro Big C level between Moscow and Constantinople rather than at parish level - although individual parishes are affected by it, of course.
Mercifully, it's not affected our parish in any way but I know of parishes where it's had an impact.
I think a lot of it is mission-driven. I was at a liberal Methodist Church, we could have Muslims sharing with the work of a soup kitchen. And they could visit our worship services, got along fine. That's charity. We don't need to talk theological beefs, don't need to argue over who Jesus is, don't need to get into bickers. That's not the goal, the telos of this particular gathering.
[Similarly, I'm with a very liberal Episcopal Church now with an out and proud lesbian preacher. She's wonderful, by the way. And we were talking about working with another Episcopal church in the same city that's mostly composed of immigrants and refugees, the focus of the work is ministry to refugees. Now, the leadership of that church is quite conservative, probably opposed to the very notion of women preaching, let alone gay women preaching, etc. But they got along fine because the common task was taking care of people. See how that works?]
It all depends on what the purpose of the gathering is. If you know what you're doing, you can tell where the lines are, and it will - I suspect - fall into place pretty cleanly. Just be respectful.
Things get more complicated if we go further than that.