Division: Either/Or, Not Both/And
It seems, to me, that the division of the Church has come from - at its core - adherents to two particular ideologies refusing to exist cooperatively. Rather than seeking genuine ecumenism - a schism occurs. The blade that cuts is Traditionalism (adherence to tradition, especially in cultural or religious practice) vs. Innovation (the introduction of new things or methods). In other words - saying "This is how it is, and how it ever shall be" vs. "New things are happening!"
I see God, however, participating in both these acts in Scripture:
Paul admonishes us in Hebrews (13:7-8) to "Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith," because, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." {emphasis mine}
On the other hand, we hear God speak through the prophet Isaiah (43:18-19): "Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past. See, I am doing a new thing..." {emphasis mine}
It seems there is a unification that comes from remembering the saints before us (imitating the successes of their faith) - firmly established in the unchanging nature of Jesus - mixed with the realization that God acts creatively.
Can tradition and innovation co-exist?
Links:
Refuse to Choose
The Primacy of the Imagination
9 comments:
I think this traditionalism versus innovation mentality that you are writing is almost exclusive (not entirely) to the westernized church movement. Westernized equals consumeristic and unfortunately this seems to drive american church-ers. The consumeristic mindset is "I want it this way because this is what is most comfortable to me." In my opinion tradition has moved from a "remembrance mentality" to a "this makes me comfortable mentality" because of western consumerism. In this we have lost the original importance of tradition (remembrance) - to remember what God has done. Nothing is wrong with tradition and innovation co-existing. Perhaps they may be the same exact thing - checkout Rob Bell's thoughts on flatland, squares and circles. everythingisspiritual.com
Thanks for the thoughts. I've got EiS on DVD - really good stuff.
I don't think what I am getting at is specific to Westernized churches because, in essence, the split happened years ago with the RCC and Luther (Reformation) - as well as between the RCC and Orthodoxy. {You could almost say we have three camps battling it out, but I included Orthodoxy in with Traditionalism based on church practice}
My problem is with all sides. Typically we think that the RCC and Orthodox churches are crazy in their tradition and claims of exclusivity...but we often forget the Reformed/Protestant side fighting for innovation/revision and refusing to accept the infusion of tradition/ritual/history into the mix.
I think all sides are wrong. I'm wondering if there can be a common ground reached.
I wonder if RCC, Luther (Reformation) and Orthodoxy could be categorized under the consumeristic model?
A second thought followed up from the previous comments stems from some thoughts by Rob Bell. He effectively proved faith and science can be connected and that depending on what side of a cylinder you look you either see a rectangle or a circle. It seems there may this mysteriousness around tradition and innovation that leads to some other holistic concetp.
I won't say that churches today (especially Westernized churches, regardless of geography or theological affiliation) cannot be consumer-heavy. However, I sincerely doubt that consumer-theory is a (completely) applicable explanation for the separation of churches - especially in the specific instance outlined (tradition v. innovation).
I'll agree with your comments as far as you currently relate them to a holistic-model.
I'll put it this way. I think that all three "camps" - RCC, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism have many things of value, beauty, and truth when it comes to the Christian life and the mysterious union of the Body of Christ (called the Church).
However, what I see - and take offense at - is the constant peddling between us of the exclusive differences and how one way is more accurate, true, holy, etc. than the other.
Rather than coming together under common confessions of faith, bringing the entirety of the experience of Church-characteristics unique to each body of believers, we stand "alone" and try to argue people into our own specific "model" of Christianity...whether that argument be with believers or non-believers.
The detriment of this separation is church-wide. It damages the body of Christ, causes confusion, and threatens the validity of any parties claims.
It's almost like the hand saying to the foot, "I have no need of you."
I whole heartedly agree that consumerism theology cannot be the accountability point between the division that far back. I will say that what causes ethnocentrism in nations is probably a factor in these divisions. It comes from this idea of enlightenment and our thoughts on being able to put things in a box. The truth is that no one side has it completely right and while loving God by trying to understand as much as we can about Him we end up losing sight of people (created in His image). I personally chose to identify myself with community instead of a paradigm of thought (granted I seem to fit into one better than others) and this helps to alleviate some of the division in my own life.
The two links I posted help shape a "broad" view for what I am trying to communicate as a resolution to this problem. {Hopefully you've already read, or will have a chance to, both of them}
I recollect the allegory of the blind men and the elephant. One grabs the tail and makes an inference about the entirety of the creature. Another grabs a leg, another the trunk - both making their own, different, personal, concrete assumption.
This, I believe, is what has happened with the Church. In reaching out for a God we cannot truly comprehend (due to His "limited" revelation, spiritual residence, and infinitude) we have found something about Him that we can create a "conclusion" about.
A lack of perspective, imagination, humility, and even curiosity and scholarship has left each party holding only part of the whole - all the while claiming consummation.
Well said.
you might enjoy reading Dan's thoughts over at cerulean sanctum, where he points out the need for the 'both/and' in regards to understanding the importance of word and image in Christianity. This, he points out, has been a big dividing factor between protestants and rc/orthodox.
http://ceruleansanctum.com/2007/12/the-marriage-of-word-image.html
Thanks for the link. I love his stuff - always very good work. A lot of what I have been reading/seeing lately has shown me more and more than we (including me) are missing the mark. You and I have talked - albeit briefly - about my experiences in going to churches of different denominations and how much effect such a limited thing has had on my view of Christian unity. Hopefully, someday soon, we'll finally realize our great need to stand together.
Post a Comment