This week the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of the United States, broke new ground. They "consecrated" the first openly lesbian bishop. Now, keep in mind, this is the same body that broke ground in 2003 by installing "the first openly gay bishop in the history of Christendom" in the person of Gene Robinson. That's right. The Episcopal Church is on the cutting edge of Christendom. By "cutting edge", of course, I mean the knife that forms the schism. In 2003 their decision to elevate Robinson to the office led to a split in the Episcopal Church that hasn't been healed.
But it's not just the Episcopals at work here. Coincidentally, Monday, the 17th of May, witnessed also the ordination of Italy's very first female priest. Now, sure, it was done by a group known as "the Old Catholic Church, a group which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church in the 1870's", but now Italy has its own woman priest. Of course, in non-Roman Catholic circles women have been ordained for some time. The Salvation Army has ordained both men and women since their inception in 1865. The United Methodist Church ordained their first woman pastor in 1880 while they were still the Methodist Protestant Church.
But it's not in only in the arena of homosexuals or matters of gender. The church has tried to be "cutting edge" often. The Emergent Church movement tried to incorporate post-modernism (a worldview that, at its core, denies the existence of absolute truth) into its structure. I hear that movement is waning. There have always been off-shoots where groups protest this or that and decide to rewrite their bibles to support their position. You know, like the Jehovah's Witnesses. Started by a guy named Charles Russell in 1872, he didn't like concepts like eternal hell, the Trinity, or the Deity of Christ, so he redefined biblical references to eliminate the concepts. VoilĂ ! A new, cutting edge group with new revelation that throws out all of Church history and standard biblical understanding. Of course, Russell wasn't alone. There are myriads of folks like him. The most obvious would be Joseph Smith who managed to find the North American connection with special revelation from a special angel with special insight into the fact that the Bible is not reliable ... but the stuff he found is. Cutting edge.
Traditionally the Church has been built on the Apostles, the Scriptures, and tradition. The Roman Catholic Church elevated tradition to Tradition, a third part of their doctrinal source, but rationally, biblically, and historically tradition has always been a primary consideration. Yes, biblically. Paul told the Thessalonians, "Stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" (2 Thess 2:15). Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead His disciples into all truth, which would logically suggest that true disciples have always maintained the thread of genuine truth since the arrival of the Spirit. Tradition is important. So do we really want the Church to be cutting edge? Do we really believe that the Church has always been wrong in "this" area or "that" doctrine and we, the wise and precocious people that we are, have suddenly come up with the truth? Are we really that arrogant?
Sure, there has been error in the Church. Sure, along with the history of truth there has been a history of heresy. Sure, we need to be keenly aware that false doctrines will pop up all the time ... even false doctrines that have already been put in their place. And, indeed, there are matters of "trappings", form and style, that are open to "cutting edge" because they aren't prescribed by Scripture. It is possible to hang on to tradition for the sake of tradition rather than because it's right. I know all that. But when the Church of the 19th century decides that it's much brighter than the last 1800 years of Christendom and women should be ordained or when the Church of the 21st century suddenly realizes that the sin of homosexual behavior condemned by Christendom and before is actually perfectly fine, I am concerned that the edge being cut is too far. Are they cutting off the limb on which they are sitting? Is it a good idea? I don't think so.
1 comment:
I couldn't agree more. I just visited a lib site I have on my blogroll. This dude has been in seminary (a flaming liberal one--by his own words--with even a Jesus Seminar clown as a professor) and thinks he's getting more traditional. Of course what passes for tradition for him gives one pause. To him, to hold to what Paul told the Thessalonians is Bible idolatry. His tradition has Jesus as an "anything goes" kinda guy. Yet, those of us of a more fundamental bent, those of us trying to stand firm and hold to traditions taught to us, apparently Jesus doesn't quite go for that. Sad.
Post a Comment