My Struggle| Legitimacy

Lately I have noticed a very serious presence of arrogance. It started around my confirmation, and is getting stronger every day.

Most noticeably, it turns up when I’m (usually reluctantly) talking theology with people. I go to a Dutch Reformed school, dominated by Catholics, and am in a Wesleyan family. Usually in these discussions I am the one defending things like apostolic succession, episcopal governance, the sacred nature of the sacraments, or why I don’t recognize the Pope as the end-all-be-all of church authority (but still think of him as a swell guy). I try to be diplomatic, but in the back of my head and heart I am secretly thinking “give up your Presbyteries, come back to the true church”

More Dangerously though, my arrogance turns up when I’ve been meeting with people to discuss and discern possible paths for ordination. I’ll ask  my questions and listen to what they have to say, and then something along the lines of “There is no way I am going to be a pastor in the Reformed Eastern Anglo-Catholic Church – Lutheran Rite, they are not truly of God” Usually my reason for thinking this is rather stupid to.

That is very dangerous. In the first example, its a simple disagreement, we all have them; Coke vs. Pepsi, Obama vs. McCain, AFC vs. NFC. Life moves on. But in the latter, Im not just waging a debate, I am dismissing an entire demographic as not being of God, dismissing their faith as a sham, dismissing them as people.

This is my struggle. If I do enter the ministry, I should go into it thinking that my tradition is the most holy way to be in communion with God, meaning that I have to denounce other traditions as insufficient faiths. How can I take this position, and still see the fact that God is at work within these other traditions, that their faith is as legitimate as mine?

+Alex Resurgent

Unity in Essentials…

Time For a Christian Truce

I really do not want this to become one of those “religious political” blogs, where i sling mud at the right or left. Ill sling it wherever it needs to be slung. So I don’t want this post to be critical of Mr. (Rev.?) Grabiec’s person, or even his logic.

In his article “Time for a Christian Truce”, Mr. (Rev.?) Grabiec states that we can never truely know anything about our faith, and that it is time for Christians to settle their differences and preach the gospel. I could not agree more with him on this point. In specific he referenced the dispute between the Anglican Church in Canada and the Anglican Network in Canada. Indeed I would love it if Anglicans, or Christians for that matter, would stop warring over minute things and propagated the gospel. But I do have a problem with his thinking, and it is a very common train of thought, and it can have very real effects on the message that we preach.

In the article, Grabiec uses the example of the Arius controversy in the 300’s. Arius argued that Christ was a created being that God the Father gave some sort of divinity. This was condemned as heresy, and rejected. Grabiec seems to say that such beliefs are secondary to the bigger message of God.

I disagree. I think that if we are going to preach the Gospel, we should be fairly clear about what we believe, and make sure that it makes sense.

Arius’ argument didn’t check with the facts. There are two ways that Christ could have been a created being (please tell me if there are others). Way 1: He was a normal human whom God enabled to be sinless and amazingly wise, possessing healing powers. Way 2: He was below God, but above humanity, a sort of Angle or super angel. Each sounds plausible, but each makes it impossible for salvation to work.

We are told that the wages of sin is death, and the only way to atone for sin is through a Human sacrifice. If this is the case, than a Divine-Human Christ’s death would have atoned for the sins of one man. (I swore earlier tonight, sorry guys). A super-human being Christ would have saved no one but himself, because it is clear that what is to be saved, must be assumed. Thats why it must be a human sacrifice, nothing else would have legitimately worked.

This is why Arianism was rejected, it did not fit the understanding of the faith. This is just a small example amongst the myriad of disputes. My point is that we as a Christian community do need to have some unity in the faith that we profess. Its a shame that so many disagreements have divided us so much. But If we say that “anything is possible, really don’t know” to everything, we won’t have much of a faith to profess.

And That would be a larger shame unto itself

+Alex Resurgent
Eighth Sunday After Pentecost

That they may be one…

Due to recent events, both in my life and the life of the Anglican Church, topics of Church Structure and Spiritual Authority have been on my mind a lot, and this is probably the first in a series revolving around that. Bare with me…

An old friend of I had a good discussion about church unity, and what constitutes it. I shant bore you with the play by play details, but I think her point was that the Roman Church is the only “valid” church, and the rest of Christianity (including myself) should reconcile ourselves to Rome. There is validity to her argument. Christ Himself wished that we would be one, and that is something that we should all strive for.

But what would this “unity” look like? The Roman Catholic Church mastered this concept for millenia, with a strong bureaucracy (the Pontificate), and a universal language for worship (Latin). The Congregationalists likewise turned “unity” into an art by not having any institutional (or necessarily theologically) but still by maintaining an identity.

A few images of this unity come to mind:

Unity in Baptism and Belief in Christ
The church arguably has this already, save for a few exceptions. All Christians profess a belief in Christ, and most have been baptized. Baptism may seem like a small unifying factor, but it is also nearly-universally recognized as being valid, regardless of who did the baptism. Unfortunately the unity ends there as many Christians have fundamental disagreements about the basics of the faith, such as the nature of Christ, his work, and how it relates to the world today.

I try to keep this Unity at the front of my mind, especially when talking theology with people. I may believe that one thing is true, and that the other person is guilty of total heresy, but at the end of the day, they are still my brother or sister in Christ.

Unity in Creed or Confession
This is probably the second most prevalent form of unity; unity centered around a Confession or Catechism, and can be found prominently amongst the protestant churches (Small Catechism for Lutherans, Belgic Confession for Reformed churches, 39 Articles for Anglicans). Plus side for this is that Families of Confessions actually have a basic common faith and history, downside is that they don’t have to share a common vision on what the faith should look like. How many Lutheran/Presbyterian Denominations are there? In a way, these divisions may be even more personal that the inter-denominational divisions.

Unity in Governance
This is a HUGE one, and responsible for more divisions than any other, probably because it is the strongest form of unity, with less room for liberty. Churches united through behemoth style bureaucracies can be amazing for providing unity across states or nations. I think that it is amazing to know that, as an Anglican, I can walk into an Anglican church anywhere on earth and know about what Im going to get, and know that I have a direct institutional link with that church. I cant say that about non-denominational churches. This fact is true for Catholics and Orthodox churches, and to a lesser extent the mainline protestants. The HUGE downside is that it is very easy for the little guy to get over run.

On a side note, the Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox Churches maintain belief in Apostolic Succession, the faith that they posses an unbroken linage of Bishops to the apostles. Plus side: provides connection the past and some legitmacy of the faith. Downside is that it can be easily hijacked by wayward Bishops who can preach apostasy under the guise of legitimacy (See Liberal Catholic Churches).

I dont know what “Unity” is supposed to look like today. I dont think that my freinds dream of a universal Roman church will come anytime soon. The Second and Third views, although provides coherency in faith, also breeds division, disdain, neither of which are Christian virtues; meanwhile the first candy coats serious differences that need discussion.

Any thoughts?

+A. Resurgent

Feast of St. Peter and St Paul