Sunday, December 18, 2011

Unity and Uniformity

When I was an Anglican I believed that the Anglican Church was truly the church of 'Mere Christianity' and that we had unity in essentials and variety in inessentials. After all, it did look that way. We had Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics and Charismatics and Traditional Prayer Book Anglicans and Liberals and Conservatives and Liberal Evangelicals and Conservative Evangelicals and Liberal Anglo Catholics and Conservative Anglo Catholics and Liberal Charismatics and Conservative Charismatics and Charismatic Evangelicals and Charismatic Anglo Catholics and on and on and so forth and so on.

It seemed to me as an Anglican that this variety was a good thing, and that, although it was sometimes confusing and we often quarreled, that beneath it all we had unity of belief in the essentials. Then I began to look more closely and realized that underneath the different styles of worship there were actually different (and contradictory) theologies. How could it be that two men could be ordained by the same bishop to celebrate the Eucharist, but one man believed that the bread and wine were no more than a symbol, and the next man believed that he was confecting the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ? How could one man put the leftover bread from communion out for the birds and the man in the next parish reserve it reverently in the tabernacle to be used for Eucharistic Adoration?

In fact, the only unity that existed was a shared belief in a core doctrine of Anglicanism: stated succinctly it is this: "That there is no such thing as objective theology." I first heard this phrase used seriously at an Anglican Clergy Fraternal by my Rural Dean. I heard what he said, and then noticed that all my brethren were nodding their heads in solemn agreement. It was one of those "Aha!" moments for me. "So this is why they can all agree to disagree! Because (unlike myself) none of them actually believe that there is such a thing as objective theology!"

The classic Anglican position therefore, is that all the different stripes and types of Anglican actually make up a kind of rainbow coalition. They glory in not having a centralized authority. They actually like the tense co-existance that comes from not having an objective theology. Because there is no objective theology, tolerance becomes the main virtue.

I realize that there are probably a good number of Anglicans who do believe in an objective theology, but put them together with other Anglicans and they will soon start to squirm. They will squirm for two reasons: because they have to put up with all the other Anglicans who do not believe in an objective theology, and because they will have to put up with the other Anglicans who do believe in an objective theology, but who they disagree with. So an Anglo-Catholic who does believe in objective theology will bristle at the Liberals who do not believe in an objective theology and with the Evangelicals who do believe in an objective theology, but the theology they believe in is Protestant through and through.

I came to realize that the Anglican Church was not a church with infinite, Spirit-led versions, but simply a confederation of contradictions--held together by a shared history and national or cultural allegiance more than anything else.

The curious thing is that the Anglicans (glorying in their diversity) sometimes blame the Catholic Church for being some sort of dictatorship that enforced uniformity at all levels. If these people could be Catholic for six months they would soon realize how ridiculous such a charge is. My experience is that the Catholic Church (in styles of worship and spirituality) is just as diverse as the Anglican Church, and when the styles and traditions of the different ethnic and national groups are thrown in that diversity becomes even greater. Furthermore, this diversity according to national customs and ethnic traditions (and this includes the wide diversity expressed in the Eastern Rite Churches) is encouraged.

The difference is that underneath all the diversity and expansion of the Catholic Church worldwide there is a rock. There is shared foundation of authority which provides unity. There is a unity of theology and a unity of form. When I say there is unity I do not propose that there is uniformity. The unity is the foundation for our whole life together.

Here is how it works: In the town where I live and work here in the USA we have extreme diversity in the Catholic Church. We have one parish with Anglican style hymns, formality and fine music and good 'Evangelical' style preaching. In another huge parish the style is informal with praise and worship music and family-pleasing liturgies. A third parish has a Franciscan friar who works with the African American community. He works hard to establish justice as he works with the poor. The liturgy at his church has gospel music and a down to earth 'relevant' style. At yet another parish a young priest who loves the Latin Mass has just been appointed. Add to this mix a huge Hispanic ministry in four of the churches, an active and vital Vietnamese ministry and other traditions from around the world and the church here is anything but uniform. So uniformity is not enforced, but unity is enjoyed.

Of what does this unity consist? As you can imagine there are some real disagreements among the clergy, but beneath all of this diversity and disagreement there are some truths that are very fundamental to our lives. We all know who the pope is. We all know that the authority comes from the church to the bishops to the priests. We all know what the Catechism teaches. We all know what a sacrament is and who may celebrate that sacrament validly. We all know what the church teaches about marriage and sexuality and morality of all kinds.

We may not all agree with that teaching. We may debate it. We may rebel against it. We may dissent from the teaching--but my point is that the teaching is there. The rock is there. Whether it is a stumbling block or a stepping stone is up to us.

In Protestantism, on the other hand, there is no rock. There is just the shifting sand.

11 comments:

  1. Well said Father.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous5:30 PM

    Very true, especially about the shifting sand.

    It's really shocking to discover how much the main Protestant denominations have changed core doctrines since their founding. The changes are so dramatic that I don't see how anyone can expect to know what any denomination (even the most conservative) will believe in 50 years.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree that the Roman Catholic Church is diverse, for example in Haiti you have devout Catholcs who Faithfully go to Mass on Sundays, even daily and later practice VooDoo Sorcery, in Central and South America we have those daily and Sunday Mass attending young men and Senhoras who later worship at occult Santeiria shrines and chop Rooster heads off and curse their enemies, young Beamer driving devout Catholic men in their hot rodded beamers with Rosaries and statues of "Santa Maria" dealing drugs. Yep Roman Catholic "Diversity is amazing, ooh did I forget the Catholic Priest and Catholic college Prof that thought that Tielhard de Chardin was the greatest Catholic Theologian since Thomas Acquinas who were sure that de Chardin would be proclaimed "a Doctor of the Church" some day or the girl I knew from the Opus Dei cult who wore a cilice on each leg to "mortify her temptation to have a man in her life". And how about the DRE at my last Catholic Parish that said the Church will wake up and ordain Women Priests someday. Yes the diversity is AMAZING, except for one thing, Your Church is a big tent but it seems that the only folks left out, who could keep those other loons at bay are not welcome are the folks like me who Hold to Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Christ Alone, and Scripture Alone, no those who are most orthodox Biblically are cursed and anathemised and vilified by the Roman Catholic Church, Fr Longenecker your RCC tent just ain't big enough, but we "orthodox" Evangelical Bible-Believing Christians might be the solution to many problems in the RCC, but you yourself continue to make us look like fools and bumpkins on this very Blog, granted some Evangelicals are, but the vast majority of us love Jesus and follow Him and try to do His Will and follow His Law of Love.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your protestant readers have no arguments left, only anger. But who knows, if they carry on reading your blog maybe something will enlighten them one day and they will have courage to admit the truth about their beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  5. However good, however all-embracing, however truthful, however up-to-date, however correct or incorrect, however complete or incomplete - the teaching of any church cannot tell me these things: how my personal relationship with Jesus is, and may develop; how scripture and tradition apply to my personal situation now, my present joys and sorrows and difficulties and my relationships with other people; what God's purpose is for me to fulfil in life to his glory; how the Holy Spirit in glorious freedom may lead me down paths unknown and reveal to me things both old and new as I work out my own salvation in fear and trembling.

    Protestantism has no rock? Wrong. The primary relationship of all Christians is with the rock that is Christ, the Christ who in scripture spoke to many and yet dealt most deeply with individuals, beginning where they were.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Flyingvic,

    whose version of Christ is correct? Because there are so many conflicting versions out there. All protestant communities claim they have the right version of Jesus, but given how much they differ they can't all be right. Who Jesus is does not depend on you or me or some Bible-believing preacher.

    Fr. L has explained this principle very well on several occasions but you still insist on the existence of your own personal Jesus without a single solid argument. If you truly believe what you say then surely you can give us something better and credible.

    And now a question: do you think that Catholics do not have a personal element to the faith? We are dealing with a with a living Person after all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Natasa - indeed, whose version IS 'correct'? And which of the churches and styles of worship that Father describes in his home town is 'correct'?

    But when you pose the question like that, you see that the question itself is not 'correct'. There isn't one 'correct' church in Greenville any more than there is one 'correct' style of worship, because all have their validity.

    If you and I were both Roman Catholic and sat side by side in any church you care to mention, the Jesus that you and I would 'see' and hear about would not be the same for both of us. Even if the celebrant and preacher at mass was as orthodox as the Pope himself, you and I would see and hear differently simply because we are different people. Every spectator at a ball-game sees exactly the same ball, but every single one of them sees it slightly differently - they're sitting in different places and looking from different angles.

    To ask whose version of Christ is correct is surely to turn down a No Through Road; what is important is for each of us to use that road to Christ either that we have chosen or that has been chosen for us. We might get him wrong. We probably will. So did the twelve disciples. But he persevered with them, and I've always believed that he perseveres with us.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So flyingvic it is all relative There is a Christ suited to each person's own personal taste, their is no touchstone for humanity to rely on.

    ReplyDelete
  9. John,
    You are judging the Catholic church by some of it's members, not by the teachings of the Church. Yes, a lot of them have it wrong, and in some instances very wrong. There are sinners in the evangelical religions also, just look around.
    BTW, why should we believe Luther?, it was just his opinion.
    Have a blessed Christmass Tide.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jason, as I am sure you know well, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and for ever. We, created in the image of God, have a multitude of minor differences one from another and are thereby unique as individuals. We, therefore, are the ones who differ in our reaction to the Jesus who does not change.

    Please do not put an unkind spin upon the words of others.

    ReplyDelete