Over at RD magazine, Hollis Phelps asked a question with which tends to
make us uncomfortable. Yet, the truth is,
it is one I think almost all of us have wondered about at least to ourselves if
not when we uncork the bottle and let our hair down among friends.
Phelps takes the recent
developments with the defrocking of Rev. Frank Schaefer by the United Methodist
Church and the chastisement and "firing", Duck Dynasty's Phil
Robertson.
Rev. Frank Schaefer officiated
his son’s gay wedding and as a result he was stripped of his ordination for forcefully
and deliberately disregarding the teachings and discipline of his denomination. For this Schaefer has become a Cause célèbre among gay activists and liberal Christians.
Phil Robertson on the other
hand has raised the ire of liberals of all stripes (not to mention the guardians
of the various "inclusive" pieties) for comments he made about
homosexuality in GQ magazine. His
comments were, shall we say, quite critical.
As a result, citing the intolerance of divergent opinions by liberals
and the powers that be, Robertson has become a rallying point among
conservatives and traditional Christians.
Without getting
into the right or wrong in these two different cases, Phelps broaches the taboo misgiving:
Both events
have been the subject of intense, at times vitriolic, discussion on social
media, especially, of course, among those who identify in one way or another as
Christian. Both events have made clear once again the differences between
“socially liberal” and “socially conservative” Christians when it comes to
issues related especially to sexuality, with both sides appealing to the Bible
in support of their opposing views.
Some of my more
pastorally minded friends have intervened, urging mutual understanding and
stressing unity among Christians. The sentiment generally goes something like,
“Sure, we may disagree when it comes to issues such as homosexuality, but let’s
remember that at the end of the day we all serve the same God.”
It’s a nice
sentiment, one that is often appealed to to remind Christians that the church
is, ultimately, “one body,” united in its common confession and worship of
Jesus Christ, whom Christians take as God incarnate. In other words, the appeal
is to some sort of transcendent commonality that unites the Christians across
time and place despite differences, including differences on issues related to
sexuality.
I’ve often
wondered, however, if such a claim is accurate. Sure, it has theological merit
and backing, but it tends to cover over the real differences that divide
individuals and groups that identify themselves as Christian. I would suggest
that if we attend to these differences, there’s often not much in common
between Christians who identity as “socially liberal” and “socially
conservative.” In other words, I’d suggest that when disagreements among
Christians flare up as they have in the past few days, we are not witnessing
different expressions of an underlying, unitary tradition called Christianity.
We are, rather, dealing with different “religions,” as separate from each other
as one “religion” is normally taken from another.
Sure, “socially
liberal” and “socially conservative” Christians share, to a certain extent and
differences aside, a common book, a common language, and common practices. But
if we dig further, if we do a little “thick description” as the anthropologist
Clifford Geertz urged us, the extent of the commonalities is not at all clear.
For instance, all Christians in one way or another take the Bible as a locus of
authority, but how the Bible is read and how it functions as authoritative
varies significantly for individuals and in denominations.
We only need to
look at the difference between Frank Schaefer and Phil Robertson to see that
this is the case. We often frame such differences as differences of
interpretation, but perhaps it would be better to ask the question: Are they
(Schaefer and Robertson, “liberal Christians” and “conservative Christians”)
really reading the same book? I’m not so sure that they are.
Or take a
practice such as baptism, which is, again, ubiquitous among those who identify
as Christian. Is baptism in a Southern Baptist church the same things as in an
Episcopal Church? At one level it is, since the practice in both contexts
ultimately derives from a common source, Jesus’ baptism for the forgiveness of
sins. But there is considerable difference between the two in when baptism is
usually performed (believer/infant), how it functions (ordinance/sacrament),
and its relationship to different understandings of community, sin, and
salvation. Material similarities, in other words, don't necessarily mean that
the practice is the same across contexts.
We could
provide many more examples, and all of these would lead to one question: are
“liberal Christians” and “conservative Christians” worshipping the same God?
Again, I’m not so sure.
Such questions
are sure to make many—on all sides—uncomfortable. But if we really want to
understand the vast differences among those who identify as Christian, we
should, perhaps, start thinking about these differences not in terms of degree,
but in kind. That may not be theologically satisfying, at least initially, but
it may be more descriptively accurate.
Ok. I am not prepared to declare that those
Christians on the liberal side of the aisle are not my brothers; but one
doesn't have to go the full distance with Phelps to acknowledge that he is getting at
something.
Long ago, a Lutheran pastor turned university
professor and a bunch of us students were discussing the intricacies of Karl
Barth or some other 20th century theologian--didn't seem to matter who. In the middle, while mulling over his doubts
about Luther's doctrine of baptism, he finally let it out. Beholding the obstinate, divergent stances of
his students, he said that within Christianity, across all denominations, there
are really only two churches. One
liberal. One conservative. Both read from the same Scriptures. Both use same words. But we meant two entirely different thing by
them. Even in talking about Jesus, an
outside observer would conclude we were talking about two different people who
just happen to share the same name.
His considered
opinion was that someday there would be a great sorting out with each side
jelling into denominations of more like-minded consistency. This may be the only way we can come to stand
each other.
I suppose to
some degree this is already happening.
From the ELCA has come the North American Lutheran Church. The Anglican Church is on the verge of coming
apart worldwide. Congregations of many communions has disassociated themselves
from their respective denominations. Even
some traditionalists have taken the enormous step and escaped into Catholicism
or Orthodoxy.
Is Jesus really
as tolerant, non-judgmental, and accepting as liberal Christians would have
it? Or is Jesus really such a catalyst
for disunion among the men and women of the world as the traditionalists hold? Is there really something called the
brotherhood of man? Or is the only
commonality among men that we are objects of His love and precious little else? How is the Bible to be read and used?
It may well be
that how one answers these questions (along with a host of others equality
crucial) tells more about oneself than is convenient. With both Liberals and Traditionalists
charging the other with selling out to some non-faithful ideology, I don't see
the two sides making peace anytime soon in spite of all the protestations of
fellowship and good-faith dialogue.
Especially when talking often times makes it all the worse.
Don't think I'm
particularly happy about this.
.jpg)
