Children Of Divorce

Jonathan
Thanks for the most interesting synopsis.

I have 2 things to offer here:
1) What is the downside of NOT getting divorced? Do we keep up appearances of unity? Surely if we honestly and fundamentally disagree then we need to part ways, in hope of a future complete reconciliation?

Could we not fairly say (purely for the sake of argument) “You Catholics are children of a sham marriage, and as such will just stay in sham marriages.”?

2) The “flowering” of denominations occurred in a context where doctrine was still the basis for unity. Tradition, the other pillar, had been replaced by Sola Scriptura, and that put the whole onus on quasi-personal interpretation for authority.

What I look forward to is a radical shift towards a unity of faith based on relationship, trust, and a bigger picture of who God is.

In fact, I am sensing this now: people from multiple denominational traditions are finding each other at a deeper level than mere ecumenical duty.

A couple of comments:

1) I would expand this idea to not just be on a denominational level, but down to the congregational level. It’s not just a matter of denominatinal splits, but even congregational splits. Someone in this community hurt me. I’m going to leave and go somewhere else. To continue the divorce analogy, the new relationship is now burdened with hurts from the previous relationship, increasing the liklihood of another divorce. And the chain continues. This same attitude needs to chage from this level as well, for congregants to not give up on a congregation just because things don’t go there way but, instead, actively work out their Christian love for each other and work towards reconciliation within the community and IN the community rather than just throwing in the towel.

2) My only concern with abandoning “Solo Scriptura” and going with the Scripture just being “one of” the many ways to hear God is that, at that point, there is no standard on which to base a doctrine of faith. Before the reformation, we had the Pope and Tradition. It was flawed, but gave us a standard from which to work. After the Reformation, the point was for the Standard to move from Tradition and a single person to being scripture itself. I think this still needs to be the standard but, instead of the claims “I’ve got it right” when it comes to interpretation, we recognize that scripture is not read in a vacuum and we have open, honest conversations, rather than drag-out fights. Only by the grace of God will this be possible, but it’s a better solution, I feel, than abandoning the one common standard we have.

Nic,I would offer that the divorce effect is not whole. I would find it hard to imagine that divorce would be the whole expression of the kingdom. More likely, it is an expression of our brokenness.

What if that unity we are both talking about in relationship was based on loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself? Jesus even said, “John 13:35
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

We place so much emphasis on belief and the doctrinal process which stems from Sola Scriptura, wondering who is in and who is not. Yet this isn’t what Jesus indicated would be the measure. It was the fruit that was the diviner for Jesus. And this doctrinal process of evaluation creates so much division because it it based upon a subjective opinion of a historical document. And the end result, as stated above will be divorce.

Robert, I agree that it gets down to every level. The divorce process is unofficially but subjectively “approved” by our history. It’s kind of hard to say, “Hey don’t divorce,” when that’s our what everyone before us has done. Yet to me, this is the tremendous value of Emergent. Finding that space to “not divorce” ourselves from relationship.

I would offer that the loss of Sola Scriptura doesn’t negate it’s value. It frees us up to the Holy Spirit which is always in alignment with Scripture.

In 1992 I moved as a denominational missionary to the former Soviet Union. The first question they asked was; “Why do we need missionaries, we’ve been Christian since 989 AD?” The next were, “Why are there so many different churches? How do I know yours is the right one?” I still struggle with answers. I relate to the “Post-Protestantism” McLaren refers to in Generous Orthodoxy.

Nic,

I agree that the Holy Spirit is always in alignment with Scripture, but that implies a test, simply because there are other “voices” that may be mistaken for the Holy Spirit. How do we know it is the Spirit? We have to check the Scriptures. So, that brings us back to the Scriptures being, as Dr. John Franke calls them, “the norming norm.” While I agree that God can speak through the general revelation of creation, the revelation from the Spirit, the revelation of our communities, the Scriptures still stand as that standard against which we can validate those other voices.

My bad… my previous comment should have been addressed to Jonathan

Robert, but it never works out like that. What happens is we exclude the others from the process. Sola Scriptura by definition does this.

Jonathan,

We are in agreement that excluding others in our validation of the “voices” through scripture is a “bad” way of applying the standard. But I do not believe that, just because we’re using a tool wrong means that we should abandon the tool. Scripture is our standard by which we base our faith. It can be supplemented by the word from the Body and the word from the Spirit. But it should still be our standard.

However, the caveat is that we need to recognize that anything that we bring out of our interpretation of Scripture is subject to our finitude and fallen nature. And, therefore, should be subject to critique and reconstruction by the Body. But this does not mean that I should not use the Scripture as my standard. Instead, use it as the standard but be humble enough to recognize that my interpretation of that standard is incomplete.

This is the attitude that I think will make Sola Scriptura relevant again. The problem is not in Scripture as the standard but in the human interpretation. So, if we recognize that human interpretation as being precisely that, human, then we can keep the standard but subject the interpretations to validation in the community. Scripture remains the basis for all faith with allowance made for the human element.

Robert, by your own admission the interpretation of Scripture is subjective. That is why we need the Holy Spirit to even understand it, and the community to help us through that process. No one wants to throw out Scripture. I just think the distinction has created enough baggage and evidence of its confusion to seek a more wholsitic approach. We’ll never be able to approach Sola Scriptura as something new. It requires a more wholistic distinction. By it’s nature Sola Scriptura, whether it wants to or not, excludes the other parts.

Jonathan,

Correct, the interpretation of Scripture is subjective, but Scripture, itself, is not. What I was hearing from you (and I may be mistaken in this) is that Scripture should therefore be reduced in authority to just being “one of the many” ways in which God speaks. This is where my concern is. We are in agreement that interpretation is subjective and, therefore, should be subject to consideration within the community, the Spirit, and the Traditions of the church. But Scripture itself should remain the standard by which we base our faith and nothing else.

We are in agreement that any interpretation of Scripture MUST be examined and reformed in light of other revelatory sources, but where we differ (at least from what I’m reading) is that Scripture no longer has primacy as the source against which all other sources are tested, even the interpretations taken from Scripture.

So, Sola Scriptura is “correct” in that Scripture is the ONLY thing on which we should base our faith. Hence, the tool is correct. But, when we use the tool in our subjective minds to say that my interpretation is “correct”, that’s where the issue is. Don’t throw out the tool (Sola Scriptura) because our use of it (personal interpretation as “Correct”) is wrong. Instead, use the tool as it should be used, that is with the humility that comes from recognition of personal finitude and failings.

Robert, I would suggest that the tool was never meant to be used individually, but with the wisdom of the Spirit, circumstance and community vetting the discernment. It was always meant to be a corporate process.

Is it the only tool? No. To suggest it is the only tool is to then abandon or even reject God’s movement in history, creation, experience, science and community. The tool provides context for what God has done in history, but the revelation of that in the present can show up in the single act of love that invites us back into the story.

Essentially it’s a both/and as opposed to an only.

Robert,

I think another way of expressing what Jonathan is saying is this;

The story of God can not be contained in a box of any sort. Through out history that story has been told through several mediums; oral tradition by the ancient jews, the Pope and the priesthood by ancient Catholicism, literacy and the bible by modernity and the “enlightened” societies. Each of these was a different method of doing the same thing.

I think this is very important to recognize, that God expresses himself through many, many means; scripture, prophets, priests, nature, apostles, signs, spirit. All of these means are equal in their purpose. Scripture does not trump prophets. The idea of Scriptura Sola, to me seems like idolatry of scripture, and I have actually experienced this. What I mean by this idolatry is that we are all capable of twisting scripture, just like we are capable of twisting priests teaching. There is no good precedence for claiming Scripture alone is better than all other means of teaching about God.

Adam and Jonathan,

You both make good points an bring up some things to think about.

This brings me back to the question in my mind that started this all: by what standard then do we validate those other “voices”? True, Scipture does not trump prophets…but how do we know a prophet is not a false one? Scripture does not trump historical experience…but how do we know what experiences are truly in line with God and which ones are the failings of humans? Scripture does not trump the revelation from the Spirit, but how do we discern the true Spirit from those false Spirits of the world?

At some point, there needs to be some sort of standard by which we can hold all our beliefs. Ultimately, the Truth of God is that standard, but how do we then test whether or not we are in line or out of line?

These are obviously questions for which there is no easy answer. I do not claim to know the answer. But it seems to me that Christian tradition, both Protestant as well as Orthodox (meaning RC and Eastern Orthodox) seems to place Scripture in some level of prominence in this answer. Maybe you’re right in that it should not be an idol of THE only thing, but Scripture seems to have a greater role in the discernment of God’s voice than any of the other sources.

It is imperfect, but then so am I, and until the perfect comes, I trust that God will redeem my imperfection as I strive to comprehend his will through his written Word.

Robert, I think that’s why they call it faith. The collection of things always provides a better answer than any one element. Imagine if Luther had said, Sola Comunita. You can essentially insert any word and come up with the same problem.

The problem Luther always created was singling one out over the other which then limited the power of Scripture by crippling it’s brothers and excluding them from the conversation.

my last comment did not post…

I blogged about this becuase it is bothering me.

Are you saying that there were 4 denominations pre reformation, including Anglicanism? Where did you get this information? It is contrary to all of my education.

Are you saying that Anglicanism is not the child of divorce? From my understanding it is moreso than any other denomination, birthed as much from expediency as from conviction.

Is my church history timeline wrong (Anglicanism around 1530, post Luther) or did you state this incorrectly (or did Tickle say this?)?

Rick,

I got my facts wrong about Anglicansim. Thanks correcting that matter.

I incorrectly lumped Anglicanism in to the mix. This was my bad, not Tickle’s.

Jonathan

The 16th and 17th century Reformers believed in the priesthood of all believers, not the ministerhood of all believers. Big difference. The contemporary evangelical tendency to elevate individualistic interpretations of Scripture above all else (including tradition, ecclesiastical authority, creeds and confessions) has more in common with Western notions of individual autonomy than the faith and practice of Luther, Calvin, Owen, etc.

After reading such a frank assessment of the devestating effects of sola scriptura, I wonder if considering the acceptance of papal infallibility is “on the radar” for any emergents? In light of such a radical and devestating self-critique, shouldn’t it be…even a little bit?

Kevin,

I think there are better people to answer that question than me.

I too am a child of divorce. It is a regretable thing.
Paul and Timothy got divorced.
God asks us a rhetorical question in the OT: Can two walk together except they be agreed?
In Jesus’ day the Jews divorced themselves from Him…and finally were so threatened they killed him in a ‘divorce settlement.’ I enjoy the ‘conversation’ aspect of things…it is a beautiful metaphor.
Yet in the church one encounters power brokers and relational bullies. One can try to work thru and be conciliatory, but sometimes there is a need to shake the dust off…and move on. Sadly this will be true
as long as there are humans doing the conversing. For sure we need to value more highly our sense of community and the relational tools that enable it to flourish.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around this whole divorce issue. What depresses me the most is that many of these divorces are not on positive terms. For example, take the Anglican separation from the Episcopal Church (http://www.therevealer.org/archives/timely_003140.php). I would hardly say that there was much well wishing for the Episcopalians. While I understand that issues of homosexuality can be a major dividing line, I can find plenty of other instances of schism that resulted from more trivial issues in which each side declares to the other, “You’re wrong! You have become a child of the devil!” and subsequently brush the dirt off their sandals. In some ways I feel that the demoninational problem is perpetuating this idea of relativism in our culture, though many churches bitterly fight against such a term. Society can hardly look at the “universal” church and find a source of stability and truth. There has to be a better way to reconcile differences while maintaining an attitude of love for one another. How can we truly show God’s love for humanity when we turn our backs from one another? Truth is extremely important to me, but there has to be a better way that would allow God to communicate these truths to us without calling our neighbors enemies.

So, Mr. Brink, you humbly acknowledge that being a child of divorce influences one’s theology. If only more of us could be so humble there might be less theological and marital divorce. The influence of family upon our worldview AND our theology is far more profound than most of us can imagine—

Hi Johnathan,

Divorce or reconciliation? I think we’re kidding ourselves if we think we can reproach the Mother church through Protestant unionism. Impossible. Not even amongst reformed.

That leaves Rome or the East. Unless we entirely want to give up our protestant heritage, Rome is out of the question. But one must admit Rome today is very different than Luther’s time. We must thank God that Rome has embraced a number of important reforms of Protestantism—a trained clergy, ending abuses of paid masses and indulgences, mass in vernacular, catechesis amongst lay, and lay participation in liturgy/song.

The East probably is most doctrinally similar to protestantism and is the best way to pressure Rome from the outside for further reform—namely infallibility/ ex-cathedra of Pope and papist claims to universalism.

If you ever decide to go East, I would recommend you study and digest ideas of eastern holy tradition, real presence in the elements, intercession of saints, three-fold offices, monasticism, and a number of liturgical practices that might seem alien for us protestants (like bells and smells; the absence of pews; presence of icon-walls).

If you can’t handle that, then you must continue in protestantism/anabaptism.

Meanwhile, if Eastern orthodoxy has any interest or it feels too foreign, do a search on Western Rite Orthodoxy.

WRO is the best home for returning protestants and would be liturgically familiar, retaining the best of high church protestant practice. Of course, most protestants are not high church, having been slammed by both revivalism and a genaral anabaptist-individualist religious culture in America. If protestant high church is terribly unfamiliar to you, then I suggest a more graded approach—first attend a liturgical lutheran or continuuing Anglican. Once you are comfortable with that, the switch to WRO will be very simple and better understood. Take my word—the best way to preserve what is good and worthwhile in protestantism without contributing to the ongoing disorder of the Church is by Orthodoxy, in particular Western Rite, AWRV.

Another thing about Sola Scripture: scripture comes to us in content and form via God’s people with the leading of the Holy Spirit. That’s another thing that makes it strange to put it in a vacuum.

Charles, I’ve actually participated in many mainline, Catholic, and Greek Orthodox services. Although I find the liturgical experience interesting, in the long run, I don’t find it compelling as the only framework.

My wife and I talked about this. I think going forward, we would like to see a mix that takes advantage of each tradition in some way. I find liturgy deeply humbling, but I also enjoy a good Vineyard worship experience.

Well.. I started writing quite a bit out but it got rather long. I simply replied on my blog.

http://groundofbeing.net/2008/12/ecumenism/

As a cradle Catholic who sort of left, but never really, I’ve been doing this work of reconciliation in Mennonite and various Protestant contexts for years. It’s great to see it put in such familiar (literally, family-like) terms. I’m the guy who keeps remarrying my first bride, but struggles nonetheless to be fully satisfied. “Both/and” is the only way it works for me, so the emergent movement’s attention to this is SO refreshing.

In a resent article,and I’ve included part,the idea was a shift away the the scripture being the only authority. If this is true, what part of scripture should one beleive/reject?? I am also intereted in your opinion about the work and ministry of the Salvaion Army. The following statement is what prompted me to write my commnents. Thank you.