The "Bad Habit of Schism"

I thank Dr. William Tighe for sending a link to an essay by the English Orthodox scholar, David J. Melling, who died in 2004.  This paragraph seemed particularly worth taking to heart:

Progress in extricating ourselves from the bad habit of schism involves a reappraisal of what is central to our Christian heritage and what is transitory and peripheral, what is essential and what is merely a matter of cultural tradition. When we return to the heart and centre of our faith, we find ourselves together in Christ. If we lose the living awareness of our oneness in Christ and identify ourselves simply in terms of a particular community’s history and interests, we find a chasm yawning at our feet.

It is gratifying to hear these words from a highly-regarded Orthodox authority.  While Orthodoxy rightly emphasizes the unity of all things that pertain to the faith, Melling did not believe that every "connectable" is a vital part of the living Whole, and thought that at least some of what is regarded as such is (shall we say merely?) part of "a particular community's history and interests." 

The temptation to elevate "what is merely a matter of cultural tradition" to canonical status bedevils every Christian community.  This is why a positive conception of something like "mere Christianity" is not only logically necessary for tempering our senses of proportion, but more fundamentally, intuited by all those whose minds are disciplined by the love and knowledge of Christ.  Please God to raise up leaders for the churches that are as zealous for the center of our faith as they are competent and willing to recognize what is transitory and peripheral. 

I recommend the entire essay.

Comments

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

The "Bad Habit of Schism"

(Didn't read the long essay. Yet.)

But was just thinking that the "bad habit of schism" is just one side of a two-sided coin and that the other side is the "bad habit of heresy/apostasy."

[smh]

I don't know anyone at Touchstone who would disagree with that.

[Bill R]

My list grows shorter over the years. It used to be the Apostle's Creed, but now it's just: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved." The Creed is a symbol of orthodoxy, and I strongly adhere to it. But today one can't assume even that minimum. I'll work with what I can get, and if that's at least the apostolic assertion, I'll begin there.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

But sooner or later, don't you have to answer the question, "What's a Jesus?" Lots of churches today have erected idols based on modernism, scientific rationalism and their own imaginations and unchecked desires (throw in demonic influence if you wish) and they call those idols "Jesus Christ." Without a small-o orthodox definition (which the three creeds provide) you can worship trees and call it "Christianity."

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

Not to say Dr. Hutchins is wrong. Indeed we much focus on the center of our faith, and to scorn real Christians who are not of our communions or denominations is not only a mistake, it is a sin.

[Alison]

Thank you for such an edifying post. I have always enjoyed your posts, and I have left comments on the past few ones you have made. As I mentioned, I am an Orthodox Christian with several close Evangelical friends who mean the world to me. One of these friends, in particular, was key in bringing me to Christ, and I will be forever grateful to God for bringing this person into my life.

[Diane]

"Progress...involves a reappraisal of what is central to our Christian heritage and what is transitory and peripheral, what is essential and what is merely a matter of cultural tradition. When we return to the heart and centre of our faith, we find ourselves together in Christ."

Forgive me for taking this conversation a bit sideways, but has anyone but me noticed something? Every day without fail I receive emails (or links to websites) that decry our current conditions, often with admirable eloquence and fearful accuracy. However, just as Os Guinness observed years ago that our society has gained an illusion of freedom through its endless array of choices, so I'm wondering if we are operating with an illusion of effectiveness through our endless parade of words.

For example, on sites like townhall.com I can find an impressive aggregation of insights into the latest encroachment of socialism into our lives. These people know what they're talking about. When I read them, I know more myself. But is this knowledge truly power? At best I usually forward one of the better articles to a few of my friends. They in turn may pass it on to a handful of theirs. Occasionally one of these will even make it to the internet's top play list.

Meanwhile, congress tacks a little hate crime clause onto the defense spending bill, and our lives are potentially changed forever. Even if we know about it and talk about it, the damage is still done.

Perhaps it's time for the church to step away from this not-so-merry-go-round, and return to the assignment I read in scripture this morning: "He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound." (Isaiah 61:1)

This healing and proclamation and opening are not merely words, but are the outworking power of the Spirit. They are not only the source of our unity, but also the measure of whatever worth we have at all.

[Bill R]

"But sooner or later, don't you have to answer the question, "What's a Jesus?" "

Sure. But I start there: I certainly don't end there! By the time I'm "done" I hope to see a perfectly orthodox Jesus in their confession.

[MCModerator]

Comment deleted for violating the following ground rule:

"Respect the ecumenical character of this site. Do not deliberately raise or encourage sectarian apologetics or polemics against other denominations. There are other sites for such things."

[Beth from TN]

Steve, which book is that by Dr. Podles? Thanks.

[MCModerator]

Per the ground rules, please direct questions about moderating of the site to the editor -- do not post them as comments.

Newcomers should also read the ground rules before posting comments.

[Chris]

By the time I married and had a child, I was of the mind that one needed to raise a child in faith rather than a vacuum, thereby giving them something to choose for or against.

I spent 23 years as a protestant, first in a middle of the road Congregational church and then in a far more 'o'rthodox Evangelical church. I also spent most of my waking hours for 10 years in a business organization run by fundementalist Christians. Each added a unique facet to my spiritual journey.

Any time we have a conversion it is always the work of God, but often with the help of those around us. Mine came through the fundementalists around me. They encouraged me to try believing in concrete ways, similar to Pascal's wager and it worked. I developed a love of Jesus that was palpable and seemed insatiable.

After becoming 'bible' Christians, joining an evangelical church, reading my bible religiously, questions arose that had arisen before but which I put aside. Now they nagged even though I loved our minister, our classes etc. One night my frustration peaked until I was in tears and asked the Lord for guidance. Be careful what you pray for! I received the guidance in no uncertain terms. I had to return to the Catholic faith but as part of what I was 'taught', at the top of the list was Christ's high prayer, 'that they may be one'.

My husband is still protestant, I attend services with him every week. We have raised our children TOGETHER in the faith, as both of us are 'o'rthodox in our beliefs. When in one of his angry moods about my reversion to Catholicism, he said I didn't have to go to church with he and my daughter each week. I responded by asking if it had occurred to him that I enjoyed going, which I do. I enjoy the service, I so love the music, I learn from the sermons and most of all I appreciate the clear Christ centered message of both ministers. Do I agree with them on everything? No. Are they orthodox? If believing that Jesus is God and became man, that he died, was buried and rose from the dead, not spiritually or metaphorically but in reality, then yes, they are orthodox. And so, I can worship with them and count them and myself family in the body of Christ.

I believe in the Real Presence as deeply and concretely as I believe in my physical presence, but I am not wedded to 'transubstantiation'. I am wedded to its understanding of the real presence but it IS a mystery and the word, transubstantiation, is one explanation that like all of dogmatic theology, came about in answer to what the Church considered heresy. That the Orthodox use the term 'Mystery' (as we Catholics do as well)makes Christ's presence, body, blood, soul and divinity and the re-presence of Calvary on our altars, no less REAL.

There are issues that must be addressed if we are truly to be 'one', the Real Presence being one of them, but when the basics of Christian orthodoxy are believed, we should rejoice to know how very much we agree on and accept each other as brother and sister in Christ. And it might be interesting to look at the Church's model for addressing 'non-orthodox' differences with 'Orders' rather than schisms and new denominations.

[smh]

Beth:

The book is entitled Sacrilege, and is still readily available. Fr. Neuhaus didn't like it, but I think it a good and necessary book. Lee Podles paid a tremendous personal price to research it and see it into print, for which he will always have my deepest respect and admiration.

[Beth from TN]

Thank you. Steve! I shall indeed check it out.

[Beth from TN]

Hmm. I really wasn't shouting at Steve. That was supposed to be a comma after "Thank you": "Thank you, Steve." Long day . . .

[MCModerator]

Please refer to my previous comment.