A 19th century missionary (Anthony Norris Groves) tried hard to encapsulate a principle on this issue. Something like this from memory.
“I would rather remain in fellowship with those with whom I seriously disagree, for the sake of the spark of faith which may still be in them. Than part with them and by doing so kill that spark.”
And in this fractious age, where there do appear to me to be quite a lot of obvious wolves wearing sheeps’ clothing. that’s pretty hard to live by.
My reading of Matthew 18 is that any final departing is a collective decision. Individually we can do two things. Firstly, do our level best to resolve the issue with the person or persons involved. Secondly alert our collective leadership about the issue.
Then we are subject to the view of that collective leadership.
As an active believer in the value of dissent as a matter of conscience, I feel free to depart myself. I’ve spent time away. But I’ve never left the collective I’ve been a part of for over 50 years.
That’s been over issues which I’ve seen as bigotry. And let me be clear. I think bigotry shows that there is something unorthodox in the practical interpretation of belief, regardless of how apparently orthodox that profession of their faith may appear to be.
But I’ve discovered that hanging in, however much it hurts, has been worth it.
Loving “enemies” and forgiving 70 times 7? Gosh they are hard! But sometimes I’ve found I was wrong, despite my belief that I was being principled. That’s a hard lesson too.
An added complications, of course, is who gets to decide which things are 'Essentials' and which are 'Non-essentials'?
What might be a non-negotiable to a Pentecostal, say, might be a 'non-essential' to a Baptist, a Methodist, a Lutheran, a ...
An inerrantist conservative evangelical is going to have a different set of 'Essentials' to a liberal Protestant mainliner.
I think we'd all agree with 'In all things Charity,' but so often there seems precious little of that.
My own Church is going through a very sore patch with a grievous schism between jurisdictions. We can't point the finger at any one else nor from our own glasshouse throw stones.
It doesn’t depend on denominations. Some folks seem to belong to the suspicious dimension, characterised by Black Adder as “witch sniffers pursweivant”!
I think it’s a pernicious form of self-righteousness. And I agree we all need to watch out for that sin.
It doesn’t depend on denominations. Some folks seem to belong to the suspicious dimension, characterised by Black Adder as “witch sniffers pursweivant”!
I think it’s a pernicious form of self-righteousness. And I agree we all need to watch out for that sin.
Amen! I think it’s showing up in politics as well nowadays as well (possibly especially when politics has become people’s religion…).
I'm not sure how we can end up with non-institutional churches/Christianity.
Even if we had a small group of people meeting in a garden shed we'd soon see them developing informal 'councils' and debates to define what and what not to believe.
Or what made them distinctive from a similar group meeting in another shed down the road.
As soon as we have more than 'two or three' we are going to end up with creeds and definitions.
Heck, even if we say, 'Our group is non-creedal' that in itself is some kind of 'creedal' position- 'Our creed is not to have a creed..'
As a member of a non-creedal denomination, I feel obliged to point out that 'Our group is non-creedal' is not in itself any kind of 'creedal' position, since it says nothing about what we believe - only that as a policy, we don't use institutional statements of belief.
I'm very pleased to hear that, as my wife once got thrown out of a group that, describing itself as tolerant of all, in fact strongly rejected both credal beliefs and those who held them.
I used to be part of a group that put a great deal of stress on 'covenant relationships'.
In reality we had no more 'covenantal' a relationship than anyone else. It became a 'control' thing.
There are healthy and unhealthy ways of applying these things.
It's unrealistic, I think, to expect the kind of intense and 'committed' vow-making relationships that exist in monastic communities in parish or congregational settings.
In the group I was in, 'breaking convenant' was seen as a very serious sin. It even became somewhat cult-like and we were told to 'shun' those who had apparently done so - although I never did that. I kept in touch with people who'd left and was always pleasant towards them when I met them - apart from in one instance but I quickly made amends.
However we organise ourselves we need elasticity, grace and generosity of spirit.
I hasten to add that the schism I'm referring to is at macro Big C level between Moscow and Constantinople rather than at parish level - although individual parishes are affected by it, of course.
Mercifully, it's not affected our parish in any way but I know of parishes where it's had an impact.
An added complications, of course, is who gets to decide which things are 'Essentials' and which are 'Non-essentials'?
What might be a non-negotiable to a Pentecostal, say, might be a 'non-essential' to a Baptist, a Methodist, a Lutheran, a ...
An inerrantist conservative evangelical is going to have a different set of 'Essentials' to a liberal Protestant mainliner.
I think we'd all agree with 'In all things Charity,' but so often there seems precious little of that.
My own Church is going through a very sore patch with a grievous schism between jurisdictions. We can't point the finger at any one else nor from our own glasshouse throw stones.
I think a lot of it is mission-driven. I was at a liberal Methodist Church, we could have Muslims sharing with the work of a soup kitchen. And they could visit our worship services, got along fine. That's charity. We don't need to talk theological beefs, don't need to argue over who Jesus is, don't need to get into bickers. That's not the goal, the telos of this particular gathering.
[Similarly, I'm with a very liberal Episcopal Church now with an out and proud lesbian preacher. She's wonderful, by the way. And we were talking about working with another Episcopal church in the same city that's mostly composed of immigrants and refugees, the focus of the work is ministry to refugees. Now, the leadership of that church is quite conservative, probably opposed to the very notion of women preaching, let alone gay women preaching, etc. But they got along fine because the common task was taking care of people. See how that works?]
It all depends on what the purpose of the gathering is. If you know what you're doing, you can tell where the lines are, and it will - I suspect - fall into place pretty cleanly. Just be respectful.
How is she your Archbishop when the Church in Wales is Disestablished?
Does she believe in traditional credal orthodox Christianity? 😉
In what ways is she 'excellent'?
I know very little about her but have heard some rumblings from conservative clergy who are worried lest she compel them to fly the Pride flag from the church tower.
A 19th century missionary (Anthony Norris Groves) tried hard to encapsulate a principle on this issue. Something like this from memory.
“I would rather remain in fellowship with those with whom I seriously disagree, for the sake of the spark of faith which may still be in them. Than part with them and by doing so kill that spark.”
Thanks for that. Two of my close friends are right-wingers, Christians, and I often struggle to 'remain in fellowship' with them. I imagine they believe their 'spark' is inextinguishable. The point for me is to stay connected and avoid yet another hardening of some kind of dualistic polarisation. It helps to retain the courage of my own convictions; not always easy.
How is she your Archbishop when the Church in Wales is Disestablished?
She is "mine" in the sense that I identify with the people in the community and CinW ministry area. Of course I'm not a CinW member.
Does she believe in traditional credal orthodox Christianity? 😉
I have no reason to believe she does not.
[quote}In what ways is she 'excellent'? [/quote] She seems to be a genuine human being who appears to relate well to people. When she was still 'only' Bishop of Monmouth she personally and unexpectedly replied to an email I sent to her. And the impression I get is that has been working hard to rectify the problems of her Diocese and is now doing the same for the Province. She gave an excellent sermon at last week's Governing Body: https://www.churchinwales.org.uk/en/news-and-events/archbishops-presidential-address-to-governing-body/
I know very little about her but have heard some rumblings from conservative clergy who are worried lest she compel them to fly the Pride flag from the church tower.
Yes, but on the other hand I have heard and read interviews with her in which she's said she wish people would stop concentrating on her gender and sexuality as these aren't the important things!
I know very little about her but have heard some rumblings from conservative clergy who are worried lest she compel them to fly the Pride flag from the church tower.
The one I'm thinking of could do with doing so - whatever line people take on this particular Epiphanies issue.
I was pleased when they sought ordination in the CinW as I thought it indicated they'd moved on from their 'revivalist' background. Visiting their parish a number of times and watching a number of services online I soon realised that they hadn't.
Mercifully, their congregation don't know what they are on about and carry on as they've always done ...
I know very little about her but have heard some rumblings from conservative clergy who are worried lest she compel them to fly the Pride flag from the church tower.
Have they considered growing up?
Indeed. I generally hear such comments as saying much more about those who make them than those about whom they are made.
I'm CiW and Archbishop Cherry is my Archbishop but not my bishop as I'm further west
I'd agree with Baptist Trainfan I think. I gather Archbishop Cherry went to Monmouth diocese at a difficult time and has succeeded in pulling things together from what I heard. I'm hoping she can do the same for Wales as a whole. Heaven knows we've got enough problems and it seems to me that the problems in Bangor seem to be in the cathedral itself rather than in the diocese but I could be wrong
My own church has a tower and I've seen the Union flag, the Welsh flag, the Cross of St David and that of the CiW but not any others flown ! It depends who is brave enough to go to the top of the tower and do battle with seagulls!!
I kid you not
In general I'm hopeful although we shall have to see what we shall see of course
A 19th century missionary (Anthony Norris Groves) tried hard to encapsulate a principle on this issue. Something like this from memory.
“I would rather remain in fellowship with those with whom I seriously disagree, for the sake of the spark of faith which may still be in them. Than part with them and by doing so kill that spark.” ...
That sounds great, and indeed, it is particularly remarkable for its date and its context of a cluster of small and closely related ecclesial households with collectively quite a fissiparous reputation within which it was uttered, but for 2026 I am not quite as encouraged by that as other shipmates may feel I ought to be.
We had a big row about something where I am a few years ago, which for many on both sides of the row was an issue of principle. The lesson I hope I eventually learnt from this is that the true command is to remain in love and fellowship with a Christian or group of Christians one disagrees with, disapproves of or thinks is/are wrong NOT 'in spite of ' the issue that divides BUT 'irrespective of' it.
"For the sake of the spark of faith which may still be in them" is not enough. Inherent in that very statement, however expressed, is condescension, 'even though I am enlightened and you are not, I will still force myself to love you because it is my compassionate duty to'.
A few background realisations in the process have included:-
a. There is a long history of Christians splitting with one another, sometimes of things that matter but all too often, on things that do not.
b. Nobody's sense of his or her own intellectual or spiritual integrity should be so fragile as to assume it is somehow contaminated by being associated with other people they disagree with, even those whose opinions they abhor. If that were the case, how could Jesus have been prepared to be incarnate at all?
c. Jesus commands us to love our brothers and sisters, both collectively and individually. That is because the other/s is/are someone he loves and has chosen, not because I have. viz St Paul's simple challenge at Romans 14:4 - 'Who are you to judge the servant of another?'.
d. However sure I might be on any of the issues that divide people, if people are divided on it, the line between the sides is probably in God's eyes, against the time scale of eternity, and objectively, a lot less obvious that it appears to me. So, however convinced one is, at least allow for the possibility that 'the other side' might actually be right, even if not necessarily for the reason they think they are.
I recognise that this is all easier to say than to live by.
I am sure also, though, there will be shipmates who will be horrified by what I have said, or will take the line that this is OK for a lot of issues on which people divide themselves but not X, Y, Z or whichever is the one they feel is really, really important because that one is "an Essential'.
I remember reading it in “The History of the Brethren Movement”. Very good book. Anthony Norris Groves was a generous man.
(From memory, the context was J N Darby’s influence and the journey towards the foundation of the Exclusive Brethren movement.)
This is not my scene, but one of the RW friends I mentioned was scarred by dispensationalism as a young man and spent quite a while thinking his way past it - which is why I have heard of Darby. So Groves' generosity in the face of that kind of thing is pointed, even to me.
That’s what I thought. I’ve met some victims too. The Protestant tendency to split has produced some baleful sectarian offshoots. It’s possible to be too generous!
Hmmm ... perhaps lack of generosity on both sides led to those splits and schisms in the first place?
It may not have been a case of being 'too generous' but not generous enough.
I often think that macro splits and schisms - that between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox - that between Rome and Constantinople in 1054 - with a domino effect across the other Patriarchates - could and should have been resolved by greater generosity on both sides.
The same might well be true of the multiple Protestant splits and schisms within both the immediate Post-Reformation churches and those that have developed since.
In my 'restorationist' days I must have lived through 3 or 4 major splits during the 18 years I was involved with it all - plus plenty of individuals coming and going for one reason or another.
Sure, some of these things can lead to further expansion and that's been the case in missiological terms in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere - but with considerable damage to groups and individuals.
Because we made such a big deal out of 'covenant relationships' and cultivated close fellowship it was like going through a divorce or a relationship breakdown every five minutes.
The genii is out of the bottle and we can't go back to some kind of monolithic and united Christendom - if indeed that ever existed. I don't want to see an authoritarian Pope, Emperor or Tsar calling the shots.
But neither do I see the proliferation of competing 'sects' - in the sociological sense - as a healthy state of affairs either.
Post-Christendom I think all of us are in 'gathered church' or 'sectarian' mode to some extent or other - even the Big C Churches.
The key has to be 'intentionality' and 'gathered' or intentional communities need not become insular and sectarian in the negative sense.
The genii is out of the bottle and we can't go back to some kind of monolithic and united Christendom - if indeed that ever existed.
The more I know of early Christianity, the less convinced I am that there was anything like a monolithic faith where everyone believed the same thing. We can see the signs of diversity in the New Testament and once you step outside that and look at other sources, you see how diverse the early Christians were, as the faith developed in very different contexts. We are aware more of how Christianity developed within the Roman Empire and often fail to realise just how much development and expansion there was outside the Empire, especially into the east.
Was the early church "united"? Again, that is debatable. We have clear evidence in the NT and in early Christian writings of occasions when churches divided and groups were thrown out because of "false teaching" - some of which we might regard these days as acceptable.
This is where - back in the days when I used to run with the Renewal Movement - I always struggled with the oft-quoted phrase of "we are getting the Church back to New Testament purity". There simply was no New Testament Church that was pure and united in belief and practice. Right from the start, there was huge amounts of diversity and quite a lot of conflict.
This is where - back in the days when I used to run with the Renewal Movement - I always struggled with the oft-quoted phrase of "we are getting the Church back to New Testament purity". There simply was no New Testament Church that was pure and united in belief and practice.
Interestingly, the Conference they eventually signed on with was not a principally LGBTQ-friendly conference, but one that espoused the Baptist principle of (if I'm not screwing this up) soul competency. The conference believed earnestly in a church's right to set its own policies on matters that were not fundamental, which included matters of LGBTQ identity. A church had the right to set its own rules.
Soul Competency is definitely an American Baptist principle, but it really refers to the individual’s accountability to God for their personal faith. I suspect the principle you’re after here is the autonomy of the local church, which says the local church—the local congregation being the only entities called “church” among American Baptists—is free to govern itself as it sees fit.
In this way, these literal American Baptist Churches were united in common praxis that included freedom of conscience. I have some old churchy saying about the categories of unity, tolerance, and charity, but I can't quite get it to come out right.
“In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity.” The phrase has been attributed to various people.
Yes, but the principle does exist. It is the principle of Congregationalism. The belief that the only place where the Church can truly be discerned is in the local fellowship of believers. Therefore, it can not be dictated from outside the fellowship.
This is held by BUGB and is a common Baptist belief.
The URC, with its sizable Congregational heritage, in its handling of the LGBT+ debate, actually passed the final resolution on those grounds. Not because it held that it was correct, but because, without it, it denied local congregations that did hold it was correct the freedom to do so.
So, yes, an actual Baptist belief, but not under that name.
Perhaps a final thought on our exchanges? You’re quite right about the implication of superiority but I’m pretty sure Anthony Norris Groves was aware of that sense of superiority in his implied target audience!
Whatever, the world would have been a better place if Darby hadn’t made such a wrong theory (dispensationalism) out of concept of dispensations. And gone so far as forming an exclusive spin off.
He and many others who followed him might have been better off if he had remained in fellowship with more open, more generous, colleagues. As you and I have both seen.
The URC, with its sizable Congregational heritage, in its handling of the LGBT+ debate, actually passed the final resolution on those grounds. Not because it held that it was correct, but because, without it, it denied local congregations that did hold it was correct the freedom to do so.
I was at the 2012 General Assembly which paved the way for churches to offer same-sex blessings (this was before Equal Marriages had become legal). There was some evangelical intervention to prevent the motion being passed, but it did pass, on the grounds you mention. Interestingly enough I was representing Eastern Synod which is overwhelmingly ex-Congregational and proud of it!
@Rufus T Firefly - I belonged to a group that thought it was returning things back to 'New Testament purity' - and even going 'beyond' that in terms of signs and wonders and 'power'. We never saw much of those ...
Yes, a chimera.
And yes, even as a Big O Christian where some of the apparent 'continuities' with the earliest believers tend to be over-egged - tell it not in Gath - I'd agree there was a lot of diversity back in those early centuries as things gradually coalesced.
I'm not quite sure which groups you have in mind who may have been 'acceptable.' It depends what yard-stick we use for acceptability.
It's tricky with some of the more obscure groups as we only know about them from the writings of their detractors and opponents. That said, E H Broadbent in The Pilgrim Church seemed willing to include anyone and everyone who had some kind of issue with Rome and centralised authority - even groups that most of us might find iffy or consider beyond the pale as it were.
There are blurry edges of course. Some groups deemed 'heretical' would have had 'orthodox' views on some issues but not others. Full on Orthodoxy / orthodoxy in and of itself is also no guarantee that we ain't going to be jerks in some way or another.
Interestingly, the Conference they eventually signed on with was not a principally LGBTQ-friendly conference, but one that espoused the Baptist principle of (if I'm not screwing this up) soul competency. The conference believed earnestly in a church's right to set its own policies on matters that were not fundamental, which included matters of LGBTQ identity. A church had the right to set its own rules.
Soul Competency is definitely an American Baptist principle, but it really refers to the individual’s accountability to God for their personal faith. I suspect the principle you’re after here is the autonomy of the local church, which says the local church—the local congregation being the only entities called “church” among American Baptists—is free to govern itself as it sees fit.
In this way, these literal American Baptist Churches were united in common praxis that included freedom of conscience. I have some old churchy saying about the categories of unity, tolerance, and charity, but I can't quite get it to come out right.
“In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity.” The phrase has been attributed to various people.
Yes, but the principle does exist. It is the principle of Congregationalism. The belief that the only place where the Church can truly be discerned is in the local fellowship of believers. Therefore, it can not be dictated from outside the fellowship.
This is held by BUGB and is a common Baptist belief. . . .
So, yes, an actual Baptist belief, but not under that name.
I’m sorry, under what name?
And what principle did I suggest doesn’t exist, or isn’t an actual Baptist belief?
I think that the early church spent a lot of time hammering out what they thought over time, in community. Eventually certain intellectual lines in the sand got drawn and certain ideas were determined to be "outside the norm." You had to accept both Jesus' humanity and Jesus' divinity, which created some rather interesting intellectual formulae. A lot of the earliest outcasts were folks who couldn't cope with either, most famous Arius at Nicaea.
I think orthodoxy may have been an apophatic process of "Hey! We have this new thing! Let's try to work out what it is!" And there was a long fairly political process of conversation and even compromise as people sorted that out. I think some folks are more comfortable with how frankly political that was than others.
Curiously, understanding the Nicene Creed as a political statement makes it easier for me to recite than understanding it as an ontological statement about reality.
So, yes, an actual Baptist belief, but not under that name.
In Britain, anyway - although some years ago there were voices in some quarters saying "let leaders lead". I think this was influenced partly by the renewal movement and also by church meetings often debating trivial matters.
Some Baptists elsewhere are more hierarchical than British ones and may not sign up to "congregational discernment" in the same way.
So, yes, an actual Baptist belief, but not under that name.
In Britain, anyway - although some years ago there were voices in some quarters saying "let leaders lead". I think this was influenced partly by the renewal movement and also by church meetings often debating trivial matters.
Some Baptists elsewhere are more hierarchical than British ones and may not sign up to "congregational discernment" in the same way.
Pardon the polisci major if he gets a bit cynical...
I feel like a lot of these are driven by particular dynamics. Individual actors will meta-game, look at the systems and see "well, I'll get more power if I play the hierarchy game, so I'll promote the hierarchy this time." But as circumstances change, they'll change their tune to "let the congregation decide" when that gives them what they want.
It's like some political arguments here in the USA. If a narrowly-defined political target is the big goal, then questions of institutional integrity get shoved aside really fast.
And you have to consider each individual church with a microscope to see what's actually going on. It's fascinating, but I don't know how many big scholars have the resources to get up in each and every little tiny community and do that nitpicky work.
Wrt the early church, doubtless the expectation of Jesus returning within the founders' lifetimes also had a great impact on what was considered an important issue or not.
Wrt the early church, doubtless the expectation of Jesus returning within the founders' lifetimes also had a great impact on what was considered an important issue or not.
And I've read theories that you can watch Paul actively changing his priorities as he shifts gears over the course of his lifetime from "imminent eschatology" to "buckle down and set up institutions for the long haul." Pseudepigrapha or not, I think there's good evidence for that happening.
Curiously, understanding the Nicene Creed as a political statement makes it easier for me to recite than understanding it as an ontological statement about reality.
I think it’s an ontological statement arrived at by political means! Well, largely anyway. I think the Trinitarians and fully divine/fully human theologians won the arguments as well. But only just. At one stage it looked like Arianism might win the day.
Wrt the early church, doubtless the expectation of Jesus returning within the founders' lifetimes also had a great impact on what was considered an important issue or not.
And I've read theories that you can watch Paul actively changing his priorities as he shifts gears over the course of his lifetime from "imminent eschatology" to "buckle down and set up institutions for the long haul." Pseudepigrapha or not, I think there's good evidence for that happening.
Curiously, understanding the Nicene Creed as a political statement makes it easier for me to recite than understanding it as an ontological statement about reality.
I think it’s an ontological statement arrived at by political means! Well, largely anyway. I think the Trinitarians and fully divine/fully human theologians won the arguments as well. But only just. At one stage it looked like Arianism might win the day.
I see it as more of a peace treaty framed in terms of the minimum acceptable to the most people in order to keep as many inside the tent as possible.
Curiously, understanding the Nicene Creed as a political statement makes it easier for me to recite than understanding it as an ontological statement about reality.
I think it’s an ontological statement arrived at by political means! Well, largely anyway. I think the Trinitarians and fully divine/fully human theologians won the arguments as well. But only just. At one stage it looked like Arianism might win the day.
I see it as more of a peace treaty framed in terms of the minimum acceptable to the most people in order to keep as many inside the tent as possible.
I've not seen the 'Both/both' thing on social media.
If did I'd react against it.
@Barnabas62 doesn't have the monopoly on 'non-conformity' in its more general sense.
The Nicene Creed was 'political'. It was a compromise to some extent. It wasn't enough of a compromise for others - certainly those who couldn't accept it. From what I can gather it took a long time to roll out and to gain acceptance.
As with anything like that there are inevitably going to be those 'outside the tent'.
What do those inside do about that? Extend the tent pegs to create more space? Batten them down to ensure the tent is as taut as possible?
Loosen or tighten the guy-ropes as conditions require?
At the very least respect for other campers is required.
There is some very intemperate language about Arius in some of the Orthodox liturgical texts. I'd tone that down if I could. It's possible to hold to particular positions without slagging off those who believe or think differently.
There are those of course who would argue that formal creeds make 'inquisitions' and heresy-hunts inevitable.
Does this open them to the elements with no tent pegs or fly-sheets at all?
The tent can become too tight.
The tent can become too slack.
Peter's question at the Transfiguration is an interesting one. Shall we make 'booths' - one for Christ, one for Moses, one for Elijah.
We try to make permanent structures. 'Booths' to contain the uncontainable.
We may vary in the extent we may see our structures as provisional but it behoves us to behave in the light of Eternity as it were.
Interestingly, the Conference they eventually signed on with was not a principally LGBTQ-friendly conference, but one that espoused the Baptist principle of (if I'm not screwing this up) soul competency. The conference believed earnestly in a church's right to set its own policies on matters that were not fundamental, which included matters of LGBTQ identity. A church had the right to set its own rules.
Soul Competency is definitely an American Baptist principle, but it really refers to the individual’s accountability to God for their personal faith. I suspect the principle you’re after here is the autonomy of the local church, which says the local church—the local congregation being the only entities called “church” among American Baptists—is free to govern itself as it sees fit.
In this way, these literal American Baptist Churches were united in common praxis that included freedom of conscience. I have some old churchy saying about the categories of unity, tolerance, and charity, but I can't quite get it to come out right.
“In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity.” The phrase has been attributed to various people.
Yes, but the principle does exist. It is the principle of Congregationalism. The belief that the only place where the Church can truly be discerned is in the local fellowship of believers. Therefore, it can not be dictated from outside the fellowship.
This is held by BUGB and is a common Baptist belief. . . .
So, yes, an actual Baptist belief, but not under that name.
I’m sorry, under what name?
And what principle did I suggest doesn’t exist, or isn’t an actual Baptist belief?
Under the name of "Soul Competency", rather it is part of "Congregational Discernment" - the ability of the congregation to discern the Church in its context, not of any wider body (or smaller).
Comments
“I would rather remain in fellowship with those with whom I seriously disagree, for the sake of the spark of faith which may still be in them. Than part with them and by doing so kill that spark.”
And in this fractious age, where there do appear to me to be quite a lot of obvious wolves wearing sheeps’ clothing. that’s pretty hard to live by.
My reading of Matthew 18 is that any final departing is a collective decision. Individually we can do two things. Firstly, do our level best to resolve the issue with the person or persons involved. Secondly alert our collective leadership about the issue.
Then we are subject to the view of that collective leadership.
As an active believer in the value of dissent as a matter of conscience, I feel free to depart myself. I’ve spent time away. But I’ve never left the collective I’ve been a part of for over 50 years.
That’s been over issues which I’ve seen as bigotry. And let me be clear. I think bigotry shows that there is something unorthodox in the practical interpretation of belief, regardless of how apparently orthodox that profession of their faith may appear to be.
But I’ve discovered that hanging in, however much it hurts, has been worth it.
Loving “enemies” and forgiving 70 times 7? Gosh they are hard! But sometimes I’ve found I was wrong, despite my belief that I was being principled. That’s a hard lesson too.
What might be a non-negotiable to a Pentecostal, say, might be a 'non-essential' to a Baptist, a Methodist, a Lutheran, a ...
An inerrantist conservative evangelical is going to have a different set of 'Essentials' to a liberal Protestant mainliner.
I think we'd all agree with 'In all things Charity,' but so often there seems precious little of that.
My own Church is going through a very sore patch with a grievous schism between jurisdictions. We can't point the finger at any one else nor from our own glasshouse throw stones.
It doesn’t depend on denominations. Some folks seem to belong to the suspicious dimension, characterised by Black Adder as “witch sniffers pursweivant”!
I think it’s a pernicious form of self-righteousness. And I agree we all need to watch out for that sin.
Amen! I think it’s showing up in politics as well nowadays as well (possibly especially when politics has become people’s religion…).
Conversely, in c.2000, some were stressing the thought that the churches were in a "covenant relationship" with each other.
Because one can have non-evangelical nonconformists (quite a few Methodists and United Reformed folk, for a start) and evangelical Anglicans.
In reality we had no more 'covenantal' a relationship than anyone else. It became a 'control' thing.
There are healthy and unhealthy ways of applying these things.
It's unrealistic, I think, to expect the kind of intense and 'committed' vow-making relationships that exist in monastic communities in parish or congregational settings.
In the group I was in, 'breaking convenant' was seen as a very serious sin. It even became somewhat cult-like and we were told to 'shun' those who had apparently done so - although I never did that. I kept in touch with people who'd left and was always pleasant towards them when I met them - apart from in one instance but I quickly made amends.
However we organise ourselves we need elasticity, grace and generosity of spirit.
Mind you, the early dissenters did (of necessity) have a very strong covenant relationship within their churches.
True. The propensity for arguing remained however. “We may not agree about everything but we agree they have got it wrong!”
I’m not sure there was that much safety in numbers.
Of course.
@Barnabas62 - that too.
I hasten to add that the schism I'm referring to is at macro Big C level between Moscow and Constantinople rather than at parish level - although individual parishes are affected by it, of course.
Mercifully, it's not affected our parish in any way but I know of parishes where it's had an impact.
I think a lot of it is mission-driven. I was at a liberal Methodist Church, we could have Muslims sharing with the work of a soup kitchen. And they could visit our worship services, got along fine. That's charity. We don't need to talk theological beefs, don't need to argue over who Jesus is, don't need to get into bickers. That's not the goal, the telos of this particular gathering.
[Similarly, I'm with a very liberal Episcopal Church now with an out and proud lesbian preacher. She's wonderful, by the way. And we were talking about working with another Episcopal church in the same city that's mostly composed of immigrants and refugees, the focus of the work is ministry to refugees. Now, the leadership of that church is quite conservative, probably opposed to the very notion of women preaching, let alone gay women preaching, etc. But they got along fine because the common task was taking care of people. See how that works?]
It all depends on what the purpose of the gathering is. If you know what you're doing, you can tell where the lines are, and it will - I suspect - fall into place pretty cleanly. Just be respectful.
Things get more complicated if we go further than that.
Yep. And that's why it's important to talk about things before you do them. And mind your boundaries.
Does she believe in traditional credal orthodox Christianity? 😉
In what ways is she 'excellent'?
I know very little about her but have heard some rumblings from conservative clergy who are worried lest she compel them to fly the Pride flag from the church tower.
Thanks for that. Two of my close friends are right-wingers, Christians, and I often struggle to 'remain in fellowship' with them. I imagine they believe their 'spark' is inextinguishable. The point for me is to stay connected and avoid yet another hardening of some kind of dualistic polarisation. It helps to retain the courage of my own convictions; not always easy.
I have no reason to believe she does not.
[quote}In what ways is she 'excellent'? [/quote] She seems to be a genuine human being who appears to relate well to people. When she was still 'only' Bishop of Monmouth she personally and unexpectedly replied to an email I sent to her. And the impression I get is that has been working hard to rectify the problems of her Diocese and is now doing the same for the Province. She gave an excellent sermon at last week's Governing Body: https://www.churchinwales.org.uk/en/news-and-events/archbishops-presidential-address-to-governing-body/
Yes, but on the other hand I have heard and read interviews with her in which she's said she wish people would stop concentrating on her gender and sexuality as these aren't the important things!
Have they considered growing up?
I was pleased when they sought ordination in the CinW as I thought it indicated they'd moved on from their 'revivalist' background. Visiting their parish a number of times and watching a number of services online I soon realised that they hadn't.
Mercifully, their congregation don't know what they are on about and carry on as they've always done ...
In good Anglican style.
They've got a very good choir, mind.
I'd agree with Baptist Trainfan I think. I gather Archbishop Cherry went to Monmouth diocese at a difficult time and has succeeded in pulling things together from what I heard. I'm hoping she can do the same for Wales as a whole. Heaven knows we've got enough problems and it seems to me that the problems in Bangor seem to be in the cathedral itself rather than in the diocese but I could be wrong
My own church has a tower and I've seen the Union flag, the Welsh flag, the Cross of St David and that of the CiW but not any others flown ! It depends who is brave enough to go to the top of the tower and do battle with seagulls!!
I kid you not
In general I'm hopeful although we shall have to see what we shall see of course
We had a big row about something where I am a few years ago, which for many on both sides of the row was an issue of principle. The lesson I hope I eventually learnt from this is that the true command is to remain in love and fellowship with a Christian or group of Christians one disagrees with, disapproves of or thinks is/are wrong NOT 'in spite of ' the issue that divides BUT 'irrespective of' it.
"For the sake of the spark of faith which may still be in them" is not enough. Inherent in that very statement, however expressed, is condescension, 'even though I am enlightened and you are not, I will still force myself to love you because it is my compassionate duty to'.
A few background realisations in the process have included:-
a. There is a long history of Christians splitting with one another, sometimes of things that matter but all too often, on things that do not.
b. Nobody's sense of his or her own intellectual or spiritual integrity should be so fragile as to assume it is somehow contaminated by being associated with other people they disagree with, even those whose opinions they abhor. If that were the case, how could Jesus have been prepared to be incarnate at all?
c. Jesus commands us to love our brothers and sisters, both collectively and individually. That is because the other/s is/are someone he loves and has chosen, not because I have. viz St Paul's simple challenge at Romans 14:4 - 'Who are you to judge the servant of another?'.
d. However sure I might be on any of the issues that divide people, if people are divided on it, the line between the sides is probably in God's eyes, against the time scale of eternity, and objectively, a lot less obvious that it appears to me. So, however convinced one is, at least allow for the possibility that 'the other side' might actually be right, even if not necessarily for the reason they think they are.
I recognise that this is all easier to say than to live by.
I am sure also, though, there will be shipmates who will be horrified by what I have said, or will take the line that this is OK for a lot of issues on which people divide themselves but not X, Y, Z or whichever is the one they feel is really, really important because that one is "an Essential'.
I remember reading it in “The History of the Brethren Movement”. Very good book. Anthony Norris Groves was a generous man.
(From memory, the context was J N Darby’s influence and the journey towards the foundation of the Exclusive Brethren movement.)
This is not my scene, but one of the RW friends I mentioned was scarred by dispensationalism as a young man and spent quite a while thinking his way past it - which is why I have heard of Darby. So Groves' generosity in the face of that kind of thing is pointed, even to me.
It may not have been a case of being 'too generous' but not generous enough.
I often think that macro splits and schisms - that between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox - that between Rome and Constantinople in 1054 - with a domino effect across the other Patriarchates - could and should have been resolved by greater generosity on both sides.
The same might well be true of the multiple Protestant splits and schisms within both the immediate Post-Reformation churches and those that have developed since.
In my 'restorationist' days I must have lived through 3 or 4 major splits during the 18 years I was involved with it all - plus plenty of individuals coming and going for one reason or another.
Sure, some of these things can lead to further expansion and that's been the case in missiological terms in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere - but with considerable damage to groups and individuals.
Because we made such a big deal out of 'covenant relationships' and cultivated close fellowship it was like going through a divorce or a relationship breakdown every five minutes.
The genii is out of the bottle and we can't go back to some kind of monolithic and united Christendom - if indeed that ever existed. I don't want to see an authoritarian Pope, Emperor or Tsar calling the shots.
But neither do I see the proliferation of competing 'sects' - in the sociological sense - as a healthy state of affairs either.
Post-Christendom I think all of us are in 'gathered church' or 'sectarian' mode to some extent or other - even the Big C Churches.
The key has to be 'intentionality' and 'gathered' or intentional communities need not become insular and sectarian in the negative sense.
The more I know of early Christianity, the less convinced I am that there was anything like a monolithic faith where everyone believed the same thing. We can see the signs of diversity in the New Testament and once you step outside that and look at other sources, you see how diverse the early Christians were, as the faith developed in very different contexts. We are aware more of how Christianity developed within the Roman Empire and often fail to realise just how much development and expansion there was outside the Empire, especially into the east.
Was the early church "united"? Again, that is debatable. We have clear evidence in the NT and in early Christian writings of occasions when churches divided and groups were thrown out because of "false teaching" - some of which we might regard these days as acceptable.
This is where - back in the days when I used to run with the Renewal Movement - I always struggled with the oft-quoted phrase of "we are getting the Church back to New Testament purity". There simply was no New Testament Church that was pure and united in belief and practice. Right from the start, there was huge amounts of diversity and quite a lot of conflict.
That diversity produced human casualties as did the search for unity. We seem to have difficulty in accepting the implications of “we know in part”.
Yes, but the principle does exist. It is the principle of Congregationalism. The belief that the only place where the Church can truly be discerned is in the local fellowship of believers. Therefore, it can not be dictated from outside the fellowship.
This is held by BUGB and is a common Baptist belief.
The URC, with its sizable Congregational heritage, in its handling of the LGBT+ debate, actually passed the final resolution on those grounds. Not because it held that it was correct, but because, without it, it denied local congregations that did hold it was correct the freedom to do so.
So, yes, an actual Baptist belief, but not under that name.
Perhaps a final thought on our exchanges? You’re quite right about the implication of superiority but I’m pretty sure Anthony Norris Groves was aware of that sense of superiority in his implied target audience!
Whatever, the world would have been a better place if Darby hadn’t made such a wrong theory (dispensationalism) out of concept of dispensations. And gone so far as forming an exclusive spin off.
He and many others who followed him might have been better off if he had remained in fellowship with more open, more generous, colleagues. As you and I have both seen.
Yes, a chimera.
And yes, even as a Big O Christian where some of the apparent 'continuities' with the earliest believers tend to be over-egged - tell it not in Gath - I'd agree there was a lot of diversity back in those early centuries as things gradually coalesced.
I'm not quite sure which groups you have in mind who may have been 'acceptable.' It depends what yard-stick we use for acceptability.
It's tricky with some of the more obscure groups as we only know about them from the writings of their detractors and opponents. That said, E H Broadbent in The Pilgrim Church seemed willing to include anyone and everyone who had some kind of issue with Rome and centralised authority - even groups that most of us might find iffy or consider beyond the pale as it were.
There are blurry edges of course. Some groups deemed 'heretical' would have had 'orthodox' views on some issues but not others. Full on Orthodoxy / orthodoxy in and of itself is also no guarantee that we ain't going to be jerks in some way or another.
And what principle did I suggest doesn’t exist, or isn’t an actual Baptist belief?
I think orthodoxy may have been an apophatic process of "Hey! We have this new thing! Let's try to work out what it is!" And there was a long fairly political process of conversation and even compromise as people sorted that out. I think some folks are more comfortable with how frankly political that was than others.
Curiously, understanding the Nicene Creed as a political statement makes it easier for me to recite than understanding it as an ontological statement about reality.
Some Baptists elsewhere are more hierarchical than British ones and may not sign up to "congregational discernment" in the same way.
Pardon the polisci major if he gets a bit cynical...
I feel like a lot of these are driven by particular dynamics. Individual actors will meta-game, look at the systems and see "well, I'll get more power if I play the hierarchy game, so I'll promote the hierarchy this time." But as circumstances change, they'll change their tune to "let the congregation decide" when that gives them what they want.
It's like some political arguments here in the USA. If a narrowly-defined political target is the big goal, then questions of institutional integrity get shoved aside really fast.
And you have to consider each individual church with a microscope to see what's actually going on. It's fascinating, but I don't know how many big scholars have the resources to get up in each and every little tiny community and do that nitpicky work.
And I've read theories that you can watch Paul actively changing his priorities as he shifts gears over the course of his lifetime from "imminent eschatology" to "buckle down and set up institutions for the long haul." Pseudepigrapha or not, I think there's good evidence for that happening.
I think it’s an ontological statement arrived at by political means! Well, largely anyway. I think the Trinitarians and fully divine/fully human theologians won the arguments as well. But only just. At one stage it looked like Arianism might win the day.
I agree.
I see it as more of a peace treaty framed in terms of the minimum acceptable to the most people in order to keep as many inside the tent as possible.
As the wags on other social media like to say...
"Both? Both! Both is good!"
I've not seen the 'Both/both' thing on social media.
If did I'd react against it.
@Barnabas62 doesn't have the monopoly on 'non-conformity' in its more general sense.
The Nicene Creed was 'political'. It was a compromise to some extent. It wasn't enough of a compromise for others - certainly those who couldn't accept it. From what I can gather it took a long time to roll out and to gain acceptance.
As with anything like that there are inevitably going to be those 'outside the tent'.
What do those inside do about that? Extend the tent pegs to create more space? Batten them down to ensure the tent is as taut as possible?
Loosen or tighten the guy-ropes as conditions require?
At the very least respect for other campers is required.
There is some very intemperate language about Arius in some of the Orthodox liturgical texts. I'd tone that down if I could. It's possible to hold to particular positions without slagging off those who believe or think differently.
There are those of course who would argue that formal creeds make 'inquisitions' and heresy-hunts inevitable.
Does this open them to the elements with no tent pegs or fly-sheets at all?
The tent can become too tight.
The tent can become too slack.
Peter's question at the Transfiguration is an interesting one. Shall we make 'booths' - one for Christ, one for Moses, one for Elijah.
We try to make permanent structures. 'Booths' to contain the uncontainable.
We may vary in the extent we may see our structures as provisional but it behoves us to behave in the light of Eternity as it were.
Under the name of "Soul Competency", rather it is part of "Congregational Discernment" - the ability of the congregation to discern the Church in its context, not of any wider body (or smaller).