Episcopalian and PC-USA debacles show perils of ecumenicism

This past week has seen the theological chaos and genuine debacles on the part of both the The Episcopal Church USA and the Presbyterian Church - USA, as both rather readily and startingly have begun to cave in to social activist mentality and varying strains of political-correctness at expense of doctrine and Scripture.

Though it is true that those more closely acquainted to the recent trends of both of these churches will not be surprised, the matter goes beyond internal schism. Indeed, the theological shipwreck of the Episcopal and PC-USA churches in America gives a stern warning and somewhat jarring stop sign to the ecumenical optimism of the 70's right through the 90's among Christian denominations and churches. The lesson is that a body is going to hold specific stances and beliefs, they necessarily must subscribe to a degree of exclusivity, and yes, even selectiveness. If they fail to do so, if they try to be all-inclusive of all viewpoints and paradigms of life, then they will end up with no clear meaning at all. The center will not hold. An ecumenical spirit and hope should not lead to misplaced trust or knaive ignoring of malignant momentums or incompatible outlooks.

This lesson has application in foreign and cultural relations as well. It is not possible to be all things to all people, or to include or ascribe to all views an equal value. Nor is it wise or sensible to even try to do so. What is happening to the once large and influential Episocopal and Presbyterian-USA bodies is a metaphor for some of the nation's dilemma as a whole. Especially as it applies to the ill-conceived concept of `multiculturalism' for its own sake which of late has taken on the form more of a specific rejection of Western cultural legacy or even the idea of a normative standard. The laudable attempt to understand and take some cognizance of other cultures and lifestyles has become instead a fear to take a clear principled stand on some matters, and to dare name some things and practices as not in the best interest or moral. The important goal of avoiding compulsion of others has been allowed to undermine the equally important task of setting a standard, of naming a benchmark that represents `doing better' and the latter of course requires judgment of some choices as far less constructive than others. In a relativistic world as the present has become, such as Pope Benedict XVI so strongly pointed out in a recent statement, the willingness to criticize or name some actions as harmful has been erased.

The doctrinal chaos and direction choices, and impending schisms, in the Episcopal Church and PC-USA thus find their relevance to other denominations, faiths, and even the secular citizens of America, as a red-flag of warning for the overall direction of a value-free, relativist social paradigm and its likely fruits. Unwilling or lacking the conviction to set limits and make some value judgements, such a culture cannot easily find a consensus or voice to even set policy. Without policy and constraints, social and cultural disarray and selfishly motivated anarchy follows in due time.

These are just some initial thoughts in the wake of this disturbing hard turn toward a more value-free stance on the part of the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian-USA. I will discuss them more at a future time. Ironically, it bolsters the caution and slow pace currently extant where the ongoing attempts at re-union by the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are concerned. The forces that pulled them apart did not come into being in even a century's time, but over multiple centuries. Though bridging this gap again will ideally not take so long; the schism can not be quickly resolved without grave risk of distorting principled positions on both sides.

I guess one might say that the present lesson is that the desire for unity is best exercised in the practice of mutual respect and attempt to accurately learn the position of the other. NOT in the "watering down" or `shortchanging' one's position and the value of their cultural legacy, or ignoring real points of dispute. This definition of ecumenical spirit does justice to both the chasms that divide us, and the instinctive yearning to bridge them. And goes for social, relgious, and international divides alike.

Writing this, I realize that the topic was covered earlier by me in some respects on 1 March 2006. Intriguingly, the topic of the error of trying to square Christianity with Egalitarianism forecast the result of the Episcopal General Convention this June in many respects, as they chose the path of making doctrine bend to the present. It can be found here:

Faith's convictions and Egalitarianism don't meet easily

- Anthony

Faith's convictions and Egalitarianism don't meet easily

Today was Ash Wednesday, inaugurating the Catholic season of Lent with the ritual laying on of ashes. It is a time of reflection and abstinence, as the solemn time of Easter approaches for Christians. However, it so happens this week there has occurred a minor set-to between the Reverand Jerry Falwell and the Jerusalem Post, regarding which Rev. Falwell released a statement this day.

The point of contention is the oft-debated one of whether members of the Jewish faith must convert to Christianity first, before being able to go to heaven. A front page column in the Jerusalem Post by an evangelical pastor and an orthodox rabbi had claimed to "have apparently persuaded leading Baptist preacher Jerry Falwell that Jews can get to heaven without being converted to Christianity."

Falwell's statement today was a blunt, and categoric rejection of this claim, saying in part:
""While I am a strong supporter of the State of Israel and dearly love the Jewish people and believe them to be the chosen people of God, I continue to stand on the foundational biblical principle that all people — Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Jews, Muslims, etc. — must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to enter heaven.

"Dr. Hagee called me today and said he never made these statements to the Jerusalem Post or to anyone else. He assured me that he would immediately contact the Jerusalem Post and request a correction."

But it is not this rejection and clarification that really is pertinent to this writing. For purposes of this post, it doesn't matter which view one believes regarding salvation. Rather, the point of interest is what Falwell said next, for hidden in it is a factor that this blog has long considered crucial to understanding the current clash dubbed by some, `the culture wars'.

Falwell said this: " "In this age of political correctness and diversity, the traditional evangelical belief that salvation is available only through faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is often portrayed as closed-minded and bigoted.

"But if one is to believe in Jesus Christ, he must believe in His words: 'I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father but by Me' (John 14:6). I simply cannot alter my belief that Jesus is The Way to heaven, as He taught."

A straight-forward declaration of belief, itself hardly surprising. But the key is the phrase "in this age of political correctness and diversity" --- the traditional evangelical position (and a closely related Catholic one for that matter) that maintains that the way to salvation is through Christ is now painted as "closed-minded and bigoted."

Given the strong underpinnings and legacy of Judeo-Christian faith in the history and building of the United States, this shift in thinking continues to baffle and perplex, yay, even anger, many. However, it is submitted that a very basic collision of values underpins this whole debate, and whose pervasive presuppositions are often overlooked. This does not refer to the oft-cited clash of cultures of permissive vs discipline, liberal vs conservative, theists vs atheists, or even good vs evil. If it were just those, the lines would be more clear in their separation, somewhat less ambivalent confusion, and the divisions relatively unblended. But one encounters today several contradictory strands even among believers, regarding some of the apparent demands of scripture and tradition, and what it has to say about right and wrong. A good example is the portion of the Catholic vote that supports abortion rights. On its face, this seems an impossible contradiction. Another would be the Episcopalians ordaining of an openly gay bishop. What makes these signficant is they take place among the groups in question, not are an outside force imposing. How so then?

The reason is something of an elephant in the room: it has not been fully realized how much certain traditional beliefs and habits, no matter how well grounded they may have seemed, quite frankly now appear to contradict American ideals. This is because of the rise of Egalitarian ideals and frames of thought. Yet both liberal and conservative Americans generally (and rightly) see egalitarian views as noble and ideal, differing more on points of detail like whether outcome-based assessments should guide, or instead, emphasis be placed on opportunity and equal consideration. But they tend to agree on the ideal itself, that `sanctioned persecution and marginalization' -- tacit or overt, is not to be advocated or abided. It no longer seems rightly American to judge another's actions. This is carried to its most numbskull extreme by the apologists for foreign enemy actions in wartime, but is found throughout if one just listens and looks.

Enter the real force of several of today's hottest debates on the "values battlefield". The blunt truth is, that as stated and handed down, many religious views and beliefs, as they tend to be expressed, simply don't hesitate to condemn or censure certain behaviors. This is obvious. Its usually called morality in the overall sense. However of late, this same point has come into increasing conflict with the already pre-supposed ideal of Egalitarianism and equal protection. From gay marriage debates to the abortion controversy debacle, we see time and again traditional faith blocks crash headlong into the ideals that instinctively want to limit, reverse, or reject persecutorial or judgemental sounding paradigms.

The problem is exacerbated by the pervasiveness of certain postmodernist attitudes and opinions, which openly subscribe to the self-evident folly of holding all opinions and choices of equal value. Reducing things to a `point of view' perspective against which neither faith or even science can often make a reasoned argument. It needs to be emphasized, however, that as a paradigm, the concept of egalitarianism is not only good, but is what helped make America great. By upholding the dignity of individuals, it gave the necessary room to achieve and innovate that they demonstrably often are denied in more conformist systems of thought -- whether in theocracies like Iran or or super-statist regimes of social engineering like the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, or Communist Korea and China today. Such states tend to go for a one-size fits all, and overall collective at the expense of the rights or even opportunities of any `square pegs' of faith, capability, or orientation. For this reason, to be American is to have an `instinctive' favor toward Egalitarianism, and its correct to do so.

However, of late, the egalitarian concept has become distorted and twisted, to function more as a way to build walls around behavior or practices. The central egalitarian ideal, which drove and animated the nation's spiritual aspirations (in the conventional experience) in terms of "all men are created equal" has moved down that line to a form not far removed from `all choices, cultures and lifestyles are equal' --- and this is especially true if the aforementioned do not `harm another'. Naturally, carried to its extreme, this means any moral judgements or even criticisms not based on truly criminal and hostile behavior cannot be voiced, and that is exactly the trend we are seeing today.

It is proposed that such a `value-free' standard by nature, cannot easily co-exist with, and certainly can rarely agree or give sanction to, any moral judgements, especially those imposed by faith and tradition, which rampant egalitarianism and postmodernism both see as suspect. The basic point is that some of the angst of Christians and Jews in this country, and of theists in general, is driven by the fact they see the culture increasingly modified to accomodate and even normalize some of the most questionable practices in the name of `avoiding bigotry or judgementalism'. Yet what is not realized is that the confusion comes from the fact of failing to recognize that the American ideal has become Egalitarianism (with a strong dose of the work ethic and capitalism still central) and is no longer even paying much lip-service to religious values that are seen as judgemental, seen as not fully inclusive, for precisely the fact that they indeed are not.

Falwell's statement clashed with the built-in desire to believe all faiths are equal. And in some vast omniscient galactic sense, they might objectively be. But that is not the starting point of most doctrines of faith. To understand the current conflict that is growing (and even the war on Islamo-terrorism has some connection) between faith and secular, it helps to to first notice and admit that most religion, by its very dogma and nature, does not, and cannot embrace full egalitarianism. Christians in America need to realize that in some ways, they must choose --- not all or nothing, but *which* view to hold: biblical doctrine OR egalitarianism. America is no longer `a Judeo-Christian' nation in govt and intent (IMO, it indeed was at some time in the past, arguments of revisionists notwithstanding) , but more a secular hegemon. The real key is, things are similar to what they were in the time before Constantine's conversion in the Roman Empire, but when Christianity was a large and influential minority. The culture, the laws, were pagan. It fell to Christians to try to model a better way and witness with their lives and gospel. Not expecting the secular arm or values to reflect them.

When seen against this backdrop, clashes like Falwell's and the attempts to `drive God out of schools' that seem to be going on, make perfect sense, and even show a new way to relate to it. They are in fact attempts to remove any `judgements' that might make for an `unsafe mental' environment for - fill in blank. Because the truth is, yes much holy writ, whether scripture or doctrines, does make judgements and render verdicts on right and wrong. Since it does, it has become ironically less tolerable by the very `tolerate all' culture now extant. So set aside the lingering assumption about the character of the culture being Judeo-Christian (it isn't - especially in the legal and judicial realm), and stop expecting it to reflect those values, and thus mistaking `what's in vogue' for what should be. Failure to keep this distinction in mind is what really makes for the `slippery slope'. There have always been people who will make self-destructive choices; danger only arises when the majority loses sight of what is indeed, self-destructive. Christians and Jews (or any theists) who fail to see the change in paradigm emphasis that has taken place risk losing their distinctive message in attempts (by some) to mandate some legal conformity. Instead, model anew and witness to those values to move hearts as those in other pagan lands did and do.

Some musings pondered as the Lenten season begins.