from a conversation on Abet, "A Rift Worse than a Schism," 10/10/03, regarding an article by Kew on the homosexuality issue in the Episcopal church:
Richard Kew wrote,
"So it is clear from statements like those coming from the Presiding Bishop, we are just not communicating -- perhaps because we are no longer able to do sowithout a huge effort on the part of both sides, and neither side is readyto make such an effort."
Clearly, the parties are not communicating. But is it because they are:
(1) able to, but unwilling to make the effort, or
(2) unable to, and thus even if they are willing to make the effort, they are prevented from doing so for some reason?
I want to explore that question. Kew skirts the it. If I read him correctly, it would seem he hopes (as would we all!) that communication is failing as a result of (1.) That would seem to allow the Holy Spirit to move "more easily:" to convict persons of sin, to bring them to repentance, to lead them to truth, to restore fellowship. That is, the changes He would be initiating would be primarily within the hearts/wills of those involved.
However, if it is failing as a result of (2,) His scalpel must cut far deeper, into the intellect as well as the will. It will not just be open heart surgery; it will be a simultaneous surgery on heart and mind. If it is (2), what could possibly be the reason preventing communication?
I would suggest it is the presupposition of all rational thought, speech and action: the principle of non-contradiction: A cannot *at the same time, and in the same way* be not-A. Apples cannot be not-apples. Three cannot be not-three. Justice cannot be not-justice. Sin cannot be not-sin. God cannot be not-God. George Orwell, for all his failings, got that much right when he warned us against "doublethink" in "1984." (Recall that "doublethink" means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.)
But some would say this is to view the world in a modern, or pre-modern way. They would insist that the principle of non-contradiction is a relic of world views which have been surpassed by a newer, emerging one: "postmodernism,"
(whatever that is/will be!) If this is the case, they either must point to another "reason" for the breakdown in communication, beside one group holding the principle of non-contradiction as basic, and the other not holding it; or else they must deny that there is even a "reason" able to be given.
If it is the latter, then the cause for the breakdown of communication can only be a matter of the will, not the intellect. That would mean that ultimately union can be reached only by imposition of the will of one group over the other. Pre-moderns (including yours truly) hold that the law of non-contradiction cannot be mocked. It is not arbitrary: it is not even an act of God's will; rather, it is a reflection of His very nature. Otherwise He who cannot lie is He who can lie He whose very essence is love is at one and the same time He whose very essence is not-love Ultimately, He whose essence is "I AM" is He whose essence is simultaneously "I AM NOT." But that would require a rewriting of Titus 1:2, 1 John 4:8 and Exodus
"Nonsense, however pious, is still nonsense," writes C.S. Lewis. In Luke 10:27, the Lord calls us not only to moral virtue, but intellectual virtue. One part of becoming intellectually virtuous is being able to discern what is nonsense and what is truth. (NOTE: Accepting "A cannot simultaneously be not-A" does not mean that mystery is evicted from the universe, only that nonsense is. For example, it is a mystery, or a paradox, how Jesus Christ can be both God and Man, but it is not a contradiction, as Tom Morris has argued in his "The Nature of God Incarnate." There is room in the Kingdom for mystics--and I expect even the confused!--but there is not room for idolaters.)
So the question is whether the presuppositions which underlie Kew's two world views are mutually contradictory. If so, there will be no way for the two groups to communicate rationally. As indicated above, discussion will be then be impossible, and interaction will be limited to non-rational levels (emotions, imagination, or power-plays.)
Just what are those presuppositions? THAT is the question. Is it that the conservatives hold:
A1) Human beings stand "under" the authority of the Scriptures
and the Gene Robinson camp holds:
A2) Human beings do not stand "under" the authority of the Scriptures
or is it the conservatives hold:
B1) The scriptures must be interpreted "traditionally," the way the majority of the church has done throughout the centuries.
and the Gene Robinson camp holds
B2) The scriptures must be interpreted "non-traditionally," in new ways that permit the unmasking and liberation of victims of those in power.
or what? What are the basic beliefs which drive the thinking that is done by these parties? At the very least, it seems there is this impasse:
the conservatives hold:
C1) Homosexual practice is sinful and against God's intention for humans.
and the others hold:
C2) Homosexual practice is not sinful and can be part of God's intention for humans.
I believe Kew is right to condemn power and pride:
"However, in the wee small hours as I lay awake at night I find myself wondering what is gained from an 'in the face' response to the 'in the face' power plays that have been brought against the theologically orthodox. "
But I am afraid that no matter how much both parties might wish to communicate, no matter how well-intentioned they might be towards one another (and of course that is giving them the benefit of the doubt!) there still this dilemma:
can a person simultaneously say both C1 and C2 are true, and remain intellectually virtuous?
or if he rejects one, and embraces the other, what will be the "reason?"
Reasons are a product of world views. The world view of A1, B1 and C1 is a pre-modern one. The world view of A2, B2 and C2 is a postmodern one. We are witnessing the titanic crash of two world views, much like the scraping of tectonic plates, with no less earthshaking results. How to stand fast and still be humble? How to resist without violence? When rifts are being created, how to maintain an attitude of reaching out without giving up? How to be in Christ?
It is a time for much prayer:
Heavenly Father, Creator of heaven and earth, who gives order to our minds and hearts;
Lord Jesus Christ, Savior who redeems us from the sin which mars our minds and hearts,
Holy Spirit, Spirit of Truth who directs our minds; Paraclete who assists and encourages our hearts;
Humble us all to receive your wisdom and love, at this difficult time.We pray with your disciple Peter, who you nicknamed "Rock" and who was no stranger to controversy and suffering:
Purify us by obedience to your truth, so that we might love one another deeply from the heart.
Guard us from using our freedom as a cover-up for evil.
Give us clear and alert minds; make us self-controlled, so that we might be ready to give a gentle, respectful defense for all we hope for in You.
Help us to resist our Enemy, the Deceiver.
Help us stand firm in the faith, and thus stand fast in your grace and peace. And always, we praise you for your forgiveness and the possibility of new beginnings through Jesus Christ, our Lord.
Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment