A Christian Affirmation (Part 2)
Some more thoughts on A Christian Affirmation...
Comments on the Affirmation are proliferating across the web (among many others, go here, here and here). Some of the comments center around the perception that the signers wrote the document for nefarious, hurtful purposes: to close ranks, to say who is in/out, to establish a creed, or to say that the 4 items discussed are at the center of the gospel.
As a whole, it seems to me that the Affirmation is designed to be a restatement, not of what is at the core of the gospel, but of the distinctive practices and traditions of Churches of Christ over the past two centuries. To my mind, there is a great deal of difference between the two.
The author(s) of the Affirmation list and discuss four distinctives:
- the New Testament is the "original design" for the Church
- baptism
- weekly Communion
- a cappella singing
The fundamental question, for the signers, seems to be: can we, in the cofC, slough off our "legacy of legalism, sectarianism, and divisiveness" and at the same time maintain what is best about the restorationist impulse (in a non-sectarian manner)? As I see it, the answer is "yes," and the Affirmation represents a first attempt to do just that -- to place our traditional emphases on a less dogmatic, more reflective and non-sectarian basis. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to me that the Affirmation is meant to be a "once for all" document. Rather, it was meant to invite discussion in order to further clarify these distinctives. As to the wisdom of reserving discussion for "ministers, elders and teachers," this does seem to limit discussion quite a bit. But I would want to know the motives of the author(s) before I pass judgment on this choice.
That's what I think. Your thoughts?
posted by Chris @ 10:49 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Chris,
First, let me thank you for stopping by and taking time to comment on my blog.
I think you touched on something that I needed to see about the Affirmation. I have read a lot of negative posts about the Affirmation, and well I appreciate your spirit in this post. I do think that the emerging church of Christ and the writers/signers of the Affirmation can learn from each other. Sometimes, in this dialouge I have noticed that both ends are speaking similarly, just sometimes the language is quite different.
No where in the Affirmation do the writers say, nor are their commnets meant to Affirm a denomination, but like as you say,
" The fundamental question, for the signers, seems to be: can we, in the cofC, slough off our "legacy of legalism, sectarianism, and divisiveness" and at the same time maintain what is best about the restorationist impulse (in a non-sectarian manner)?"
I agree that the answer is yes. Joining you in prayer.
It's the points of distinctiveness that bother me, Chris.
Why do the signers feel a need to be distinctive; to insist on these points?
Why not rather seek unity with all Christians on points of commonality?
Doesn't it usually cause disagreement when someone names four points of view - on anything - and then calls for discussion and dialogue?
Why isn't it a document about the core of the Christian faith, instead of the core of Church of Christ identity?
Probably no group of people who have ever signed a document are better qualified to write such a document about the core of Christian faith.
Why didn't they?
I'm calling into question motives because I don't know them. I'd like to ask, but I'm not an elder, teacher or minister.
Thanks for the discussion, and keeping it open, brother!
I've been one of the critics of the affirmation. At the same time, I am no conspiracy theorist either. They want a conversation about this, but they want it on their terms with people they deem worthy of the conversation.
My communication with them was not posted on their site nor was I ever responded to personally. Since I am not an elder, preacher or teacher, I am clearly not allowed in their conversation.
Frankly, it does them more harm than it does me. These guys (no women) are going to have a credibility issue if they seek so much control over the conversation.
I really like the guys on that list that I know. I have been taught some great stuff by them. My positive history with them is what creates such a confusion about why such an affirmatin was or had to be made.
A lost world does not care what makes one little sect of Christianity different from another. In fact, that is part of what keeps them away.
Thanks for offering a generous and positive commentary - it's more than I was able to do.
"Furthermore, it doesn't seem to me that the Affirmation is meant to be a "once for all" document. Rather, it was meant to invite discussion in order to further clarify these distinctives."
I'd like to assume this, but at the same time, I have trouble seeing how any further clarification could be possible, since these are issues the C of C has beaten to death for decades.
Moreover, there are definite "once for all" positions on each of these issues, and since the affirmation is explicitly intended to remind everyone of that, I honestly can't see the point of further discussion among people who agree. There's plenty to discuss if you disagree, but it doesn't appear that those of us who disagree are going to be allowed into the conversation (at least, not unless we're in a ministerial position that could be threatened by any controversial public statements that we might make, e.g. paid ministers).
Wow. Thanks for all of the feedback, guys.
A couple of thoughts in response to all of this.
Also, I think, in good Campbellite fashion, we are all ministers -- at least that is what I was taught in the sectarian church I grew up in.
That's a really good point, Gabe. I wish I had thought of it first.
Second, there just seems to be too much of an either/or quality to much of the discussion about the Affirmation that I've read. Correct me if I'm misreading other bloggers. Do any of you believe that we can't be grace-centered/progressive AND maintain our traditions in a non-sectarian way. Can we only be truly grace-centered once we have moved to quarterly communion (or instrumental worship or whatever)? Is it not possible to conscientiously adhere to a given tradition and, at the same time, refuse to condemn others who do not hold to that particular tradition?
One more thing...
Could this document (the Affirmation) be read as an appeal for internal unity (within Churches of Christ)? Based on my observations of 'mainstream' cofCs, the more efforts there are at unity with other groups (e.g. Christian Churches, DoCs, etc.), the more pronounced is a sort of centrifugal reaction within cofCs whereby we fly apart from one another. What are our efforts at external unity if we are disintegrating from within?
Thanks for your comments. I agree that the signors has the best of intentions. I studied under sereral of them at Austin Graduate School of Theology and can say that they are incredible men, who are deeply committed to their tradition.
I do think that they would be better off to say this more explicitly, that the COC does have traditions that are worthy of respect and retention based on the historical/theological/practical reasons they presented. I think this would be far more accurate and believable, than to say that these traditions are a means to achieve Christian unity.
(Take my comments with a grain of salt though. I left the COC 1-1/2 years ago and am now a Mennonite. I love the COC dearly, but I think that they are not honest with themselves and have neglected the core social justice teachings of Jesus.)
Also here's my commentary on it...
http://www.jmbzine.com/PostNuke/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=694&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Post a Comment
<< Home