September 27, 2003
Schism
Scott Peck wrote that “fighting is far better than pretending you are not divided.” The pastoral theologian Reuel Howe always contended that even hostile communication is better than none.
Nobody but the dimmest pretend these days that the church is not divided. Surprisingly, a lot of people act like it’s the first time. Christians prefer to call anger “righteous indignation,” but the effect is the same. Anger is both fear and the response to it, the attempt to recover one’s balance when anxiety gets realized in-your-face.
It’s common to use the family metaphor when talking about the church. It’s appropriate, but it shouldn’t just stop with the sweetness and light of Norman Rockwell’s Thanksgiving dinner. These human systems are like the kinetic art of Alexander Calder’s mobiles. Tweak one, and all the rest shimmer and swing before they settle down again. But none break away, not if their creator’s original intention would be kept intact.
There’s a lot of evidence around that God wants us in relationships, communities, Holy Communion, Holy Spirit, and whatever. We’ve not been all that stewardly about God’s yearning, nor all that penitent about our lack of it.
So what goes around, comes around. We’re hard after a split. Self-righteousness is no prettier now than it’s ever been. Charges of schism and heresy abound. Maybe it would help to remember at a time like this that schism is distinguished from heresy in that the separation involved is not at basis doctrinal. Heresy is opposed to faith, schism is opposed to love.
Divided Anglicanism, Orthodox Anglicanism, Mainstream Anglicanism. Let the oxymorons abound and tend for themselves, and lets go ahead and have a good, cathartic, family fight. But let’s not forget that any way you look at it, the whole thing’s so tacky.