Another hard part of taking the ring involves fighting for the truth. While Frodo struggled towards Mordor with the ring, eventually going alone with just one companion, his other friends became involved in desperate struggles against evil. These battles were thrust upon the peoples of Middle-earth by the forces of Sauron (the Dark Lord) and his followers, who attacked free and peaceful peoples in order to subdue them to his will. Because Sauron's attention was drawn away from his own land while he conducted these battles, Frodo's friends who engaged in these battles were supporting his effort to take the ring.
Engaging in conflict is not pleasant. Yet sometimes it is necessary. Some conflicts are forced upon us, and we must defend the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is why, as I write about taking the ring, I will sometimes be taking part in the struggle for the heart of the two mainline denominations to which I have belonged, the PC(USA) and the Episcopal Church.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
One thing that occurs to me re: all of the conflict in the PCUSA right now vis the Ring. One interesting interpretation of the Ring is that it represents absolute power, in the sense that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It gives each power according to their stature, seemingly without limit, since powerful figures like Gandalf or Galadriel shy away from taking it for that reason.
So the solution ends up being trying to destroy the Ring. It seems that Tolkien here is saying that the only "good" response to absolute power over others is not to use it; to divest oneself of that power.
What disturbs me about all of the denominational conflicts is that all sides are seeking to use power over those who disagree with them - the power of polity, of public opinion, of the secular legal system. This is normal human behavior when in conflict, but I think it is tremendously damaging, and I don't see it resulting in reconciliation, in building up the body of Christ.
How quickly we forget the cross, that the first are to be last, that we are all to be servants of each other and not slave masters. But I don't know how to even begin changing the conditions of disagreement that seem to just escalate and escalate.
I'd have to disagree with you that all sides are seeking to use power over those who disagree with them. My husband heads up one of the Presbyterian renewal groups, and used to work with a different one, and I can tell you from personal experience that power is not a motivation for them. What my husband and his colleagues want is to see the PC(USA) being faithful to Jesus Christ (as they understand that faithfulness). I will also venture to believe that our theological opponents are not motivated by power, but rather by sincere belief in what they think is right for the PC(USA).
There may be some individuals on both sides who enjoy power, but I think that as a major motivation, on either side, it is not a big factor. At least I know--really know--that to be true for the evangelical side, and in charity I am assuming the same for the progressive side.
Well, if comments will encourage you to keep blogging, then I'll pitch in. Great theme, btw.
Re: power. You are right to presume that it isn't the lust for power itself that is driving the conflict in the PC(USA). At least, as you do, I extend the charity of assuming good motivations to those on the other side from me. But to use an example from Tolkein, it is never power itself that people covet, but what they hope to accomplish with it. Gandalf says he would take the ring intending to do good... The point isn't that people are really waging a war in the PC(USA) for control of GA or anything so silly as that, but people are USING the power of political organization to accomplish what they believe are good ends - being faithful to Jesus Christ as they interpret it. The key to seeing that there is a power dynamic involved is that the solution sought is one which is "mandatory". G-6.0106b mandates what being faithful means. It is an exercise of power over others. With good intentions surely, but a use of power none-the-less.
The way to sacrifice power is to seek solutions which don't mandate anything of another person.
That interpretation of the intent of G-6.0106b shows a short and recent view of the history of the conflict over ordination standards. G-6.0106b was not an initiation of a movement to enforce a mandatory standard on everyone, but rather a response to repeated attempts to sidestep the standards that, until the 1970's, had already been commonly understood to be in place via Scripture and the Confessions and Constitution. But since, from the 1970's onward, there were repeated attempts to reinterpret and go around those standards, G-6.0106b was the response. What had previously been commonly accepted as a standard, and needed no spelling out, now had to be codified. G-6.0106b would never have come about if the issue had not first been raised by those who wanted to change the ordination standards.
There is no strong desire among the orthodox to legislate things. They feel forced to legislate things from time to time because they are being pushed to it as a form of defense by those who wish to change theology and practice.
Ah, I see, let me be a little more clear. I didn't mean that either side was motivated by power itself - I think both are motivated by deeply held beliefs and the belief that their way is best for the denomination and the people in it. What I was talking about was the use of power, that is, basically, the rules of polity, rather than working toward coming to some sort of understanding that is mutually agreeable. Each side tends not to admit the validity of the other side (I'm certainly often guilty of this) because, perhaps, they feel it would weaken their case.
What the result looks like, to me at least, is a sort of wrestling match, using polity as leverage, against the opponent in question. I guess I'd wish for a different kind of embrace; but perhaps that's just not going to happen anytime soon.
Or, if we really must fight, I'd prefer it be about, say, how we can end starvation or the spread of AIDS or, I don't know, prison recidivism. I think contention lends weight to an issue that has less moral weight behind it than a lot of others one sees in the news every day.
Hey, I'd love to focus on ending starvation, prison recidivism, ending HIV, helping indigenous peoples be self-sufficient, teaching underprivileged children, lots of stuff like that, instead of what we're focused on now. And so would most of my fellow orthodox believers. But we're like the little boy and the dike with the hole in it; we have to stick our finger in where the hole is, and so we're putting our efforts at the point where we are being assailed. Since it is ordination standards that are under attack, that is where we are defending. If no one wanted to change ordination standards, we'd happily drop all attention on them and get to those other things. And we'd love to leave polity alone, as I said to the miner in my earlier response. We just use it because we feel forced to.
You're right, though, that there's not enough admission, on both sides, of the good points, and especially of the good intentions, of the other side, and there are other failings on both sides. Some of this unhappy wrangling I'm afraid is due to the fact that we live in a fallen world. There will be no perfect church and no perfect relationships even among Christians because we are all infected with sin. So even with our best intentions we are going to mess it up. But we can still work towards doing better, with Christ's help.
Amen there.
As for 'my side', I wish that the discussion of ordination standards (and I wish it *was* a discussion) was part of a larger discussion regarding what the church is supposed to be doing in the world. I imagine one side of this controversy (you could say conservative vs. liberal maybe) could come up with ten things they wanted to work toward, and the other side could come up with their ten things, and there would probably be eight that overlapped. We could work together on those eight and keep wrangling about the other ones in the meantime. I bet working together on other important things would help people find common ground, or at least more mutual respect.
I think there's a lot of merit to what you say! Working together is always helpful.
Deborah! How did you start your own blog without my seeing it? :)
Welcome to the Presbyterian blogosphere, a messy place certainly, but always interesting...
Anyway, I have always admired your writing from afar and I really am looking forward to reading what you will offer us in this blog.
We also need to hear more from our sister evangelicals in this medium and I'm glad to know that you are throwing your skills into the arena.
You are now added to my blog links, over at A Classical Presbyterian.
May the Lord bless your family and your work for the kingdom!
--Toby
Found your blog today and I'm enjoying it. I'm a huge Tolkein fan as well and like your Ring analogy.
I forget who said it but a wise Christian once said that if you want to "change the world" then become a saint. Thomas a Kempis wrote an incredible little book called The Imitation of Christ which has inspired many great saints. It is sortof of like the common sense advice to teenagers, i.e. before you try to save the rainforest, try cleaning out the gunk in your closet first. :)
Not enough admission? More than that, I'd say. There are far too many folks out there (of all political and theological stripes) who are firmly committed to the idea that no one who disagrees with them could possibly do so out of good intentions, for good reasons. Anyone who disagrees with me, on this view, must really know at some level that I'm right, and be refusing to accept and admit that for some nefarious reason.
It's the exhausting thing about far too many political and theological conversations--they're like arguing with my brother when I was nine and he was six.
Post a Comment