Friday, January 11, 2008

ANGLICAN SCHISM INEVITABLE?

Dr. Elane Pagels has suggested that there was possibly at least as much disagreement in the early Christian Church as there is today.

Her opinions are worthy of consideration in light of her standing in the world of Biblical scholarship:

Elaine Pagels is a preeminent figure in the theological community whose impressive scholarship has earned her international respect. The Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University, Pagels was awarded the Rockefeller, Guggenheim and MacArthur Fellowships in three consecutive years.
As a young researcher at Barnard College, she changed forever the historical landscape of the Christian religion by exploding the myth of the early Christian Church as a unified movement.

If she is right, and she apparently is, I wonder if the current divisions, especially the ones now developing within the Anglican Communion, are not only normal, but even unavoidable.

It just may be that splintering is how it works, especially in matters of faith; that we should be glad that there has not been even more divisiveness amongst the believers.

Since infallibility is a non-starter and all that we know about anything comes through the human filter, it stands to reason that there will be all sorts of disagreements.
And those who disagree can be expected to say, sooner or later , “Enough, one or the other of us must go.”

Maybe to expect otherwise is to expect too much, especially in these modern days of apparently increasing polarization.

1 comment:

Upnorfjoel said...

The Anglican Church was born out of divisiveness, and it shall be born again apparently, saving some miraculous compromise.
Of course, that process dilutes, and in my opinion, weakens. There are those that would not be comfortable on either side and probably more still who would not want to be part of a compromise.

The Anglican faith will decline through this process, and one "side" has been the agressor. That side demands change. That side has deemed the Church deficient in it's current doctrine. That side has said "enough"! That side is driving the wedge. That side says "this is how we believe, and the Church must now adapt to us. And it is that "side" that must bear the responsibility for what consequences result.

Of course, the whole process may be inevitable given enough time. It may be another result of our human failing. If so, there is perhaps forgiveness for us even on this grand scale; so that it does not lessen our opportunity to be together again in a better place.

It just makes this place even further from God's ideal in the meantime.....and the last thing the world needs.