A breaking point?
July 31, 2004
Although some have said that I cannot handle ‘dissenting viewpoints’ on my blog, the truth is that I hold diversity up very highly. I dream of a church where I can be sitting next to someone with whom I disagree with theologically, but with whom I can worship the same God and still love each other. I don’t know when we’ll be able to get to this point, but that is my hope.
But this raises a question for me. When we encounter and know of people that we disagree theologically with on certain issues (whether they be women in ministry, homosexuality, abortion, end times prophecies, etc.), our first response it *generally* to think “Well, frick. I’m right, and they’re wrong…HELLO! WAKE UP!” Once we get past this stage, there are generally statements like, “Well, I know so-and-so is a good Christian who loves God, but they’re just a bit distracted by this certain issue right now” or “Well, it’s okay that we don’t agree, let’s just agree to disagree and love God with them.”
But, is there a point where that attitude is not helpful, not right, and not honoring to Jesus?
Take the issue of women in ministry for example. I fully and wholeheartedly believe that women are created exactly equal with men, and that women can hold any office in the church that a man can. There is no difference in Christ - a woman can be a senior pastor, deacon, elder, executive pastor, etc. I know many lovely Christians who disagree with a statement like this. So, for most people, we are of the opinion that diversity in the body of Christ is a good thing, and we need to be understanding of their differing theological viewpoint on this issue.
But, at what point do we stop and say…No. This is NOT right. While they may honestly love God and have come to this conclusion through prayer, etc., at what point do we say, “This viewpoint is holding members of the family of God under bondage. This view restricts the use of God-given gifts. This view hurts. This view brings about bondage. This view brings about hurt…this view, plainly, pisses God off.”
Is there a breaking point, where we have to move past simply agreeing to disagree and say, “Okay, I love you, I know God loves you, but…you know…you’re simply wrong here.” This doesn’t necessarily help dialogue (which I am a big proponent of), but since when is dialogue the END we are always shooting for.
Similarly, when will we see that some people’s attitudes towards homosexuals (often springing from their interpretation of OT levitical laws) are hurtful, degrading, homophobic (even if they say they’re not) and on the same plane as racism and bigotry. When do we come upon the breaking point - where we have to say, No. This is NOT right. This is not of God.
Where is the breaking point?
Tags: Women-in-Ministry, Women-Pastors, Womens-Issues
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
July 31st, 2004 at 5:04 pm
there is a point where you have to disagree more vehemently, Cleave. This is just the problem with tolerance. How do you continue to love, and live creatively, alongside people who really do fundamentally disagree on issues that actually bite in everyday life? It’s easy to say we’ll agree to disagree, if the issue actually isn;t that important. But when it involves making decisions that affect all of us, sometimes you have to make choices that will hurt some people.
July 31st, 2004 at 5:18 pm
Some beliefs have profound impacts on the way we live and worship though dont they. If you dont agree with women leaders then worshipping in a group with women leaders is a compromise on your belief system. Same with any major issue of practice.
I think in a corporate setting its easier to deal with major differences because of the anonymity of much of it, but in a smaller setting it would make life very difficult on some things. For example, as a group we dont believe leaders are necessary. If someone came along who did or wanted to lead, in practice this would not work.
Lucy
July 31st, 2004 at 7:16 pm
so maggi…if tolerance isn’t the way? then…that’s just so hard because unity is such an important thing to me, but as i wrote above, it seems as though there have to be times when something comes *above* unity. so what is that…humanity? the dignity of all of god’s creation?
July 31st, 2004 at 8:58 pm
i’ve retyped my comment three times and still can’t get it straight. part of me wants to uphold tolerance & unity but be much more vocal about things like dignity and respect for homosexuals and women. if the emerging church leaders would come out with equal conviction on both points to state a shared value of dignity and justice for all human beings, then that would be amazing progress. we can do that without condemning those who disagree with us; we just state that you should know this about us if we’re going to share the same space. it’s that important.
i think the reason that doesn’t happen is because there’s a lot to lose. publishing contracts. favor with judicatory systems. acceptance in the evangelical mainstream. it would completely destroy any platform to bring people along in the postmodern shift. i’m up for that, because i have none of the above to lose, but i understand the dilemma. i also think that it’s essential to be this honest if these are your values because it’s dishonest to bring people into the pomo conversation and hold out on your more controversial views. (another reason to say upfront what’s on the chopping block theologically if you decide to come along and “go there”)
but this is a very unpopular view. and i suspect that many emerging church leaders still hold very evangelical views on the above topics. in the same way some of the big voices hold out because they don’t want to scare away the evangelical mainstream, the others hold out because they don’t want to alienate the rest of us.
i hate for this to be a litmus test, but it does set me apart from many of the crowds i travel in. i will happily fellowship with people who disagree with me on these points, understanding sadly that we differ, but in most of my scenarios, the same people do not want to be identified with me for having such strong public views. i would rather it be that way–to leave the door open while standing strong in my values, than to cut the ties or withhold my true position for the sake of a false peace.
okay, sorry, i’ve muttered long enough.
August 1st, 2004 at 3:13 am
I had another thought on this. The difference between essentials and nonessentials. There are some things that I consider essential to the faith and universal and in order to worship authentically with a group, those have to be the same amongst us. Some others are nonessential. They affect how we each do things but are not a matter of conscience.
I am actually more attracted by people who have strong considered beliefs, not ones who are trying to please everyone. Even if we disagree, it is usually possible to do so amicably with such people.
Lucy
August 1st, 2004 at 12:22 pm
ok, just let me get my “wandering mystic” hat on …
i struggle with the tension, of “knowing” that when we exclude people from the church, jesus leaves to go hang out with them, and with the words of paul, demanding that in certain cases we should exclude people from church.
i don’t know about the breaking point though. i think we all need to retain enough humility about our own understanding of the truth to be able to worship with just about anyone.
if there is well-spring from which we can drink to create unity, it is not intellectual. we will never agree on everything, but we can be united in love for the creator and his creation.
that said, i feel weird and uncomfortable in unitarian churches, where the above statement is probably the “good news”. i feel like there is something missing. that somehow, we have stripped jesus of his nature — by removing the tension between diety and humanity we are left with nothing.
so just because there is something we can agree on in unity, that is not “more true” or “more central”. millions of burgers served at macdonalds doesn’t means that the best tasting food you can get. but as we scorn macdonalds and each go after “real food”, curiously, we all go different directions.
god made us this way, and he is not looking down at this and saying “my bad”. we are reflecting something of his character. this “something” is to me like a picasso, i appreciate it for a beauty it radiates, without entirely understanding it.
August 1st, 2004 at 6:18 pm
Tough, tough question. My church has an historic stance of pacifism, which makes for quite a bit of tension on the breaking point issue. The pacifist view has never been universally held even within the church, and is currently hotly contested. But when the stance of peace, justice, and conflict resolution is itself the topic of debate, how do you go about resolving the conflict peacefully and justly?
It seems that a lot of the hot-button issues, like women in ministry and homosexuality are, at the core, puzzles of the same nature. How do you discuss an issue, when the roots of dissention go so deeply into the core of your supposed shared beliefs that to expose them rips apart the whole thing?
One thing we’ve learned from this pacifism, though, is that peace isn’t always defined as pleasantness, or tolerance, or even unity. Peace is a hard thing, and sometimes you have to dig up the roots and upset the plant in order to restore balance.
I think issues of women in ministry and homosexuality, and other big debates in the church now reflect a deeper disagreement that has to be addressed before any agreement or compromise can be reached on any one issue.
August 1st, 2004 at 8:41 pm
Dana-
I agree that these issues do have to be resolved.
What strikes me as ironic and somewhat funny is that, uh, postmoderns are realizing that it’s contradictory to tolerate everything except intolerance. And even though paradox is also supposedly OK, you can’t act on paradox; you have to make a choice one way or the other.
How about this: When we disagree on what we perceive to be something major (and we will not always agree on what the major issues are), we must continue to try to convince the other side, while assuming good intentions and still being civil. It’s fine with me if you worry about me behind my back because of a belief I hold. I’ll do the same for you. As long as that worry is accompanied by prayer, it’s a good thing.
In other words, we’ve gone too far into amoral postmodernism when we say that whatever you believe is OK, because clearly none of us believes that if we believe in God. Do you have to draw a line somewhere? Yes, but you can’t know with certainty where that line is supposed to be, and you’ll come across a lot of people that you find to be on each side of that line. The only option is to examine your beliefs and continue to share them with others. In that case it becomes OK to “agree to disagree,” because you can still try to convince others of your position.
August 2nd, 2004 at 3:49 am
Justin,
goodness, how refreshing to hear your view. I have not understood how one can be postmodern in thought and a christian for a number of reasons, one of which is where do you draw the line between opinion and truth.
I think discernment is necessary in deciding when to continue trying to persuade and when to drop the matter with another and just let them be in their own beliefs. Otherwise one ends up banging one’s head aaginst a brick wall:)
Lucy
August 2nd, 2004 at 4:00 am
Michael,
I am really coming to believe that God has a group for everyone of his children, and that in our own groups we need not try and be all inclusive, but should instead be clear about our identity so people can make an informed choice whetehr to be part of that group. There are widely diversified beliefs and views in the body, and each will find a home somewhere.
Perhaps I need to make this clear, but I live in a community, with people 24/7, and so the matter of getting along and having similar visions is a high one. It’s not so high when people only meet once or twice a week.
Lucy
August 2nd, 2004 at 5:07 am
Wow….great comments. very interesting discussion.
It seems to me that we need to ask why it is important to find common ground and unity. I get a peculiar sense that everyone is somehow linked to a religious community of some sort or other. Why? What do you get that you can’t get on your own, or with only those that adhere to your belief?
I’ve wrestled with religion and my relationship with god since I left church immediately after (Lutheran) Confirmation. I realized, at the end of the process, that I felt nothing in common with the people in my church, and most of the history and dogma. It just didn’t jive with me.
I feel that the only thing that has given me any relationship with Jesus is my own personal sprirtual journey. I’ve learned from masters and met enlightnement all over the place, but the only meaning any of it had was found deep within my own set of values and experiences. Is this something dependent on a tradition of religious experience?
I can’t see that a religious group is anything more than a social necessity. It is pure humanism: we require other people for our survival, and therefore require shared beliefs. To that point, the more the merrier. We will create these structures and dogmas around personalities which inspire the largest group of people. Faith is a trick played on the senses, the true gift of God is our ability to use our instincts and logic to forge a path through an otherwise chaotic and perilous world. God gave wings to bird and claws to tigers; to man he gave his mind. To blindly serve the wo/man who claims the most faith is to desert the one true gift of god.
Forgive me for my late night ramblings. I just have a really hard time with organized religious commitment. The only truly religious experience I’ve felt,with a group, was in a Native American sweat lodge. I suppose that is the main argument for religious community: strength in numbers, but it still rings hollow.
If I wasn’t about to pass out on my keyboard, I’d probably keep going. I suppose my questions are why does it matter? Why try to find common ground? Who cares? Who benefits? How? Is there a breaking point when you realize that the only thing that really matters is what works between you and god? HELP!
August 3rd, 2004 at 2:40 am
I think Lucy’s comments about “essentials” vs. “nonessentials” really illustrate one of the barriers to unity or to tolerance. We can’t agree on what the essentials are. In essence, Adam’s original question “where is the breaking point” might be restated as “what is truly essential.”
I’ve reached a similar point in my faith, for example–I used to think an issue like the ordination of women was a nonessential–good Christians can disagree and that’s OK. I really don’t think that any more. It is for me a significant barrier to fellowship (in the koinonia sense, not the coffee and cookies sense) when a fellow Christian holds the view that women can’t serve in the same ways men can. I find it, frankly, a scandal to the gospel. And it’s hard to move forward from there. I guess I don’t doubt their salvation, but I sure do pray for their spiritual maturity.
Now if I could only figure out what rises to that level of “essential-ness.” Can we turn to creeds and confessions for help? I know that’s not so post-modern, and they don’t have much support for the ordination of women….
August 3rd, 2004 at 3:26 am
Brian what sort of fellowship group are you in? A large church, a home church, etc?
August 4th, 2004 at 3:38 pm
Lucy, I’m the pastor of a medium-sized mainline congregation. But by fellowship in my statement above, I really meant the ability to be (or at least feel) “of one mind” with a brother or sister in Christ, whether part of the same church or not.
August 4th, 2004 at 3:48 pm
Brian, oh yes, I understand koinonia. I was just wondering as you asked about how to go about finding essentials in common. I think it’s much harder to do that in a large church, than in a small community such as our own, where we meet and talk with people who may want to live here to make sure they understand what it’s all about and are ready.
August 4th, 2004 at 6:19 pm
seth, this comment is mainly for you and it is with love that i write this message.
you wrote, “I feel that the only thing that has given me any relationship with Jesus is my own personal sprirtual journey. I’ve learned from masters and met enlightnement all over the place, but the only meaning any of it had was found deep within my own set of values and experiences. Is this something dependent on a tradition of religious experience?”
in love, i want to ask you is having a relationship with God based on what you get out of it or for God? your comment “the only meaning any of it had was found deep withing my own set of values and experiences” where else would you expect to get any meaning but from your own values and experiences if your main goal was that your relationship with God was motivated for self. We are COMMANDED to love God, it is not optional. How do we love God? First giving ourselves and our beings and our minds and our experiences to HIM, second, loving others. i mean truly loving others. ALWAYS putting others before yourself and your desires. what you call nothing more than a “social necessity” is infact how we can show love to others. the church or organized establishments aren’t (or shouldn’t) be just a hub for only christians, but a place that equips and teaches how to love others, giving, spreading the gospel, the church was not created by man, but something the Holy Spirit initiated. read acts chapter 2 through revelations. read hebrews. and even if you don’t agree with all the organizations that are out there, doesn’t it say something that even with all the mistakes the church has made over the last 2000 years, hasn’t it done a lot of good too? can we truly forget what the Bible says about the church and stop going because what I necessarily believe doesn’t hold up with tradition or whatever? in the light of tolerance, sounds pretty intolerant to me. but again, this is not a bash on seth thing here, i read your message and was truly concerned. please read this knowing that i am writing it in love.
nick
August 4th, 2004 at 6:52 pm
so it seems like we’ve all skirted around the main question. What do we tolerate and not tolerate? Christianity will not tolerate everything and i’m sorry if that sounds so politically incorrect. why? because christianity is based on an absolute! somethings have to be just plain wrong. why should christianity apologize for standing up for something? Why should we as christians have to apologize for not tolerating sin? Christianity is all for loving others and accepting them as God’s creation, but it doesn’t (or shouldn’t in this day and time)accept the sin. even if that sin is politically correct. so as somebody earlier stated, what is necessary to our Christian faith, and what isn’t? where do we find that Truth? did we all forget the Bible. how about we start there. sorry folks but personal experiences or revelations do NOT overpower the Bible. and this may seem unpopular in this blog, but i will not tolerate for the sake of being “culturally relevant” or “politically correct” or being “seeker sensitive”. but guess what, i will do my best to love others, even if that means not tolerating other’s sin or even my own. and believe it or not by the sound of this reply, i do try my best to be a loving person like God commanded us.
August 5th, 2004 at 2:39 pm
Nick..
“why? because christianity is based on an absolute!”
what would that absolute be? is the absolute something we can really get at? if we can get at it, who determines how it is articulated and what it means? you mention the bible. what part of the bible? what voices do you we want to give priority to as ‘absolute”?
I appreciate your passion and committment for sure! Just wanted to get a better sense of the “absolute” you’re coming from..
mark
August 7th, 2004 at 12:23 pm
mark-
great questions. the absolute i’m referring to is Jesus Christ himself. we either believe He is God, or we don’t. there is no grey area. if we believe He is God, then we should live according to His commandments. Also, if we believe Jesus Christ is God, then guess what, the whole Bible, not just part of it. if you can believe the first verse of the Bible, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” then you should be able to believe the rest of it. why? because, first if you believe that first verse, then you believe there is a God, and second He has the power to create this vast universe. how trivial would it be for Him to send us a revelation that in itself expresses absolutes based on His UNCHANGING good and perfect will. God does not change based on our culture, He exists outside of time and space, not within it and He sees all of History and the future as we would look at a picture, complete. If it sounds too impossible that Jesus Christ would be equally unchanging, and Himself be that absolute i was referring to earlier, then maybe you should rethink your relationship with Him. not saying that out of spite or whatever, just a thought.