Denominationalism and ontology
With the return to classes many of us (who are still at Duke, I am looking at you Japanese flag) have gone through some sort of scripted introductions, most of which include denominational affiliation. Like most of these sorts of questions, this one is far deeper than can be encapsulated into a 2-minute meet and greet, but it is a pressing one, I feel, especially for ministry. Where is the point that we can affiliate ourselves with a Church, practice at a Church, become a member of a Church, and then become methodist or presbyterian or episcopalian. I know craig has an affinity for the language of ecclesial whore but I wonder if the language of description has been lost amidst denominationalism and so that we know longer describe our Church by saying "I am anabaptist" but actually claim that as a part of our esse, and if this is the case, what does it mean that we can claim something of our esse.
Or maybe I am taking introductions too seriously and this will be another post no one cares about...
Or maybe I am taking introductions too seriously and this will be another post no one cares about...
posted by Unknown at 4:40 PM
4 Comments:
Wilson, I am no longer an ecclesial whore. I am fairly settled into my identity as evangelical and catholic baptist, which I believe can be shortened without loss to Wesleyan-Anglo-Baptist. I explain what I mean by that here. Each term has an important meaning. I used to think this identity was a problem. Now, however, I think it is simply a matter of being where the ball is gonna be before it gets there. I think everyone should be a evangelical-catholic-baptist, if they are reading the same theology I have been reading, no matter what denomination they call home. Therefore, I think you are spot on.
Craig, are you going to baptize infants after you become an Episcopalian priest?
Phil, I don't know that I will ever be an Episcopalian priest, remember? I clarified this with you already. However, my current thinking, and an issue that I have referred for consideration to my, um, Canon Theologian, DWL, is that the RCIA looks very good as the ecumenical approach for the future. As I understand it, this approach emphasizes baptism of adults without taking a stand against infant baptism. It presupposes a rigorous catechesis process, and gives people statuses like "catachumen", "candidate", etc. It waltzes the non-baptized out of the gathering during the Eucharist (not sure about this part). My inclination is to guide people towards baptism as a teenager or adult, with immersion as the preferred manner. But that inclination is not at all rooted in a belief that infant or teenage baptism, or immersion vs. sprinkling, matters at all theologically. [After all, God circumcises hearts, not us. ] Rather, that inclination is based on my reading of the importance of reclaiming and enacting our story in rich imagery, with rights of passage that remind us that this pilgrimage is a journey in which the entire community is engaged, and which takes a lifetime (which reminds us that Patience is a necessary virtue in our encounter with each other).
Now, if this was a trick question that was supposed to show why schism is justified, I missed the point.
Wilson, you raise an interesting question. I've had people here ask me what I am, and I end up saying, "I've attended Presbyterian churches for the last few years." I am de facto Presbyterian, but I want to distance myself from a theological Presbyterianism--i.e., I'm not theologically committed to the Presbyterian form of church government, and I'm sympathetic towards but not strongly committed to the hallmarks of classical Presbyterian theology. Now, if I was theologically committed to those things, then I probably wouldn't feel the same hesitation to say, "I'm Presbyterian."
Of course, at Duke, I didn't have a problem saying "I'm Presbyterian." Probably because I wanted to distance myself from all those silly Methodists... :)
To continue rambling on about your question... I had an interesting experience about a month ago. I was sitting in a public bath with my father-in-law (I know, I know, this conjures up all the wrong ideas for you born-and-bred Americans) and this Japanese guy came in and started talking to us. He was not a Christian but quickly found out that we were because he asked what we did. He wanted to know specifically what kind of Christian I was. I hesitated a bit (division within the church is so obviously painful at these moments) and then said, "Protestant." But no, he wanted a further subdivision. (This guy taught English for a living, so he somehow knew a bit about Protestant denominations.) He wanted to know if I was Baptist, Presbyterian, etc. It was actually quite painful, and I can't remember if I told him I was Presbyterian.
All that's to say, I think you raise an excellent question.
Post a Comment
<< Home