Reconciling denomination versus church doctrine

There has been “leeway” in Christianity from the Council at Jerusalem

(Acts 15) and the first Nicene Council in AD 325, where actions

ranged from defining the divinity of Jesus Christ to prohibiting

bishops from invading one another’s dioceses. There was the Great

Schism (“Break Away”) of 1054 between western and eastern

Christendom, and there have been significant reformation times over

the last five centuries. Lamentable though it may be, churches “break

away” from each other.

A seminal 20th century work is the five-volume “The Church and the

State in the United States,” by Anson Phelps Stokes, Jr., a lawyer

and bishop of the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Massachusetts,

when I was in seminary there in the late 1960s.

Among Bishop Stokes’ contentions is the catholic-to-congregational

continuum within Christianity. An example: It would be unthinkable

for a Roman Catholic congregation to disassociate from their

international Church and expect to take any real property along;

while for others who give the idea of “thinking globally, acting

locally” less priority, such “leeway” is par for their course.

My dictionary defines “leeway” as both “off course” and

“tolerance.” “Breakaways” establish new courses, usually and

regrettably without due respect for established ones. As with all

divisive behavior, this has consequences - real consequences

practical and pastoral, legal and moral. Consequential examples

include being part of a monochromatic community in which individuals

are similar, if not the same theologically, politically, economically

and socially sacrifices the harmonies of diversity.

To be unable to reconcile differences faithfully in manners

prescribed by passages such as Matthew 18:15-20 is to set those

disciplined as “two or three gathered in Jesus’ name” (Matt. 18:20)

against each other in secular civil courts. Most pointedly to me are

the moral consequences of standing before God’s great judgment seat

and hearing, as I believe we all will, “What part of ‘become

completely one’ (John 17:23) didn’t you understand?” Although

“breaking away” certainly is a right, it seems sad and hurtful to

suffer such consequences when there are likely to be viable

alternatives.

God is giving us real work to do (see Matthew 25:31-46, James

1:27, Romans 12:9-21 for examples). The shame of “breaking away” is

that it withdraws real resources, energies and abilities from doing

well God’s will.

VERY REV. CANON

PETER D. HAYNES

St. Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

Who owns a church? Who makes decisions? How will disagreements be

handled? These are good questions for people to ask when they become

involved in any organization.

Many “boomers” like me are leery about “organized religion.” We

ask questions like “What exactly am I joining?”

Behind this are other concerns. “Will my donations of time, talent

and money be appreciated or wasted and even misappropriated?” Some

fear, “Will I be hurt, disappointed or abused?”

In an effort to protect ourselves from the imperfections,

frustrations and complexities in belonging to groups, we can easily

miss the opportunities that only come through the hurly burly of

communal involvements. In Zen, we like to use the image of the rock

tumbler: each rock retains its unique character and beauty, but the

stones are smoothed and polished as they churn.

There should be a relationship between the extent of the

commitment of a member and the degree to which he or she has a voice

in the doctrinal, financial and organizational aspects of the

religious organization. Newcomers who know little about the spiritual

tradition or community should not expect to have the same influence

as those who have been involved for many years, studied and practiced

extensively and made many contributions to the mission. I do not see

resolution of the inevitable disagreements or conflicts that will

arise as being easily settled by either authoritarian or democratic

processes.

People can do their best to reform, change and improve their

organization through active participation. If that won’t work, they

can decide to just put up with the things they don’t like, judging

that the positives far outweigh the negatives. For example, many

Catholics remain active in their parishes, despite disagreement and

noncompliance with Church teachings against contraception.

Another option is to see if some other group would be a better

fit. In the Zen tradition, people may choose to go to a Center where

practitioners wear black robes, shave their heads and chant in

Japanese, or they may prefer a setting in which people wear Dockers

and discuss readings. If they don’t vibe with one teacher or group,

they may work well with another. Or people may decide to start their

own religious organization, informally or by following the legal

guidelines governing churches.

In Zen in the United States, there is no central organization.

Each center, temple, monastery or sitting group tends to be fairly

autonomous from others. There are often confederations or “schools”

or lineages, but these relationships are not regulatory or binding.

In denominational struggles or when groups break away, what is

most passionately contested is which group’s interpretation of the

religious tradition is valid. Who is providing authentic spiritual

teaching and genuinely manifesting the tradition versus those who

have strayed? But closely following are questions about who is

entitled to the assets -- the altars, bank accounts and real estate.

A survey of world religions includes many examples of groups who

broke away from their denominations: the Protestant Christian

denominations protested or broke away from the Roman Catholic

tradition. In one sense, Buddhism “broke away” from Hinduism.

It is easy to be distracted by church politics. Whether we are

talking about churches, denominations, new religions, “break away”

groups, reform traditions or the natural growth and evolution of

religions, each person should look to the heart of the matter: Is

participating in this group helping me to grow and to better serve

others?

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

Ironically, a singular characteristic that unifies all religions

is division. A commentary featured in “The Interpreter’s Bible”

reads, “As churches, we are concerned to protect the truth we presume

ourselves to possess by setting up restrictive defenses about it.

There are not as many divisions, nor is there as much isolationism,

among the nations of the world as are to be found within the church.

Men and women are not free to come within the walls that each sect

creates unless their passports have received the official stamp of

approval by the ecclesiastical authorities of that church body.

Whatever makes us think we can fit God into the straitjacket of our

narrow ecclesiastical concepts? The suspicion will not down that our

man-made walls close God out, not in.

In other words, religions often do more to obscure and even thwart

God than reveal his will. It is a strange contradiction that the

first murder came with an act of worship! It was while he was

approaching God that Cain knew how much he hated his brother. While

unity does not mean uniformity, intra-religious fragmentation and

schism often bode disaster. Perhaps religious authorities would do

well to learn from the Civil War, when secessionism led to cataclysm

and about which Lincoln warned, “A house divided against itself

cannot stand.”

In my own tradition, it is taught that Jerusalem was destroyed and

Israel went into exile only after it became divided into twenty-four

sects. Today, as ever, acrimonious discord threatens all religious

groups. Escalating internecine conflicts imperil the achievements and

goals of many faith communities. Civil discourse has been replaced by

abrasiveness; solidarity has been subverted by internal squabbles.

What kind of example are we offering our people when we cannot

exercise forbearance and mutual accommodation, when religious leaders

do not treat one another with respect, when high-decibel argument

takes the place of patient dialogue?

We can continue this reductionism and confine ourselves into

ever-smaller groupings of doctrinal righteousness and heresy hunting,

but let us ask whether, in our exclusive and condemnatory piety, we

have pleased God.

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yam

Newport Beach

Dozens of churches in our area are currently being forced to deal

with this issue. This is happening, in large part, because their

denominations have changed their interpretation of basic Christian

theology. These leaders, Bishop Bruno included, must concede that

their views were definitely not orthodox 10 or 20 years ago, and

definitely not in the historic doctrines of the Christian church or

their denomination.

This said, how should a congregation respond, if the group they

joined no longer believes the views they represented originally? If I

join a golf club and the board decides to change their charter and

become a knitting club, why would I stay unless I wanted to be a

knitter?

The changes Bishop Bruno is asking them to embrace are far more

dramatic than the transition from a golf club to a knitting club. How

heart wrenching it is for these congregations to be forced with

eviction from buildings that they paid for, raised their children in

and passed many of the major life milestones in. Their only option to

keep these buildings is to compromise in what drew them to those

places in the first place. We at Harbor Trinity and the Costa Mesa

Pastors Network resolutely stand with our brothers and sisters at St.

James and the other congregations.

Legally, many churches belong to denominations that own their

property. In these cases, the land reverts to the denomination and

the remnant must leave. Churches facing this dilemma include St.

Andrews and Church of the Covenant and many others.

Our congregation is a member of an association of churches, but

the denomination has no authority over us in any matters, including

property or doctrine. If our association changed its course, we would

have no legal problems disassociating from them. There is a wide

latitude of freedom within the association. That freedom however,

does not include the foundational doctrines of what it means to be a

Christian.

In July, I was in Uganda. Ironically, I was preaching in an

Anglican church (not knowing this issue was on the horizon, nor St.

James’ affiliation with the Ugandan archdiocese). When I spoke, I

mentioned to the congregation of African villagers that it was

villages like theirs that were making an impact on America. Their

steadfastness in the face of political correctness was giving courage

to congregations like St. James, who desire to remain true to the

confessions of Anglicanism and remain under its umbrella.

The question then must be begged of leaders like Bishop Bruno as

to how they feel free to leave the confessions of orthodox faith and

the majority of the Anglican Communion, yet angrily fight

congregations who want to remain truly Anglican and not by

association only.

SENIOR ASSOCIATE PASTOR

RIC OLSEN

Harbor Trinity

Costa Mesa