i'm taking a course on friends theology and practices.  last week, we read a couple of texts about george fox and the beginnings of the friends tradition.  honestly, it made me sad.  it began with a measure of arrogance and impatience that birthed a schism that - even before george fox died - already had the forming of schisms within itself.  there was a dedication to truth at the cost of unity.  i can still see that in quakerism today.


two years ago, i took a course on anglican theology and practices.  one of the sessions was on king henry and the beginnings of the anglican tradition.  honestly, it made me sad.  it began with a measure of immorality and nationalistic concerns ruling over the church.  there was a dedication to unity at the cost of truth.  i can still see that in episcopalianism.


studying church history is such a strange and often difficult thing.  none of the actors are blameless and none of the events are as holy as you might want. if you are honest, you are left with a series of antagonist, arrogant, and self-seeking acts that somehow God corrals into something good.


and i do - i want to be living church history.  i want to be a revolutionary.  but somehow, i want to do it without any of the brokenness and ugliness.  i want to assume that my new community in midtown sacramento can escape the brokenness of every single Christian movement in history.


but....like studying it, living church history is a strange and often difficult thing.  none of the actors are blameless and none of the events are as holy as i often want.  if i'm honest, i'm faced with my own antagonism, arrogance and self-seeking acts that some how God will use to make a work of art.


i want midtown friends to be some idyllic missional hub and to enact every wonderful idea i had in my too many years in seminary (as well as avoid the pitfalls i swore against).  but the truth is God takes brokenness and makes beauty.  and if we are going to be a living part of church history, we are going to be broken and bruised and sometimes ugly - but beautiful in the only eyes that count.


so here's to living church history.
 


Comments

Paul Smith

01/28/2010 1:34:52 pm

I had a similar reaction when I was in Boston contemplating the site of Mary Dyer's hanging. In today's terms, she would have been arrested for disturbing the peace. I was (and still am) unable to understand why she thought that God's work could not be done politely.

 

Ken Perrine

01/28/2010 4:36:56 pm

I think there's a lot of merit to be bravely church-planting from a stance of humility acknowledging brokenness versus church-planting from a stance of bravado that is motivated by brokenness. Even so, as we have seen, God will do what God will do with either.

 

tara a healy

03/06/2010 10:30:57 pm

I agree! though I love church history, especially Friends Church history I wonder about splits. I have now been apart of two splits. They are awful! Like a bad divorce where one or both parents are trying to fight for custody of the kidos (congregation). In the mean time the kids are hurt and start acting out. Splits in plain English SUCK!!

But in reality Reconciliation is tough! It means both sides have to admit fault, work on differences, admit they are wrong, ask forgiveness, practice forgiveness, openly communicate, mutually submit, give up seeming good but selfish desires, seek the others best interest, make concessions, learn to cope and list continues. Its just easier to throw in the towel at the end of the day. Its easier to have a winner and a loser. Its easier to just take your ball and go home. And its easy to justify it because after all Paul and Barnabas split... But Paul and Jesus and Barnabas were reconciliationist! I have to go with weight of evidence in scripture. Diversity is good and needed but diversity can happen even in unity and reconciliation. Unity does not exclude diversity or vise versa

 

Comments are closed.