Diversity as a problem

In his remarks before the Executive Council recently, Canon Kearon opined that the problems in the communion are a function of diversity. Unfortunately, the idea seems to be catching on. Lionel Deimel on his Web Blog says this:

I believe that a stable Anglicanism requires the limiting of liturgical diversity and a kind of don’t-ask-don’t-tell approach to doctrine. It also requires that canonical liturgy (or liturgies) be seen as relevant and contemporary. Non-standard worship and extreme theology seem to go hand-in-hand. It is certainly true, in any case, that many of the congregations that have left The Episcopal Church, reputedly over doctrinal issues, worship in a style that would make the average Episcopalian feel uncomfortable and out-of-place.

Canon Kearson sees uniform culture and doctrine nostalgically, Lionel wants uniform liturgy. I think they are both wrong.

There has actually never been a moment when the church had no divisions. The great confession of faith, the Nicene Creed was not accepted by Arian Christians. In fact it was written to explicitly deny the Arians a place in the church. For the first 5 centuries of the faith the Ebonintes stood apart claiming Peter was wrong and one had to be a Jew to be a Christian. From the moment Paul started preaching to gentiles, the faith has been diverse. The Acts recalls the first general council of the church called to decide membership rules.

A tendency in viewing history, very human and understandable is to find a 'golden age.' Canon Kearson finds one in an Anglican experience by ignoring the fights between high and low; ango-catholic and evangelical; Calvinist and Protestant or modern and traditional members. He conveniently forgets that the Elizabethan settlement was never accepted by all. We should have shown him Plymouth Rock while he was here.

In Geneva Switzerland, there is a bridge that crosses a small stream flowing into Lake Geneva. A historical marker notes that this is where Calvin and his followers would drown dissenters. The history of the faith is the history of disagreement. And as one side or another gains more and more ascendancy, the level of repression and violence rises.

For 100 years, the icon of an Anglican polity was the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and the use of a Book of Common Prayer. That book has almost everywhere allowed a great deal of the diversity in practice. All during the century, there have been schisms. The church split or spun off segments in South Africa, America, Scotland and Canada. The Methodists established separate identities in England, albeit linked to the CoE, Canada and the US. They then went on a missionary drive that set up independent Methodist communities in many countries.

We have never praise God, had uniformity in either doctrine nor prayer. If one wants to see how uniformity is maintained, one need only study the Inquisition.

What we have lost and need to recover, is the art of disagreeing agreeable. Rather than having someone tell us what the outcome of disagreeing must be or that we may not disagree, we need to set better ground rules. A basic rule should be that the presence of someone is not a valid basis for disagreement.

So, I have to join in dissenting from the idea that a fixed form of common prayer will solve all problems, or even most. The simple fact is we are all human, we have differing perceptions and we can and will see things differently. To all be one requires that we agree to disagree.

FWIW