Overcoming the Corinthian temptation
By Greg Jones
"Conceited, stubborn, over-sensitive, argumentative, infantile, pushy." This is how bible scholar Jerome Murphy-O'Connor describes the Church in Corinth to which Paul wrote the two letters now in our bibles. They were a frustrating and exasperating people, who seemed to misunderstand Paul's teaching at every turn. Murphy-O'Connor writes that "virtually every statement he made took root in their minds in a slightly distorted form." Yikes.
Lucky for us that Paul faced this crowd. Because he had to teach, and teach, and teach them, now we have the benefit of First and Second Corinthians. The basic situation in Corinth was a mixed body of folks, divided by ethnicity, idea and practice. They were highly partisan, and apparently loved to dissent and divide.
Well, it sounds likes Christians everywhere, at least from time to time. It seems like Christians are always struggling with a "Corinthian" tendency toward division and disunity. To be sure, in our denomination, and global Anglicanism, we've seen lots of it in the past six years, and certainly will see more. It is worth remembering that the Church of England broke ties with Rome in the middle 16th century over questions of authority and power. Over the next couple of centuries - a host of groups left the Church of England, whether Presbyterian, Quaker, Methodist, Baptist and so forth. In the 19th century, a small group of evangelical Episcopalians broke away and formed the Reformed Episcopal Church. (They believed that 'Romanizing germs' had infected the Episcopal Church and it was corrupt beyond repair -- opposing things like altar candles, priestly robes, and high sacramental doctrine.) In the late 20th century, several groups split away from the Episcopal Church - first over integration, then over the new prayer book and women's ordination. And now, of course, we see the chasm forming between those who seek to include glbt people into the full life of the Church, inclusive of marriage equality and ordination, and those who do not.
I believe that there is a way forward that preserves a maximum of unity and diversity, with integrity. I think that the Church will always be reforming its understandings of how God wants us to be - but I believe it can be done in such a way as to comprehend both a faithful respect for what has been received, and a faithful openness to "new wine." As I understand Paul, what is required of Corinthians as well as Episcopalians is that we die to self, pick up the cross, and follow the Son of God. In my view, the community which does this, will also be able to maintain a glorious degree of both differentiation and unity within itself. Even when faced with questions which are very difficult to come to an accord about.
The way through the dilemma of Us vs. Them, and We're Right and They're Wrong is to remember the mark on our heads. For we who have been marked as Christ's own forever, are not permitted to ask any more, "How do I get what I want?' We instead get to ask, "How do We obey our Lord?" We instead get to ask, "How do we discern together what God wants, and how do we get there?"
Frankly, I'm afraid Episopalians simply do not remember that we are called to be a people submitted to each other as to Christ. I believe we very often identify ourselves in individualistic, then congregational, then diocesan terms, then General Convention terms; and then very little in terms of the wider Communion, let alone our ecumenical and interfaith partners.
As we approach General Convention, I simply pray that we be mindful of our primary identity as a people of God in Christ, called to submit to another as to Christ. I don't know what the way forward will look like - vis a vis the inclusion of glbt persons in matters of marriage equality or holy orders - or vis a vis the Anglican Communion and beyond. I would take great joy, however, if we could indeed find that forward route while maintaining the maximum degree of unity in the love of Christ. It would be so refreshing to pull off what so many are calling impossible. It would be so exciting to manage to get through this with the bonds of affection not only unbroken, but strengthened.
There, I said it.
The Rev. Samuel Gregory Jones ('Greg') is rector of St. Michael's in Raleigh, N.C. and the bass player in indie-rock band The Balsa Gliders - whose fourth studio release is available on iTunes. He blogs at Anglican Centrist.

I think we all should read John Wesley's "Of a Catholic Spirit" over and over, until we get it.
Posted by E H Culver
|
February 23, 2009 10:40 AM
"Submission" as a term has a bad rap with many people...and for good reason. As a woman, I've been told it is my job to submit to men. As a layperson, I've been told it's my job to submit to clergy and bishops.
None of these people, I might point out, is God.
Submission is a dangerous thing--and it is done in only two ways...by deep trust in the person to whom you are submitting or by compulsion.
What does mutual submission look like in your world, Fr. Jones? Where is the trust? Or who compels?
We instead get to ask, "How do we discern together what God wants, and how do we get there?"
I think a good start might be to stop politicizing the Eucharist--but the problem is that I've seen only one "side" doing that.
I've said it so many times in religious forums that I'm sure people roll their eyes the second they see it, but...I will kneel at the altar rail with ANYONE. I don't care what their politics are, or their views on the ordination of women or full inclusion of GLBTs.
But I cannot kneel with people who have left the church--nor can I kneel with people who won't kneel with me because they think I'm not "pure" enough to share communion with. You can't "submit" to someone who thinks you are so sinful they can't even share a church with you.
All of us believe we are doing God's will--that is why the debate is so passionate. How can I submit to those whom I believe do incredible damage in the name of Christ?
I cannot. But I can meet them in church. I can pray with them, sing with them, and share in the Eucharist with them. I can do acts of service in the community with them. All we both have to do is show up.
Paige Baker
Posted by paigeb
|
February 23, 2009 4:43 PM
Yes Paige that is very true. The word has been violated by wrongful abuses for so long. And truly - while deep trust and/or compulsion by power figures have been the result of these abuses - the calling is still to try and form mutuality. Of course, as you suggest, it is impossible to be 'mutual' with folks who refuse it, and who have broken away, or left, or whatehaveyou.
The key I think, and the context of the notion of mutual submission, is gracious eucharistic fellowship.
Mutual submission, motivated by grace and a desire to embrace the other, is what I'm talking about here.
It is indeed what one would expect from any two people who make the choice to love each other no matter what. In this sense, we expect the same of those who share in the covenant of baptism - we are to give up our lives for each other, and in taking up the cross, we gain our lives.
It is the kind of love which does not protect itself and holds nothing back.
Greg Jones
Posted by anglicancentrist
|
February 23, 2009 5:55 PM
Self-correction: in my awkward third sentence, beginning with 'And truly' ---- it should read "while a LACK of deep trust ..."
Posted by anglicancentrist
|
February 23, 2009 7:57 PM
Hi Greg & Paige:
In my own reflections, I have used the term "mutual commitment" rather than "mutual submission" as a more positive understanding of the concept Greg has articulated here. "Commitment" sometimes entails submission of one party to the better judgment of the other (hence, I hope to be a submissive husband when my wife points out what an idiot I've been), but just as equally it may entail challenging each other to be more Christ-like in ways that have nothing to do with the abusive dimensions of (pseudo-) "submissiveness."
If we could get away from the trap that the concept of "submission" opens up and focus instead on the true meaning of mutual commitment in Christ, then I think we can get more at the heart of what covenant faithfulness is all about--regardless of the relationship in question.
Nathan Humphrey+
St. Paul's, K Street
Washington, DC
Posted by Nathan Humphrey
|
February 24, 2009 11:28 AM
Nathan,
Yes, that's a perfectly good approach - if it saves the issue of falling into a trap. And indeed, the trap is real. Ideally, we could beware of the trap, and walk around it. Language is rife with such traps. The notion of submission, when chosen, is a powerful one because it goes to servanthood and sacrifice for the sake of other. Commitment to other certainly goes there, and perhaps is more trouble-free from abuse. But, it recalls a level of "I'm still in charge" - to my hearing - which I think goes against the heart of the notion of faithful and mutual self-submission.
Greg Jones
Posted by anglicancentrist
|
February 24, 2009 4:56 PM