Richard Hooker -- Reflection
Anglo-Catholic or Evangelical? Liberal or Conservative? Traditionalist or Progressive? Democrat or Republican? Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Capitalist or Socialist?
The more I watch the so-called "news" (and admittedly, I am watching such programs less and less these days), the more I recognize the predilection toward binary thinking. A person is either this or that -- with no middle ground. No room for nuance or paradox. Clean. Clear. Simple.
Ask enough questions so that the appropriate label can be affixed, and then, presto! No further effort need be expended to engage a person as an individual. We can simply relate to them as we would anyone else we have stamped with the same label. No fuss. No muss. No need to trouble ourselves with engaging the complexities and inconsistencies inherent within each human being.
As our politics (of both the secular and ecclesial sort) have become more and more polarized, reasoned debate is sacrificed on the altar of supposed certainty. Impugning another's character and value system takes the place of reflective listening and engaged conversation. We no longer debate issues with the understanding that debate can lead to stronger relationships and more cogent solutions. Instead we engage in a conversational scorched earth policy in which the end result is the decimation of our opponent's character. The implication of this sort of "debate" is, of course, that if our opponent had any character at all, then she/he would unquestioningly agree with our particular position in the first place.
Of course, "either/or" thinking isn't the invention of twenty-first century cable news networks. At the end of the 16th century, a priest by the name of Richard Hooker was engaged in a debate about the quality and character (some might even venture "charism") of the Church of England, from which the Episcopal Church is descended. Within the Church of England at that time there were still those who wanted to reestablish communion with the Bishop of Rome, which had been finally severed during the reign of Elizabeth I. Their criticism was that the English Church wasn't "Catholic enough". There was another group of people who felt that the reform of the Church, which had happened in fits and starts for decade after decade, was being held back by recalcitrant, near-heretical bishops and ignorant politicians. Their criticism was that the Church wasn't "Reformed enough".
As the debate raged, Hooker (see yesterday's post) stepped into the fray. He sought, through his work to demonstrate that a via media (middle way) -- a Church both catholic and reformed would embody the best of both perspectives without succumbing to the eccentricities of each. To read his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity is to be confronted with a mind that was passionate, reasonable and incisive. Hooker did not argue for the Church of England as some sort of politically necessary compromise, rather he looked at the Church of England as a pointer toward a greater comprehension of the "wonderful and sacred mystery" that is Christ's Church.
Hooker's contribution to the conversation was both his "sound reasoning" and his "great charity". In holding both of those qualities together, Hooker's arguments had to be taken seriously (even by those who would reject those arguments as insufficient). As I think about the general tenor of the debates within our own Church and in the culture at large, I think we would do well to remember these words from the Preface of the Laws:
"There will come a time when three words uttered with charity and meekness shall receive a far more blessed reward than three thousand volumes written with disdainful sharpness of wit."
Amen.
Anglo-Catholic or Evangelical? Liberal or Conservative? Traditionalist or Progressive? Democrat or Republican? Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Capitalist or Socialist?
The more I watch the so-called "news" (and admittedly, I am watching such programs less and less these days), the more I recognize the predilection toward binary thinking. A person is either this or that -- with no middle ground. No room for nuance or paradox. Clean. Clear. Simple.
Ask enough questions so that the appropriate label can be affixed, and then, presto! No further effort need be expended to engage a person as an individual. We can simply relate to them as we would anyone else we have stamped with the same label. No fuss. No muss. No need to trouble ourselves with engaging the complexities and inconsistencies inherent within each human being.
As our politics (of both the secular and ecclesial sort) have become more and more polarized, reasoned debate is sacrificed on the altar of supposed certainty. Impugning another's character and value system takes the place of reflective listening and engaged conversation. We no longer debate issues with the understanding that debate can lead to stronger relationships and more cogent solutions. Instead we engage in a conversational scorched earth policy in which the end result is the decimation of our opponent's character. The implication of this sort of "debate" is, of course, that if our opponent had any character at all, then she/he would unquestioningly agree with our particular position in the first place.
Of course, "either/or" thinking isn't the invention of twenty-first century cable news networks. At the end of the 16th century, a priest by the name of Richard Hooker was engaged in a debate about the quality and character (some might even venture "charism") of the Church of England, from which the Episcopal Church is descended. Within the Church of England at that time there were still those who wanted to reestablish communion with the Bishop of Rome, which had been finally severed during the reign of Elizabeth I. Their criticism was that the English Church wasn't "Catholic enough". There was another group of people who felt that the reform of the Church, which had happened in fits and starts for decade after decade, was being held back by recalcitrant, near-heretical bishops and ignorant politicians. Their criticism was that the Church wasn't "Reformed enough".
As the debate raged, Hooker (see yesterday's post) stepped into the fray. He sought, through his work to demonstrate that a via media (middle way) -- a Church both catholic and reformed would embody the best of both perspectives without succumbing to the eccentricities of each. To read his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity is to be confronted with a mind that was passionate, reasonable and incisive. Hooker did not argue for the Church of England as some sort of politically necessary compromise, rather he looked at the Church of England as a pointer toward a greater comprehension of the "wonderful and sacred mystery" that is Christ's Church.
Hooker's contribution to the conversation was both his "sound reasoning" and his "great charity". In holding both of those qualities together, Hooker's arguments had to be taken seriously (even by those who would reject those arguments as insufficient). As I think about the general tenor of the debates within our own Church and in the culture at large, I think we would do well to remember these words from the Preface of the Laws:
"There will come a time when three words uttered with charity and meekness shall receive a far more blessed reward than three thousand volumes written with disdainful sharpness of wit."
Amen.
posted by FrGaryB | 1:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home