Monday, October 24, 2005

A church of demands or acceptance?

Thankfully, Commonweal has put John Garvey's column, "Who's In & Who's Out," from the October 7, 2005 issue, online. Fr. Garvey is one of the main reasons why I shell out the nearly forty bucks annually to keep receiving Commonweal every other week (The other big reason is Jo Mcgowan).

He uses Philip Turner Johnson's First Things (June/July 2005) article, "An Unworkable Theology" as a springboard to explore issues of inclusion and exclusion in the Church, giving a very Catholic (and, it should be said, Orthodox -- he's an Orthodox priest) "both/and" answer.

[Incidentally, I've found Philip Johnson's explanation of the "inclusive" tendency he describes in the Episcopal church to be quite prevalent in the Catholic as well -- in priests, church professionals and laity. Of course, I don't agree with everything. And FYI, the latest (Nov. 05) issue of FT has a response which is critical of the article's understanding of CPE. Not online yet.]

Fr. Garvey:

When Jesus asks Peter “Do you love me?” he uses the words agapas me, that is, do you love me as God loves you, with the love that comes down from heaven. Agape is the word for love that Paul uses in speaking of the most important virtue in 1 Corinthians 13, and the word he uses in Romans when he says that nothing will be able to separate us from “the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (8:39). But Peter, answering, “You know I love you,” uses the words philos se...that is, I love you like a brother. It is a good kind of love, quite commendable, but not the same thing. Simon uses this word in all three responses. But when Jesus asks Peter the third time, he no longer asks do you love me with God’s self-emptying love-he no longer asks, “Agapas me?” Instead, he comes down to Peter’s level, asking him, “Phileis me?” Do you at least love me like a brother? At this moment, knowing that Peter is capable only of this level of love, it is enough; he knows that it is the best Peter can currently do. But then Jesus goes on to say that Peter will be led where he does not want to go; in his final suffering and martyrdom, Peter will have to learn that deeper love. For now, Jesus meets him where he is, capable of love, though not the love Jesus will ultimately ask of him, and of us.
I really found this to be helpful. Interestingly, the same story was used in a talk I heard last week on chastity, to much the same effect. (And, we heard it in the homily this past weekend as well! :))

Here's the both/and -- acceptance and a call to deeper transformation. Not a "you can't be here untill you're at this level" kind of "church-of-the-pure-only" standard. Nor, I should add, a "well, it's all ok -- God loves you anyway, and celebrates everything" kind of mush. A church of acceptance and demands.

While insisting that we must take the cross and transformation seriously, the church should also be a place where those who are weak, who are not ready for the whole of what is demanded, can feel welcomed and loved. In one way or another, we all fall into this category. The church is often seen as smug, doubt-free, and self-righteous, and Christians of all confessions are often guilty as charged. When one kind of sinning is seen as more important-more really sinful-than other kinds, we miss the point of the struggle, whether the sins involved are sexual, or have to do with greed or compassion or selfishness. We are called to empty ourselves, as Christ did, called to a radical humility, and morality is only part of this process.
(Ahh. How can I not mention that Amy Welborn blogged on inclusion/exclusion back in April. The day after the new Pope was elected, incidentally. Read it. Her comboxes are another story altogether ... :))

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

A church of demands or acceptance?

Both/And!

What were you expecting? Either/Or?

Sincerely,

Dogwood

Fr. Gaurav Shroff said...

Dogwood: it might seem "duh," but I do think we as, as individuals and also congregations and groups, tend to fall into one or the other. The more conservative emphasize the demand, the more liberal the acceptance (on most things. It's not like anyone would demand acceptance for say, the modern sins: racism, homophobia, sexism, environmental degradation directly .... :)). I thought the way Fr. Garvey put it was refreshing and challenging. Maybe we can just listen to St. Paul in Eph 4:15 ... "aleuteheuntes en agape" ... "truthing in love" or "speaking the truth in love" as it's translated ... both/and ... :)