Michael Gerson, in a column arguing that Cardinal Ratzinger who later became Pope Benedict actually was the one who (finally, eventually) cracked down on pedophile priests, tossed off an interesting category:
It is the consistent temptation of faith leaders — Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or Hindu — to practice the religion of the tribe. The goal is to seek public recognition of their own theological convictions and the health of their own religious institutions. For many centuries of Western history, the Christian church vied and jostled for influence along with other interests, pursuing a tribal agenda at the expense of Jews, heretics, “infidels” and ambitious princes. The mind-set can still be detected, in milder forms, whenever Christian leaders talk of “taking back America for Christ” or pay hush money to avoid scandal for the church. The tribe must be defended.But the religion of the tribe is inherently exclusive, sorting “us” from “them.” So it undermines a foundational teaching of Christianity — a radical human equality in need and in grace.
Setting aside what he says about the pope and even the rest of what he says about this topic, I wonder if this sheds light on last week’s discussion about what the late Michael Spencer said about Lutheranism. It can apply also to any church or to Christianity as a whole. Do we think of ourselves as a religious tribe or as the universal church?
Now there is and has to be an “us” vs. “them” when we consider the saved and the lost. And this does not deny the necessity of there being different denominations that gather around specific beliefs and practices. But, for example, as a Lutheran who believes that the Lutheran confessions articulate what Biblical theology is, I find that I can appreciate such things as sacramentalism, liturgical worship, belief in the inerrancy and efficacy of the Bible, justification by faith, salvation by grace, and devotion to Christ wherever I find them. Also, examples of guilt, morality, and vocation. They are part of the whole that I believe, and I will find other things in other theologies that I reject. But my theology gives me a framework for agreement (if only partial), and not only a standard for exclusion (though it can do that too when need be). Does this make sense? (And no, I’m not going ecumenical or unionist on you! If you think that, you haven’ grasped my point.)
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In