In an editorial piece for Christianity Today, David Neff nails the challenges facing conservative break-away groups: how to create a positive identity after having one’s identity defined by not being in step with the mainline denomination for so long.
The easiest thing to do in such a scenario is to continually distance oneself from what defines the other: they ordain homosexuals? We’re not that. They went down that slippery slope by allowing ordination to divorced people? We won’t do that. They started on the path when they ordained women? We won’t do that.
I’ve seen precisely that stream of argument play out in at least one break-away group over the past 7 years. Let’s hope that these more recent examples can do better.
(I am aware that this works both ways. Much of the Emergent world can be seen as post-conservatives and/or post-evangelicals having the equal and opposite reaction, fleeing conservatism to the extent that they throw out the good with the bad. Not that I ever have this struggle, of course….)
Daniel, I’ve been appreciating your self-deprecating self-awareness since you started this blog back up. I love your stuff and am constantly challenged by it, but sometimes I walk away from a post thinking “too my reaction in there.” It’s so easy for various sides to exist like this in debates, constantly exaggerating and seeing everything wrong with the other and nothing wrong with themselves. I’m encouraged when I see more realistic appraisals. Keep it up!
I can’t speak in regard to divorced pastors, but it’s been my experience that a group of churches that broke away because of one issue (in this case, homosexual ordination) often finds itself more conservative on issues that weren’t even the presenting issue that caused the breakaway (specifically, to my knowledge, women’s ordination), even though the churches that broke away might not have considered those “other” issues worth breaking up over (indeed, they might have been “okay” with those issues, but they’re perfectly willing to sacrifice those as “non-essentials” over the “essential” issue–homosexual ordination in the example. Those quotes are, of course, very intentional).
Thus, in theory, women who might hold conservative ideals on something like homosexual ordination are left out in the cold. Either they remain with a group they disagree with on that issue (and many do), or they aren’t allow to minister within the “breakaway” group that didn’t even break away because of women’s ordination (and thus they have to choose between their “ideals” and their “call”).