Skip to content

Opposed to Defense: Why I Don’t Defend My Church Tradition from Criticism

by Carson T. Clark on March 27, 2012

Here are four interrelated thoughts about why I feel no need to offer an apologetic of my church tradition:

  1. Experience tells me that other doctrinally- or historically-inclined Christians have a much stronger sense of loyalty than do I and, therefore, feel the need to defend their traditions from criticism. This has always seemed odd to me as I feel no such impulse. I invite critical feedback so long as it’s valid.11.Key word: valid. I don’t do well with ignorance. How else is one to learn and grow? Few things are worse than being surrounded by like-minded Yes Men who pat themselves on their backs in honor of their own brilliance. Yuck.22.Such ecclesiastical inbreeding fosters the worst self-assured arrogance evident throughout church history. No thank you.
  2. Anglicanism for me is an adjective rather than a noun, a description rather than a source of identity. I’m a Christian, a follower of Jesus. That’s my source of identity. Everything else is merely a descriptor of what sort of Christian I am. That reason in tandem with my commitment to the rigorous pursuit of truth and recognition of our postmodern cultural context (where people value transparent admission of error) results in my consistently being the first to criticize my tradition.
  3. I disagree with people’s tendency to want to distinguish a church tradition in the present from its origins in order to somehow convince themselves of its purity.33.Some might want to chalk this up to mere differences of perspective that are all equally valid. While I tend to be an advocate of perspectivism, I’m gonna go ahead and challenge it this time. Rarely do I say this, but that’s not a biblical way of thinking. Not only are we as Christians people who should excel in grace, forgiveness, and reconciliation, but for us history is a seamless redemptive narrative. Anglicanism’s tragic origins–and even its current troubles, for that matter–in no way disinclined me from committing to it. I anticipate finding no unblemished expression of the Church till the Lord returns to set all to rights.
  4. Honestly, I don’t even see the need to defend my tradition’s theology.44.And clearly don’t say that as one who’s theologically apathetic or belligerent. I’ll happily discuss Anglican beliefs with anyone offering criticism. If they’ve got a good point, they’ve got a good point. It won’t ruin my day, let alone my life, if the tradition has been or is wrong about something. Of course, one of the things I love most about the Anglican tradition is its doctrinal elasticity within borders. Unlike, say, a Baptist who comes to accept paedobaptism as a valid practice or a Presbyterian who can no longer affirm Reformed Theology, my views can evolve without having to chuck the whole thing. Admittedly, this is a luxury not shared by many Christians.
  • Moto

    Point 3 is kinda how I feel about the term “feminism.” Maybe the term came from a less than ideal time, but that period was necessary to get us where we are today. Maybe you would consider that a false analogy.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=163800401 Carson T. Clark

      That’s an interesting comparison. I’ll have to think on that. Challenging to my perspective for sure.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Steinacher/783260236 Mark Steinacher

    You’re a hard man to keep up with, Carson! :-) A prolific writer, you think as much as you tap the keys…that is a good sign. You point us in the right direction when you note the post-modern affirmation of transparency. It is possible to embrace what is great about our particular traditions without having to denigrate those whose tradition differs.

    My only concern with post-modernism, partly based in my own experience of having operated in three different denominations, is that we will end up like Magnum P.I.’s boss (Higgins?), who, one evening while drunk, regaled anyone who would listen with “war stories”. The regiment with which he served kept changing, but there was a constant refrain: “After all, we were…” (then filled in with “Fusiliers” or “Guards” or whomever). o.O

    The “defend at all costs” attitude you react against used to be described as “churchmanship” (yes, without the gender-inclusive language). There are ways that I somewhat miss the desire to stand for one’s particular understanding of truth, but, on the whole, I’m with you on this. :-)

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=163800401 Carson T. Clark

      Thanks :)

      Anyone who makes a Magnum P.I. reference is good in my book. Love it.

  • Pingback: Carson Clark – Why I Don’t Defend My Church Tradition from Criticism « Persona

  • Gill

    Yup, I see that. I don’t feel the need to ‘defend’ either – I am only too aware of our weaknesses. I do think, however, that there’s a place to ‘explain’ – there are a lot of misguided assumptions out there which don’t contribute to interconfessional understanding and charity (as in 1 Corinthians 13, not as in Oxfam!)

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=163800401 Carson T. Clark

      Great distinction! Explanation or Defense. Two very different words and actions. I agree.

%d bloggers like this: