Rod Dreher passes along a note from a Catholic (whom I assume to be theologically and political right of center):
In the last couple of months I’ve returned to Catholicism with more faith and vigor, trying to recover my faith through regular parish life, small-scale involvement (K of C, etc.), and deeper faith experiences—and it has, by and large, worked. I feel more closely connected to Christ than ever, and it has been a real blessing to me to get more involved in my parish life. For the first time in a long time, I find that I’m glad to be a Catholic, excited to go to Mass, and optimistic about the laity.
Sadly, his correspondent then attended a retreat sponsored by a lay religious order, which turned out to be dominated by "hippy dippy" Catholics. The problem is that, at least in the correspondent's parish, the hippies are in charge:
... these are the most involved people in our parish. They are the leaders in the pews. They are the Eucharistic ministers and bulletin columnists and what we might call “the elite” in parish culture. They set the tone for everyone else, and I note with some alarm that the dinner table included no fewer than four teachers at the parish school. If the teachers and parish leaders and even the priests (!) of the parish can’t be counted on to defend the most basic teachings of the Church, then where are we? Seriously, I’m really asking. If we just tacitly agree as Catholics that we’re just going to smirk at what we don’t like, then what the hell are we doing every Sunday?
...I’m really trying hard to be a good Catholic, but you know who’s making it hard? Other Catholics. Even the priests themselves. It’s like we’re living in some bizarro world where we pretend to believe something even as we all mock it. There is no looming collapse of Christian culture—we’re there. We’re post-collapse.
I get it. I really do. But my background prior to my conversion was mainly Baptist. And I'm not talking the behemoth that is the Southern Baptist Convention. I'm talking the 200,000 strong Conservative Baptist Association and the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches.
The chief characteristic of these micro-denominations is schism at the slightest whiff of heresy. If I have my history right, the Southern Baptists split off from the Triennial Commission (definitely not to be confused with the Trilateral Commission). Northern baptist churches remained only loosely affiliated through the Commission and several other missionary associations until 1907 when the Northern Baptist Convention was formed. In 1947, the Conservative Baptists split off from the Northern Baptists. In the 1950s, the most conservative of the Conservative Baptist churches objected that the denomination leadership was cooperating with Billy Graham, who the conservative minority regarded as too liberal and too ecumenical. Unwilling to tolerate association with those who associated with Graham, some 200 churches left the association. So the schismatics underwent their own schism.
The GARBC story is similar. In 1923, a collection of evangelical and fundamentalist churches split off the increasingly mainline Northern Baptists and formed the Baptist Bible Union. In 1932, BBU went out of business (so to speak) and the GARBC rose from the ashes.
The GARBC is further relevant because they practice a doctrine known as second degree separation. First degree separation requires that Christians separate themselves from the world. Second degree separation requires that Christians also separate themselves from Christians who are not separated from the world. (In other words, those who practice second degree separation separate themselves from those who do not practice first degree separation.) For example, a lot of GARBC folks thought Billy Graham taught unsound doctrines and associated with apostates. Accordingly, they refused to associate with Graham (first degree) and also refused to associate with any Christians who did cooperate with Graham (second degree).
The logical of the separation doctrine, especially when taken to the second degree, inevitably leads to ecclesiastical separatism -- i.e., schism. The true believers (usually a small rump) quote 2 Cor. 6:17 ("Therefore, come forth from them and be separate,” says the Lord, “and touch nothing unclean; then I will receive you.") and march out to form their own new organization.
At the opposite extreme, of course, stands Roman Catholicism with its billion-odd believers. It is the ultimate big tent. You can't be a Roman Catholic and practice second degree separation, because even if you don't associate with the hippy-dippy Catholics, you're going to be rubbing shoulders with those who do. I doubt whether you can be a Roman Catholic and practice first degree separation (although I'd love to see how Rod Dreher relates the Benedict option to the doctrines of separation.)
I understand the folks who practice second degree separation. After all, I've got family members who were leaders of a group that left a GARBC church to form an independent church because they thought the GARBC was getting too liberal on separation. There is an appeal to purity (especially if you're a curmudgeonly Yankee).
But then I remember that Jesus said "I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners." Instead of separating ourselves from those who do not share our beliefs, I suggest that we have a duty to witness to them. To live an orthodox life and expound (lower case o) orthodoxy. Maybe this is especially true if we look at our local parish and see disaster. After all God sent Jonah to Nineveh, not some city where everybody was already headed to heaven.
