c. 2007 Religion News Service

(UNDATED) Not long ago, the “enemy du jour” stalking traditional Christian denominations was “creeping congregationalism.”

That meant the tendency of congregations to function independently of traditional denominational standards or structures. Conservatives in the Episcopal Church, for example, lamented the loss of cohesion or what they called “catholicity.”

Then the denomination, with significant cohesion, made some decisions the conservatives didn’t like, and suddenly they are demanding their own form of congregationalism, claiming they have the right to leave the national church and to take their property with them. And they demand a choice as to which “catholicity” they recognize: Nigeria or New York.

In other words, in this argument, as in most religious arguments, the issue is rarely higher-order concerns like Scripture, tradition or reason. The issue tends to be the lower-order concern of willfulness: We want what we want, and we will do anything to get it, even quoting Scriptures we never read before if they make our case, or making common cause with a bishop in Nigeria whose existence previously meant nothing to us.

Consider the “victim role.” Some people or groups are indeed victims, and they deserve justice. But even when doors open, tables turn, and balances shift, it’s difficult to stop using guilt, shame and remembered grievances to get one’s way.

We know this behavior well, of course, for we use it all the time. It’s the “law of the sandbox”: If high morality works, use it. If a threat of parental intervention works, use it. In conflicts, the air rings with cries of “no fair,” “you’re mean,” “I’ll call my mother,” and “God will get you.” When those fail, on comes violence.

I suggest we drop the hypocrisy of sandbox bullying. Let’s just name it. I want one thing, you want another, so how are we going to work it out? Power plays aren’t about principle or holiness. They are about power.

A good example is immigration. Some cite America’s ideal of receiving the world’s oppressed and desperate; others cite an ideal of the rule of law. Both are worthy ideals. Economic arguments cut both directions. So do faith arguments. Some see a racial bias against immigrants of color; some deny that.

The fact of the matter is that we disagree, and whatever the basis of our disagreements _ principle, economic calculation or bigotry _ they won’t be resolved by dueling ideals or dueling analyses or dueling vigilantes. Disagreements can only be resolved by cutting through the smoke and asking, What is truly at stake? And how are we going to work this out?

Working it out, in turn, means looking for compromise _ never easy when feelings have been ratcheted up by bullying based on alleged principle. It means accepting the other as having a reasonable viewpoint and a right to express it _ not easy when the other has been demonized.

And it means considering the wisdom of not deciding; that is, not needing to enforce a single path. That’s not easy, either, when all paths but one’s own have been labeled sinful or unpatriotic.

I think that’s one reason Jesus taught about wealth and power, not about doctrine or law. Forming right-opinion is easy work, and arguing on the basis of right-opinion can become a cheap smokescreen. Willfulness comes down to power, so let’s deal with power.

In a democracy, power should be allocated by law and votes, not by sandbox bullying. In a Christian environment, power should be allocated by love and sacrifice, not by sandbox bullying.

The problem isn’t disagreement. The problem is sandbox bullying.

(Tom Ehrich is a writer, consultant and leader of workshops. His book, “Just Wondering, Jesus: 100 Questions People Want to Ask,” was published by Morehouse Publishing. An Episcopal priest, he lives in Durham, N.C. His Web site is http://www.onajourney.org.)

KRE/LF END EHRICH

To obtain a photo of this columnist, go to the RNS Web site at https://religionnews.com. On the lower right, click on “photos,” then search by subject or slug.