I thought Tony Jones' response to David Fitch was perceptively honest. IMHO, it's what Dave was so disappointed about one particular cluster in the ECM. To quote Tony, "We've taken a pastiche approach to church and theology -- we take a little bit from here and a little bit from there."
It boggles one's mind to consider the diversity of interpretations among Christians who revere the Bible--Christians who are evangelical, post-evangelical, post-conservative, post-liberal, or emerging or whatever label we use to identify ourselves in the second decade in this millenium. Some no longer want to be identified as evangelical, even though they are committed to Christ.
So, if I understand Dave right, there are two levels to his frustration with the ECM, disptuable matters, and the "never-ending conversation"
1) The never-ending meta conversation existing within a particular cluster in the ECM. For Dave it never was grounded in a robust ecclesiology in concrete resolution and formation.
2) The possibility for "never-ending conversation" at the local level--particularly the Anabaptist community. According Dave, formation requires (yes, "requires"--the synonyms for require are demand, insist, urge, order, dictate) "ground resolution" on "disputable matters."
In light of the diversity of interpretations in the Christian community, what does it look like for faithful believers who are convinced their interpretations and practices are faithful to God and to the Christian story?
Dave writes of the conversation in the ECM: "It is too often attached to an inclusivism/tolerance that seeks to protect the autonomy of the individual and keep “disputed matters” at the conceptual level as opposed to on-the-ground practices of reconciliation, restoration, eucharist, discernment of righteousness grounded determinatively in the person and work of Jesus Christ."
Dave's disappointment is how the meta-conversation keeps on going, and going, and going, with no concrete resolution in the local community.
For some of us though, the meta-conversation was/is a life-saver and community-saver from dogmatism, ideology, and ecclesial positioning of certainty over non-essentials in the area of theology, faith, and practice. We've experienced the incessant need and demand from leaders to be certain, settled, and correct on "disputable matters" such as pre-tribulation, literal six-day creation, nouthetic counseling/counseling theories, speaking in tongues, women staying at home, Christian education, interracial dating/marriage, masturbation, breastfeeding, and the non-essential list goes on and on.
Is breastfeeding a disputable matter? Let's pause for a second and consider breastdeeding. In the past 100 years breastfeeding has been the subject of intense debate not only the mainstream Western world, but also among evangelicals. For example, it wasn't that long ago that an evangelical named Gary Ezzo put forth a very certain viewpoint on "parent-controlled feeding" of infants. Ezzo taught this with great authority in a large mega-church (John MacArthur's church). This was a huge push among conservative evangelicals who wanted to make sure parents were not catering to selfish demands of their children.
There has been an ongoing ("never-ending"??) conversation about breastfeeding for over the last hundred years and many evangelical leaders have put forth certain concrete resolutions concerning a particular view of breastfeeding. It was and is really dicey or "disputable" when you add the qualifier, "long-term" to this intimate practice. But as is typical of many "disputable matters" among evangelicals this debate has taken place in a much wider, broader, and deeper "conversation" in the Western culture among experts, psychologists, feminists, philosophers, and theologians.
In some significant sense, the subject of breastfeeding has parallels and overlaps the conversation about cross-gender friendship because it centers on what is appropriate and inappropriate in sexuality in public and private practice where the term "danger" has been bandied about with respect to touch and non-sexual, embodied intimacy. In other words, this is an emotionally-charged subject for those who go deep into the "conversation" and day-to-day practice in the privacy of their homes and out in public. Breastfeeding is definitely a communal and social practice.
In her fascinating, in-depth, provocative study on the subject of adult-child touch, Boundaries of Touch: Parenting and Adult-Child Intimacy, Jean O'Malley Halley gives us a solid overview of this disputable and "dangerous" matter. The book, published in 2007 with a second edition, in 2009, gives detailed documentation of the ideologies underlying both sides of the conversation. She documents for just one example, how Thomas Watson the well-known behaviorist influenced social and private practice of breastfeeding in the early part of last century because of his belief that women or mothers should virtually never touch their children. This eventually split the wisdom of "good parenting" between two dominant schools of thought: the behavorists and the "permissive" school. One school of thought, was anti-touch, the other, was pro-touch.
Embedded in the breastfeeding debate in the childrearing literature the past century are deep philosophical issues of the mind-body split, science versus nature, and gender-body dualisms. To a large extent, Western Christianity held to these dualisms, so that the mind was regarded as rational, but the body as animalistic in nature and perpetually on the verge of losing control. Women represented the body side of this dichotomy and "real men" the mind. Malley suggests (and I think she's right) mainstream ideologies of touch act as a window to the broader culture's vision of body, touch, affection, etc.(yeah, this overlaps with affectionate touch in cross-gender friendship, too).
Advocates of anti-touch, disdained the body, disdained physical affection and warned about feminization, homosexuality, and sexualized touch. According to Watson and other anti-touch advocates, mothers who expressed physical affection toward their children (including breastfeeding) would raise "weak, emotional, and out of control children." During Watson's time, science represented the rational, the ordered, and the controlled.
At the other end of the continuum were pro-touch advocates beginning with Benjamin Spock, the La Leche League, and contemporary advocate William Sears. Against the behaviorists and the rationalists, naturalists trusted nature and the body more than science. Naturalists celebrated the body--women's and men's bodies. One has to make the immediate observation that pro-touch advocates also used science to support their views. Halley observes that all ideological movements of touch use science to support their ideology. As Halley documents, these two schools of thought have fundamental splits about human development. For the naturalists, the mother's touch (including breastfeeding--even "long term" breastfeeding) was "natural," "pure," and "asexual." One school of pro-touch is known as "attachment" parenting.
Malley, who admits upfront in the book she was sexually abused as a child, delves into the complex issue of sexual abuse and the ideologies of touch. She examines both sides of the touch debate in light of the raised consciousness of sexual abuse and incest. She takes issue with conservative backlash in the late 1980s and 1990s which she said led to an "aura of danger associated with adults touching children." She also, though, observes that so many feminists have never embraced or developed a positive view of touch.
Malley deftly investigates the pros and cons from both sides of the issue on extended breastfeeding. She quotes one author as saying, "We have become deeply paranoid about our children's sexuality and about our own sexual feelings toward them." Malley points out that in our post-Freudian sexualized culture, many experts fear the "ever-present possibility of sexuality involved in physical contact." However, on the other side of the debate, experts argue that child sexual abuse is more likely to happen in homes with little physical contact.
According to Malley currently in the United States the mainstream, middle-class "norm" for breastfeeding is 12 months. She also documents that this "norm" is not what is normative for most of the global community. Indeed, she documents communities and cultures which affirm breastfeeding into the third and fourth years. Even today, one human being sucking on another's breast, snuggled up with sweet affectionate connection is deeply contested in mainstream United States. As she documents and persusively argues the mind-body split plays a central role in the ideologies of touch--not merely in adult-child intimacy, but in affectionate touch between adults.
Malley reveals her own struggle as a woman with a childhood sexual abuse history and as a mother who has a vested interest in this. She believes there is no "right" or "wrong" choice in extended breastfeeding. But she herself chose to breastfeed her children beyond 12 months. She documents other women who have chosen to breastfeed for shorter periods of time because they "felt selfish," or they were getting something out of it, or they felt guilty.
I wonder where Anabaptists would be on this private/social practice. I haven't done much reading on Anabaptists and breastfeeding, but clearly there are women out there, intelligent women who have embraced both sides of the spectrum. My hunch is that one would find Anabaptists all over the continuum with fears and anxieties on both sides as well as those in the middle of the polarities.
First, would this fit under a subject needing "concrete resolution?" Or, would this be a complex subject where conversation would be kept open? What would on the ground reconciliation look like in a Christian community? In an Anabaptist community? What if someone like Malley was a respected leader within the community and developed her convictions about breastfeeding while she was a leader? Would she be encouraged for the sake of self to give up breastfeeding altogether if others passionately disagreed with her? The other side could make an intelligent argument about excessive pleasure or self-interest, etc. with fears of physical contact becoming sexualized. Would 2 or 3 group meetings settle the issue once and for all or would patience need to be nurtured while differences were discussed, prayed over, and discerned? Would Malley have been able to write her book without communal intrusion or control? It's one thing to receive feedback and counsel from others. It's another thing when community seizes control over a non-essential issue. Would she be told that this practice would be okay for her but she must not persuade others? Would Malley's voice within her community need to be silenced within a community by other leaders pressing against the "autonomy" of an individual versus community?
Could a community include leaders who differ--those who breastfeed along mainstream guidelines, those who believe in extended breastfeeding, and those who bottle feed?
As I read this well-documented book, I could easily see the fears and the complexities of this private and social practice. I could imagine some communities wanting to settle this quickly in one or two meetings. I could also imagine some communities be driven by fear with a pressure to censure or stop Malley's voice as a leader or as an author until they vetted her book and gave her approval.
On the other hand, I hope there would be communities where people would see that formation is bigger than control or intrusion over non-essentials. I would hope for a hermeneutical humility and posture for the Malleys and for those who would differ from her.
The point in this post, is not necessarily to debate the pros and cons of breastfeeding or extended breastfeeding (although any mother reading this would be welcome to share her experience and thinking). I highlight a social and private practice which has been passionately debated during the past 100 years and could have become in any given community a "disputable matter."
I am a bit confused with your comments about Anabaptists. I am a life long, many generations Anabaptist. The first thing we would do if this issue came us would be to go as a community to the Bible. The Bible supports breastfeeding, even of toddlers. End of discussion. Now, we might have a discussion about where it is appropriate to breastfeed, to help the community. But the goal is not legalism, but helping the community function together.
Posted by: M. Abe | August 06, 2011 at 12:40 PM