Is heresy better than schism?

By Rod Dreher at Beliefnet via TitusOneNine:

Monday December 29, 2008

On his TNR blog, Damon Linker flags the schism withing the Episcopal Church as the most important and worrying religious development of the past year. Here's an excerpt:

With 100,000 members, the schismatic Anglican denomination is so far quite small, though it may well grow if conservative dioceses around the country decide to take the option now presented to them and bolt from the Episcopal Church. But regardless of the numbers involved, the rupture in the church is historically significant and culturally troubling. The Protestant mainline that once ruled and to some extent united the nation continues its decline, split into squabbling factions facing each other across a cultural chasm. Arrayed on one side are liberals of every theological stripe; on the other are defenders of orthodoxy and tradition. The first views the second as ignorant bigots; the second sees the first as moral degenerates. Barack Obama may have managed to win 53 percent of the popular vote last month, but that doesn't mean the country's division into "red" and "blue" spheres of cultural influence has come to an end. Indeed, the split in the Episcopal Church indicates that it persists and may even be deepening.

Damon is troubled, and understandably so, by the fact that American churches are breaking apart based on positions congregations and individuals within them hold on culture-war issues. I don't see how any serious believer, whichever side he takes, can be cheered by schism. But I am inclined to think of schism as the second-worst option, if the only other is to accomodate one's church to a serious heresy.

As Damon notes, the stance a believer takes on issues like abortion, homosexuality, order and authority in the family, and a related constellation of concerns, typically places one within one camp or the other. It's no accident that there's a thread connecting stances on both sides; i.e., there's a reason why Christians who oppose abortion rights are more likely to oppose same-sex marriage rights, and vice versa. It all comes down, in the end, to Authority.

If you believe that Scripture, or Scripture and the institutional Church, is the Authority for deciding questions of meaning and morality, then you are far more likely to fall on the traditionalist side of these questions. If you believe that individual conscience is the Authority, then you are likely to be a progressive.

I don't see how the two can be reconciled, unless it is agreed by a majority that the church in question doesn't really stand for anything beyond itself. If you really do believe that Scripture and Tradition are wrong about same-sex relationships, and that it is a matter of basic justice that the teaching be changed, then you aren't going to stop fighting for that change within the church. If you believe that we are not free to throw off the authority of Scripture (and Tradition) in such matters, then to have your church declare these matters open to negotiation would be to hollow out the meaning of what the church is supposed to stand for, all for the sake of a superficial unity.

The question ultimately is this: Are there matters over which there can be no compromise, and in which a compromise would destroy the essence of the institution? If there are, then schism is better than agreeing to disagree for the sake of keeping the family together. Right? If schism is always worse than heresy, then how can it be possible to draw any boundaries beyond which individuals and congregations, progressive or traditional, will not go?