The Expectant Ecumethodist

The "Shambles" of the Mainline

2012-03-19T18:46:00.001-04:00

In his now notoriously controversial speech at Ave Maria University in 2008, Rick Santorum warned that Satan had attacked the mainline Protestant churches in America, leaving them "in shambles" and "gone from the world of Christianity." Pundits and commentators on the 24 hour news cycles pounced, mocking Mr. Santorum's fiery religious rhetoric and questioning his electability. But putting his laughable qualifications for judging who the "real Christians" are to the side (including President Obama's [mainline Protestant] "phony theology"), no one is really arguing whether or not the mainline churches are in shambles. The decline of the mainline is just one part of a larger demographic shift that is reshaping American religion in a breathtakingly short period of time. White Catholics are leaving their church in droves. Evangelical growth is stalling. And in what TIME magazine dubs the "rise of the nones," the fastest growing "religion" in every single state of the union is - no religion at all.

And yet, this fascinating shift in the public life of our country is undeniably having the most dramatic and immediate effect on the old, historic Protestant churches dubbed by sociologists as "the mainline" (a term derived from the WASP stronghold along the Main Line railroad in Pennsylvania): the Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, northern Baptists, Congregationalists, Lutherans, and Disciples of Christ. In the world my parents were born into, these churches still served as the flagship institutions of the nation's conscience and provided society with a common religious language and moral framework. Fifty years ago, their combined membership numbered 30 million; today, they total around 20 million, losing a third of their members even as the country grew by 125 million!

Of course, 20 million people is still a lot of folks. Larger than the New York City metropolitan area, for example. And in religious identification surveys, the number of people who claim some kind of connection to these churches is much higher than their actual membership. But beneath the surface, things are actually about to get much worse. Here's why:

From Mainline to Oldline

Most people have some vague sense that there are a lot of Catholics in the Northeast, the Southern Baptists abound in the South, and the Mormons hang out in the mountain West. While not dominant in one particular region, drive along any Main Street across the USA and you'll find the mainline churches. Step inside one of these beautiful buildings on a Sunday morning, though, and you're likely to notice a couple things - a lot of empty pews, and even in the churches where the pews are packed, a lot of gray hair. The average age of your typical mainline Protestant is so high, that some are beginning to refer to the "oldline." In the country's largest mainline denomination, the United Methodist Church, the average age has risen to 57. For years, struggling mainline churches have stayed afloat as fewer members increased their giving. But in about a 15 years, as aging baby boomers lift the US death rate to its highest point since the advent of antibiotics, many of these older congregations will be effectively wiped out. The Rev. Lovett Weems, who studies these depressing numbers, has coined the phrase "death tsunami" that has been floating around in mainline circles. Sounds rosy, doesn't it?

The End of the Big Tent

Even more sadly, the mainline may end up self-imploding before the so-called death tsunami gets here. For decades, mainline leadership in seminaries and church bureaucracies have trended left (theologically and politically) of most laypeople, leading to squabbles at denominational assemblies on everything from the authority of the Bible to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But it is over issues related to sexuality that conservatives in the mainline have chosen to draw a line in the sand. The Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and Presbyterian Church (USA) have each voted to ordain clergy in monogamous, lifelong homosexual relationships. And in each church, disgruntled conservatives have walked out - forming the Anglican Church in North America (2009), the North American Lutheran Church (2010), and most recently, the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians (2012). These splits have only served to hasten the mainline's decline as smaller and more liberal denominations risk being marginalized within their own larger Protestant traditions.

All eyes are now on the United Methodist Church, the last large mainline church that has managed to hold liberals and conservatives under one tent, claiming that all people have "sacred worth," but that "homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching." With a growing proportion of its membership in Africa and Asia who hold to more traditional views on sexuality, this position seems unlikely to be repealed, putting progressives in the US in a unique position among their mainline peers. Will they split the denomination by leaving as their conservative counterparts have done in the Episcopal, Lutheran, and Presbyterian churches? For years, they have opted to stay, working together in a reconciling network of churches to change the official church policy from within. But that may be about to change. Hundreds of clergy have signed on to statements pledging to bless same sex unions in spite of the denomination's ban, effectively challenging the bishops to discipline them en masse. In response, hundreds more clergy have called on the bishops to enforce the church's position, before the promised disobedience occurs. All of this has the potential to come to a head at General Conference next month in Tampa, where lay and clergy delegates from around the world meet every four years to set church policy.

A Vision for the Future

In spite of all the challenges and ridicule from presidential candidates, I am a proud mainline Protestant. In a context where Christianity is too often defined in the public sphere by our noisy evangelical cousins, the moderate and sensible voice of the mainline is needed more now than ever. As Frank Schaeffer points out in an excellent column, the mainline is missing a key opportunity to reach record numbers of disaffected young ex-Christians. Given the present realities of demographics and broader cultural changes, it may also be our last opportunity. I do not doubt that, even in the worst case scenario, individual former mainline congregations will survive in America. But what would it take for the shambles of mainline Protestantism to not only survive, but to thrive? As a young pastor in the mainline, I offer up two simple suggestions:

1. Remember Who You Are. Too often, mainline Christians don't know what they believe. They're nice people, but they are indistinguishable from the United Way or the Lion's Club. We are well liked by the general population, but that doesn't mean they want to get up on a Sunday morning and spend an hour with us if what we believe makes little difference for their everyday life. Furthermore, in mainline congregations that do have an identity, it either aligns more closely to the Democratic Party than to Christian tradition - or it is a lame attempt to copy the megachurch down the street. Unlike many evangelical and nondenominational churches, who pay little attention to anything more than 10 years old, mainline Protestants have a deep well of tradition from which to draw. As a former evangelical myself, I almost gave up on the church out of frustration. It was only by the chance discovery of the writings of John Wesley in a dusty corner of my college library that I discovered the mainline Protestant tradition that manages to balance the head and the heart, scripture and sacrament, the personal and social dimensions of faith. If a young recovering evangelical wanders into your church, will they find a thoughtful and engaged community of Christians or an apathetic chapter of the United Way? Be proud of your liturgy! Welcome a diversity of views! Resurrect the ghosts of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, and Wesley! Don't just preach about social justice, show people what it looks like in your community!

2. Reject the Sin of Schism. Much is being made in mainline churches over the practice of homosexuality. Conservatives should recognize that the homosexuality described in the Bible bears little resemblance to the monogamous, faithful relationships advocated for in churches today. Furthermore, the same kind of attention and lack of grace is rarely applied by conservatives toward heterosexual sins like sex before marriage, adultery, pornography, or serial divorce. In fact, if God's best for human sexuality is indeed "one man and one woman within marriage for life," than a loving homosexual couple may approximate that standard much more closely than many of the aberrant heterosexual relationships in our churches. Also, if the sole problem with homosexual relationships is that they lack the biological possibility to reproduce, then conservatives in the church must also be willing to reexamine the morality of heterosexual contraception with the specific intent of never having children. On the liberal side, progressives should be willing to acknowledge that, as Christians and as Protestants, the Bible has primacy for our theology - and that (unlike debates over slavery or women in leadership) in every single biblical reference to homosexual practice, it is expressly forbidden. Given the longstanding history of Christian interpretation on this subject, progressives should not be too quick to follow the shifting winds of culture and place more value on the latest episode of Glee than on the faithful interpretation of Scripture. On both sides, there must be a commitment to stay in Christian community together, to do the difficult work of talking to each other, working together, and loving each other - even when we disagree - so that "the world might believe" in the One who calls us all children. The sin of schism and the scandalous compromise of our witness to Christ's reconciling love is far more important than our disagreements over sexuality. For United Methodists, Wesley has a good sermon on this. But perhaps the infamous Saint Paul says it best,

"(Dear mainline Protestants,) I encourage you to live as people worthy of the call you received from God. Conduct yourself with all humility, gentleness, and patience. Accept each other with love, and make an effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit with the peace that ties you together. You are one body and one spirit just as God also called you in one hope. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all who is over all, through all, and in all." (Ephesians 4.1-6)

If we will be faithful to that higher calling, to Jesus' prayer that we might be one, then we may indeed see the mainline rise from its shambles as a vibrant Christian movement in the United States once again.

Why Women Pastors? (A Methodist's Perspective)

2012-02-07T13:54:00.004-05:00

In contrast toother large Christian groups like Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics, UnitedMethodists maintain that women who are called by God may serve at every levelof leadership within the Church. Aware that this position sets us apartfrom other brothers and sisters in Christ, this decision was not arrived atlightly. Rather, it is the result of a long process of prayerfultheological discernment that has sought to be faithful to Scripture andChristian tradition as well as to our own reason and experience.

Groups like theQuakers and Pentecostals have affirmed the gifts of women for ministry from thevery beginning of their movements, while mainline Protestants – includingMethodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Disciples, Congregationalists,and some Baptists – did not begin granting women full clergy rights until thetwentieth century. However, since the earliest days of Methodism, certainwomen demonstrated what John Wesley called an “extraordinary” call from God toshare the good news and so were licensed to be preachers. Wesley’s ownmother led a Bible study in her home that drew so many people that it began torival her husband’s ministry as the parish priest. Thus, UnitedMethodists have always been mindful that some women are not only persuaded of acall from God to preach, but also that the living out of this call has producedmuch spiritual “fruit” (Matthew 7:16) – drawing many to a deeper love of Godand neighbor. Today, women lead around 8% of all Americancongregations and account for 20% of mainline Methodist, Presbyterian, andLutheran clergy.

SCRIPTURE

We believe thatGod is active in the world, revealing himself to us over the course of humanhistory. Over hundreds of years, God inspired ordinary people to write oftheir encounters with the divine in stories, letters, and poetry (to name a fewbiblical genres) – words that were collected together in the Bible. Whenread in faith, these words are for us the living Word of God, telling us thegood news of God’s purpose for us.

As UnitedMethodists, Scripture is of primaryimportance for understanding God and how we are called to live in theworld. And yet, it is necessary to acknowledge that the Bible has beeninterpreted in many different ways. Often, particular passages are takenout of context and wielded like weapons to support causes that contradict theBible’s message as a whole. For this reason, the Bible is not read inisolation, but instead is interpreted through the lens of tradition (what has been “handed down” [1 Cor. 15:3] through thecommunity of faith), reason, and experience. We approach theBible, not as those who have mastered God’s Word, but as humble children,acknowledging our weaknesses, and relying on the Holy Spirit to “lead us intoall truth” (John 14:26).

With this inmind, we maintain that certain so-called “proof texts” against the fullinclusion of women in the life of the Church (1 Tim. 2:8-15; 1 Cor. 14:34-35)are used in isolation and are often taken out of context by those who opposewomen’s ordination. In similar ways, sincere Christians have relied onisolated texts to support slavery (1 Peter 2:13-18), apartheid (Gen. 11:1-9),head coverings for women (1 Cor. 11:5), or to prohibit remarriage after divorce(Mark 10:2-12). Before considering these specific Pauline texts, then, itis necessary to establish what the rest of Scripture has to say about women andtheir role in the Church.

1. Men and women were created equally inthe image of God. In contrast to the long-held assumption that womenare sub-human or dependent on men for their humanity, the Bible describes Godcreating “male and female” in his own image. The woman was created as theperfect complement to man, and she shares with him in the task of caring forthe rest of creation (Gen 1 – 2).

2. The oppression and belittling of womenis rooted in sin. In the aftermath of the humanity’s disobedience toGod, the relationship between men and women was distorted. We can see thebeginnings of male abuse of women in Adam’s excuse before God: “It’s herfault!” The conflict between the sexes is the result of the Fall –including all domestic violence, sexual abuse, systematic exclusion andoppression meant to undermine the sacred worth of women as human beings createdin the image of God (Gen 3).

3. Women held significant leadership rolesin Old Testament. Although the majority of Jewish leaders were male,females also contributed in very important ways. Most strikingly, Deborahserved as a judge over Israel (Judges 4 – 5) and Esther delivered her peoplefrom extermination (Esther). The example of these women reminds us that womenwere not entirely excluded from leadership roles in the community of faith andthat God worked through them in extraordinary ways.

4. In Christ, there is no longer male andfemale. Jesus broke down social barriers by reaching out to women andincluding them in his apostolic community. The same woman who gave birthto the Messiah was with him at his death, when most everyone else had runaway. Jesus’ female disciples were the first ones to witness hisresurrection. Through Jesus, God opened the way for a new community, theChurch, where salvation, baptism, and discipleship are available to all people– including women. Old barriers of division and exclusion, including theconflict between the sexes that is rooted in sin, no longer apply within the newcommunity of faith (Gal. 3:28). In contrast to social norms where womenwere viewed as property, women in the Church are empowered by the Holy Spiritto be witnesses to the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

5. Women held significant leadership rolesin the Church. It is clear that “femaleness” is not a barrier to fullparticipation in salvation, baptism, or discipleship. This being so, itis logical to conclude that Christian ministry is also extended to allpeople. Indeed, the New Testament affirms that women participated in theministry of the Church on many different levels. In fulfillment of Joel’sprophecy, God poured out his Spirit upon all flesh, so that women should“prophesy,” the same word that connotes the sharing of the Gospel message (Acts2:17). Thus the arrival of the Spirit points to a new context for theministry of women in the Church – women like Philip’s daughters (Acts 21:9),Priscilla (Rom. 16:5), Euodia and Synteche (Phil. 4:3), Phoebe (Rom. 16:1),deaconesses (1 Tim. 3:11), and Junia, who is referred to as “prominent amongthe apostles” (Rom. 16:7).

TRADITION, REASON, AND EXPERIENCE

In light of thelarger narrative of Scripture, it seems reasonable to maintain that womenshould not be universally excluded from leadership within the Church. Inthese “latter days,” God has poured out his Spirit on all flesh, levelingbarriers that were formerly meant to exclude, including between male and female(Acts 2:17; Gal. 3:28). Therefore, all efforts to silence women from“prophesying” that are based in a male desire to control or dominate femalesmust be understood as a re-imposition of old sinful divisions within theChurch.

However, it mustalso be acknowledged that for the vast majority of the Church’s history, womenhave not been able to participate fully in the leadership of the Church. This is partly due to a particular interpretation of the aforementioned Paulineproof-texts and partly because of the belief that only a man could stand in theplace of Christ as a priest (since Jesus was a man) and that Jesus only chosetwelve male apostles.

We do notcavalierly shirk off these historic objections to the ordination ofwomen. As previously noted, we do not approach the Scripture asindividuals but as part of a wider community of faith that cuts across time,space, and denominational divisions. And yet, we are also convinced thatall tradition must be continually measured against the apostolic witness of theScripture as a whole. Especially in view of the longstanding violence andoppression against women – inside and outside the Church – we are compelled totake a closer look at these objections and are careful to remain open to wherethe Spirit may be leading us toward reform.

OBJECTION: BE SILENT, WOMEN!

As we seek to befaithful to the Word of God, we cannot dismiss out of hand biblical texts thatwe may find uncomfortable. To be sure, “all Scripture is inspired by Godand is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training inrighteousness” (2 Tim 3:16). At the same time, though, we must be carefulto interpret individual passages within their own context and in light of theScriptural narrative as a whole. In this task, it is critical to rely onthe God-given resources of tradition, reason, and experience – while continuingto acknowledge that sin too often clouds our ability to hear the Word that Godis speaking through the text today. That being said, the Pauline texts in1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 have traditionally been used in Protestant circlesto bar women from ordained ministry. Although many have approached thesetexts with a preconceived sexist agenda, others maintain their position againstwomen’s ordination out of a commendable desire to be faithful to God’sWord.

Still, it shouldbe noted that a selectively literalreading of Paul’s writings on women casts suspicion on the motivations ofthe interpreter. Why is it that those who oppose women’s ordinationstrenuously quote Paul’s advice that women “be silent” (1 Cor. 14:34) and thatthey should not “have authority over a man” (2 Tim. 2:12) – but ignore hisexplicit instructions on women’s apparel in worship such as head coverings,gold jewelry, pearls, expensive clothes, and braids (1 Cor. 11:5; 2 Tim.2:9)? Furthermore, women are rarely confined to complete “silence” as aliteral interpretation would suggest (they may testify, sing, offer prayerrequests, etc.), instead they are carefully excluded by men from the recognizedpower structures and leadership in the Church (despite doing most thework). It is in these selectively literal contexts where women areexcluded from leadership that men in authority most often overlook domestic violence, sexual abuse, andexploitation of women in the Church. If those who oppose theordination of women want to be taken seriously, they should be consistent intheir literal interpretation of Paul and should root out all forms of abuseagainst women in their churches.

1. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: “Womenshould be silent in the churches…If there is anything they desire to know, letthem ask their husbands at home.” Perhaps the most obvious pointis that this passage does not refer to who is leading the service, but only tothose who are in the congregation. Moreover, the “silence” here implies“reverence” or “respectful attention” more than limitation, since women (whowere overwhelmingly uneducated) may have been asking questions or causing otherdisruptions in the service, “for God is a God not of disorder but of peace”(14:33). Silence in this passage is related to the ordering of worshipwithin the particular context of the church at Corinth, not restricting half ofthe body of Christ to total public silence for all time.

2. 1 Timothy 2:12: “I permit no woman to teachor to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.” Inall of Christian Scripture, this is the only text that instructs all women tobe “silent.” In context, however, Paul is giving his own personal adviceto Timothy’s particular situation, saying that women in the congregation shouldbe decent and modest in appearance, not “seizing authority” over men. Whywould Paul say this? Timothy was a young pastor in Ephesus, a city wherethe female-only cult of Artemis was the main religion. In order to preventnewly empowered Christian women from getting carried away and dominating menlike the cult of Artemis, Paul encourages them to learn in silence (“reverence”or “respectful attention”), so that men and women together can develop thegifts of leadership God is giving them. Such a spirit of reverence andrespect need not contradict all other biblical passages where women appear inleadership roles (see above). In fact, it is this very spirit of respectthat prevents women from seizing the kind of authority over men that menpreviously held over women.

To a lesserextent, opponents of women in Church leadership roles will point to therequirements for selecting pastors (elders) that refer only to men (1 Tim.3). Yet such a restrictive interpretation is not consistently applied,since to do so would be to suggest that all pastors should be married fatherswith disciplined children who obey their teachings. This not only makesan assumption (beyond the text), that Paul and Timothy were married men withchildren, it demonstrates the opposite bias of a literal interpretation of thetexts that refer to Junia as an apostle (Rom. 16:7) and Phoebe as a deacon(Rom. 16:1).

OBJECTION: BUT, JESUS WAS A MAN!

In addition tothe biblical proof-texts (widely circulated in evangelical Protestantism),Catholic and Orthodox opponents of female ordination often cite tradition andtheology. The Catholic Church's opposition to the ordination of women hashardened in recent years, although a majority ofchurchgoing American Catholics are actually in favor of female priests. Supporters of theVatican's policy point out that God became a man, not a woman. It makessense, then, that only male priests can fully represent Christ to the people inworship. Furthermore, Jesus chose all male apostles when he certainlycould have selected from among his devoted female followers.

Certainly,proponents of female ordination should not simply dismiss centuries of churchpractice. However, in the case of the argument that a female cannotsufficiently represent Christ in worship, it is helpful to remember Gregory ofNazianzus' maxim that "that which he did not assume he didnot redeem." In other words, the incarnation is about Christassuming and redeeming our common humanity, not "maleness" -otherwise, all women remain unredeemed! Furthermore, to follow thisnarrow logic, one would also have to exclude all Gentiles from ordination aswell. Paul underscores the opposite point in his letter to the Galatians- in Christ, there is no male and female, no Jew or Greek (3:28). Therefore, gender cannot be a determining factor for what it means to be humanand to stand as a representative of Christ to the people in worship.

The secondobjection of Jesus only choosing male apostles is more difficult toaddress. But surely, even though the apostles were given particularauthority by Jesus and the early Church, we should remember the faithfulness ofhis female disciples, who remained by his side when the apostles fled. Weshould also bear in mind the patriarchal context of the ancient world. There is no reason to infer that because Jesus chose all male apostles that hemeant to exclude women from leadership in the Church for all time. Indeed, the leadership positions women didhold in the early church (particularly Romans 16:1, 7) and the spiritual fruitof women in ministry today seem to imply the contrary.

YOUR DAUGHTERS WILL PROPHECY

Even intraditions where they cannot serve as pastors/priests, women have lived outcalls to ministry over the centuries as nuns, missionaries, pastors’ wives,deaconesses, and teachers. Within Methodism, women have served as classleaders and local preachers. Over a period of time, the fruit of thisministry has been observed by our corner of the Church to be blessed by theHoly Spirit. We believe that the reasons for excluding women from fullparticipation in the Church’s leadership contradict the greater message ofScripture – that in Christ there is no longer male or female – as well as our ownexperience of the effectiveness of females in various non-ordained ministryroles. Thus, as United Methodists and other Protestants, we have come toa consensus that women should be ordained as a witness to the wider Church thatwe are truly living in the latter days, when the Spirit is poured out on allpeople and our “daughters shall prophesy.”

End the Protest

2012-01-25T23:45:00.002-05:00

Protestant Christianity is coming up on its 500^thbirthday. In just 5 years, I expectwe’ll see news articles and television specials commemorating half a millenniumsince Father Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of Wittenburg’s church. Only today, the movement spawned byLuther’s hammer counts twice as many adherents in places like Nigeria than inhis homeland of Germany. Far frombeing a blip on the radar of history, the loose coalition of churches known as“Protestantism” now boasts a global population of over 800 million – or 37% ofall Christians.

We in the United States have been shaped by a ProtestantChristian identity more than perhaps any other country. Notions of freedom, individualism, and personalresponsibility are deeply rooted in a Protestant ethos that has influenced oursociety on everything from the way we vote to the things we believe to thestuff we buy. Interestingly, inspite of the well publicized decline of the historic “mainline” Protestantdenominations (Protestants still make up a thin majority of all Americans),America will likely continue to be “Protestant” even if it ceases to be so inchurch membership.

There’s no doubt that Protestantism, as a movement, has beena successful one if you’re looking at numbers and influence. But has it achieved what it set out todo as a movement within the Christian Church? In other words, what exactly are Protestants “protesting”anymore?

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

The medieval Church was corrupt. Luther wasn’t the only one saying so. He just managed to say it loud enoughto get kicked out. Sure, he turnedout to be crazy about a few things, but Luther’s excommunication is one of thesaddest moments in the Church’s history. Like any divorce, blame falls on both sides. And even if the separation was necessary, it is certainly nothing to celebrate.

Ironically, or perhaps tragically, the Catholic (or “counter”) Reformation that followed Luther’s exit ended up addressing many of thereformers’ concerns. Even more ofthose original protests have been answered by the staggering amount of change embracedby the Catholic Church over the past century. Mass in the peoples’ language? Check. Empoweringthe laity? Check. Freedom of conscience? Check. Bible studies and Protestant hymns? Check (check your missal). Justification by grace alone through faith? Double check!

While the Catholic Church is looking more “Protestant,” Protestantismhas fallen victim to the thing Catholicism has always most criticized itfor. Without one central focus of unity and authority,it continues its never-ending course of fragmentation into thousandsof denominations. Today, after abrief period of ecumenical consolidation, independent evangelical andPentecostal churches and mainline squabbles over sexuality threaten to splinter historic Protestantism beyondrecognition.

Life outside the Catholic Church for Protestants has always been a necessaryevil until the reformers’ “protests” have been addressed. Now they have. We’ve achieved what we set out to do asa movement. What we must nowaddress is the unnecessary evil of remainingdivided in spite of Jesus’ prayer that we “might be one…so that the world willbelieve.”

It’s time to end the protest.

LET'S GET TOGETHER, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH

I’m not saying that all Protestants should rush over to thenearest Catholic parish and sign up for RCIA. I was born and raised a Protestant Christian and as a Methodist minister, I amdetermined to work for unity from this side of the Reformation divorce. Neither can I (or any self-respectingProtestant, for that matter) accept the Catholic claim to be the only truechurch, especially in an age where half of all baptized Christians aren’tCatholic!

What we Protestants can and should do is acknowledge the negativeconsequences of the Reformation on our unity and witness as Christians in the world today. Our current sad, divided state of affairs makes this seem self-evident. In an effort to protect individualfreedom, we have too often been willing to ignore wider Christiantradition and permit (or condone!) unnecessary further divisions within theBody of Christ. Given our current disjointed state, we can certainly say that although we do not need a pope to be “church” – the officecould certainly be useful as a visible sign of unity and authority!

In addition to acknowledging the harm of our present divisions, we Protestants should affirm that we no longer believe thatour differences with the Catholic Church present a sufficient barrier to unity. Most people sitting in Protestant andCatholic pews already believe this to be true! But before we can make such a positive claim, it isimportant that we are clear on what it is that we already hold incommon. I believe Ephesians 4:5 providesa beautiful starting point and rallying cry: “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” One Lord Jesus Christ, God with us, the Savior of theworld. One faith ascontained in the Bible and interpreted by tradition, reason, andexperience. One baptism by waterand the Spirit into the family of God.

Here is the essence of Christianity. We already hold it in common: one Lord,one faith, one baptism. The onlything that holds us back from greater unity is the insistence that we mustaccept more than this to truly be brothers and sisters. We’re ending the protest.

WHAT IF?

Of course, the Catholic Church would not welcome Protestantsback into their fold without some kind of re-ordination (which would,conceivably, exclude at least all women – a deal breaker for my own United Methodisttradition). But at least, weProtestants would no longer be defining ourselves negatively as “protesters”against the Catholic Church but by what we hold in common and the potential for greater unity. We’d be saying that we need each other;that we’re ready to take steps toward healing this divorce if and when ourCatholic brothers and sisters are willing to meet us halfway.

For sure, living in separate communities for 500 yearsprovides lots of practical challenges, not least of which are those boringissues of denominational property and pension plans. But the recent Anglican Ordinariate provides some cause forhope (or at least some creative imagination). Here are married (re-ordained, yes) Anglican priests beingreceived into the Catholic Church and allowed to continue many elements of theirworship and traditions! What if wecould retain our own denominations’ gifts and emphases? What if particularlybefuddling Catholic dogmas could be re-presented to us Protestants (since wewere excluded from most of those conversations in the first place)? What if the ordination of futureProtestant pastors included Catholic bishops as a (for Catholics, necessary;for Protestants, useful) step toward full unity? What if there was a day when whole Protestant denominationscould exist in communion with Rome as autonomous churches like the ByzantineCatholics?

That’s a lot of what ifs. But maybe it starts with ending the protest.

We're All Evangelicals Now?

2010-11-11T17:29:00.004-05:00

For all Protestants, the Bible is the primary standard for Christian faith and practice. For evangelicals, this translates into authority resting in the Bible as interpreted by the individual alone (also known as "me and my Bible"). For the group I dubbed "historic Protestants", authority rests in the Bible as interpreted by the individual within the bounds of Christian tradition.

In my last post, I argued that we are seeing a realignment of American Protestantism. This realignment is a result of internal divisions within the historic Protestant camp over human sexuality. Anglicans, Lutherans, and Reformed who advocate for the ordination of practicing LGBT persons ignore the ancient standard on sexual morality in their own catechisms: "chastity in singleness, celibacy in marriage" between one man and one woman. Anglicans, Lutherans, and Reformed who uphold this standard in denominations that have rejected it (the UCC, Episcopal Church, ELCA, and soon, the PCUSA) are now ignoring the ancient teaching on submission to one's bishop/presbytery and the condemnation of church schism.

Both sides cite opposing interpretations of the Bible's teaching to support their departure from the tradition that they are supposedly fighting to uphold. In the words of one recent commenter, "as Western individualists, we (historic Protestants) tend to say 'I want community' - but so often it seems I only want it 'on my terms'."

In other words, historic Protestants in America (particularly Anglicans & Lutherans) are starting to look a whole lot more like evangelicals.

Bridging the Divide?

2010-10-22T12:41:00.009-04:00

A generation ago, Protestantism could be roughly divided into two groups, theologically speaking:

Evangelicals (most Baptists, Pentecostals, Church of Christ, Holiness, Adventist, Nondenominational). For evangelicals (who would rarely self-identify as "Protestant"), Christianity can be boiled down to the Bible and the Spirit-filled individual. Everyone who accepts Jesus as Savior is filled with the Holy Spirit and is empowered to interpret the Bible according to its plain meaning and their own conscience. (You begin to see why there are so many varieties of Baptists and Pentecostals...)

Historic Protestants (Lutherans, Reformed, Anglicans, most Methodists). For historic Protestants, Christianity can be boiled down to the Bible and Spirit-filled tradition. Everyone who accepts Jesus as Savior is filled with the Holy Spirit and is empowered to interpret the Bible within the boundaries of historic Christianity as expressed in the great creeds and catechisms of the Church (though the specific catechisms may vary by denomination).

Like any generalization - especially of a complex thing like religion - there are exceptions to this classification. But for the most part, this division held true, with ecumenical dialogue and cooperation mainly occurring within each group's respective circle of like-minded Christians.

Historic Protestants were generally part of the World Council of Churches and also members of their own "confessional family" like the Anglican Communion, Lutheran World Federation, World Methodist Council, and World Communion of Reformed Churches. While some visible church unions did occur, historic Protestants tended to cooperate on social justice issues.

Evangelicals, who had rejected membership in the World Council of Churches, organized their own ecumenical confederations like the World Evangelical Alliance and Pentecostal World Fellowship - aimed not at visible church unions or social justice, but cooperation in missions and evangelism.

Now, however, I believe we are witnessing the blurring of these former lines of ecumenical cooperation. This is the "realignment" of American religion around human sexuality that is erasing the middle ground that historic Protestants used to occupy in the United States. For example, you now have Lutherans and Anglicans who identify more with evangelicals and Catholics than with fellow historic Protestants who happen to support the ordination of LGBT persons. This realignment threatens to dismember the former unity over what it means to be "Anglican" or "Lutheran" in favor of a more individualistic interpretation of what "I think" the Bible teaches about human sexuality.

Still, there are voices that are reaching across this new divide as well as the old one. It just so happens that two of the most compelling ecumenical Protestant voices are Lutherans.

According to an article by the Christian Post, Bishop Mark S. Hanson, president of the Lutheran World Federation and presiding bishop of the ELCA, recently "encouraged Christians to begin the conversation by identifying what they have in common – such as 'we are all sexual beings' – rather than from a position of judgment. He expressed concerns over emerging conversations in some Lutheran churches about what it means to be truly Lutheran. 'I sense that there is a growing desire on the part of some to look at our rich, shared confessions not as a reason for conversation about how we can live in that confessional tradition, but rather as a way of determining who is truly Lutheran and who is not,' he said, noting that he desires to see full unity among Lutherans themselves. 'That would be an unfortunate breakdown.' Hanson called for not only affirming the theological and confessional foundations they share as Lutherans, but also for renewing a commitment 'that to be Lutheran is to be both evangelical and ecumenical.'"

Meanwhile, the Rev. Olav Fykse Tveit, a Norwegian Lutheran and general secretary of the World Council of Churches, has concentrated much of his efforts on reaching out to evangelicals and Pentecostals. Rev. Tveit gave the first ever addresses by a WCC general secretary at the assemblies of the World Pentecostal Alliance and the ongoing Lausanne Congress for World Evangelization in Cape Town, which, according to the Christian Century, originated as "an evangelical counterpart to the ecumenical WCC."
In his address on opening day, Rev. Tveit stressed the need for evangelicals and historic Protestants to learn from each other in order to participate together in God's mission. "We are called to be one, to be reconciled, so that the world may believe that God reconciles the world to himself in Christ." "Hinting at a history of wariness between evangelicals, Pentecostals, and the World Council of Churches, he said that 'the distance between Lausanne and Geneva is not very far, and it should not be. Let us keep the road open and the dialogue going.'"

What do you think? Can the old divide between evangelicals and historic Protestants be bridged? Can the unfolding divide over human sexuality be prevented?

The Lutherans and the Vanishing Middle Ground

2010-10-15T12:10:00.005-04:00

Lutherans in the Middle
Lutheranism has long represented the middle ground in American Christianity. Although initially viewed as outside the mainstream of English-speaking Protestantism, German and Scandinavian Lutherans came to join the ranks of other mainline Protestants - especially in the Midwest or the "American Heartland."

Today, when people think of Lutherans, many think of Garrison Keillor's "Prairie Home Companion" and the bland residents of the fictional Lake Wobegon, "the little town that time forgot and the decades cannot improve ... where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average." Like their Methodist and Presbyterian cousins, Lutherans are not likely to wear their religion on their sleeves and therefore lack the chutzpah of the megachurches and Pentecostals on their right or the United Church of Christ and Episcopalians on their left. In other words, Lutherans are "nice" but not especially interesting - which has positioned them solidly in the middle ground of American religious life.

Perhaps because of their place in the middle, the Lutherans have done the best job of any Protestant denomination at working for Christian unity. When efforts at creating a visibly united Protestant church in America fell through in the late twentieth century, the Lutherans forged ahead with talks aimed at "full communion" - a common confession of the Christian faith and mutual recognition of baptism, ministry, and sharing of the Lord's Supper. Remarkably, the largest Lutheran church in the country with 4.7 million members, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), has reached full communion agreements with the following churches:

Three Reformed churches in 1997: the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Church of Christ (formerly the Congregationalists or the "Puritans"), and the Reformed Church in America (Dutch Reformed roots)
The Episcopal Church and the Moravian Church (German Pietists) in 1999
The United Methodist Church in 2009

The Vanishing Middle?
Then, last August, the Lutherans (ELCA) shocked Christians around the world at their general assembly by voting to ordain openly gay people in "life-long, monogamous relationships." What's more, this was not a frivolous, emotional decision - but a conclusion reached after eight years of study and deliberation over the theological issues surrounding human sexuality (a very "Lutheran" way to go about things). Suddenly, the plain old "Lake Wobegon" Lutherans were receiving international attention as the largest church in the world to officially approve the ordination of homosexuals.

Richard Mouw, president of the evangelical Fuller Theological Seminary, noted that the ELCA's decision was especially "jarring and significant" because "it is viewed as one of the more Reformation-rooted, broadly orthodox denominations and takes its theology seriously...it's a huge, huge departure for a church like that." He went on to predict a "new ecumenical dialogue on the right" uniting conservatives opposed to homosexual ordination from across denominations.

Meanwhile, ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson issued a sincere Rowan Williams-esque plea for unity and conversation, stressing that conservative churches would not be compelled to hire gay clergy and imploring Lutherans not to "walk away" from one another. But those who support the ELCA's decision like Barbara Wheeler, former president of Auburn Theological Seminary, were quick to point out that "if gays and lesbians could stick it out in mainline churches whose official teachings were dismissive of their faithfulness and even their personhood, so can disappointed conservatives...one of the mainline's strengths is to be a 'big tent.'"

It appears, however, that the tent may have stretched to the breaking point. Only months after the ELCA's decision, conservative members announced a "reconfiguration of North American Lutheranism" and they were splitting to form their own new denomination - the North American Lutheran Church. "We are not leaving the ELCA. The ELCA has left us," said one member of the committee to form the new church. Interestingly, the breakaway ELCA Lutherans decided not to merge with other conservative denominations like the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod or the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod because those churches do not ordain women.

Now that two major "mainstream" Protestant churches have split, it seems clear that we are witnessing Christian unity in America being "reconfigured" between those who are in favor of ordination of homosexuals and those who are not. The middle ground that the Lutherans and other mainline Protestants used to occupy in American religious life has vanished. In a new and increasingly polarized Protestantism, what will Christian unity look like?

Can a Protestant wear a Crucifix?

2010-10-07T10:00:00.001-04:00

The cross is the central symbol of Christianity around the world. And yet, we Christians are divided on what exactly our crosses look like. Some, like the Orthodox, have extra lines running through the cross. Many Reformed Christians favor the Celtic cross, with a circle running around the center of the cross section. And I can always spot a United Methodist church when driving along the highway by their signature cross and flame.

But the most noticeable difference among Christians when it comes to the cross is whether or not it has the body of Jesus hanging on it. For most people (at least in this country), the empty cross is Protestant. The crucifix is Catholic. Derek Kubilus, a Methodist minister in Ohio and a friend from divinity school, offers his own personal perspective on why Protestants can embrace the "Catholic" crucifix as an important way to "remember the body."

Ephesians 4:4- “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.”

I can't remember one day in my life when my body did not feel pain. Having been born with an orthopedic problem in my foot, I've awakened every morning of my life with stiffness and pain shooting from my right ankle. Sometimes it gets better throughout the day; sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes my limp is barely noticeable; sometimes I have to walk with a cane just to keep from falling over. So even as a young child, I remember wondering why God would allow me, supposedly one of God's beloved children, to feel so much pain.

Now I've been a Methodist all my life, and I'm well aware that Methodists typically hang only empty crosses from their necks and the walls of their churches. Most people will tell you that it's because the empty cross is a symbol of the empty tomb, that it's a symbol that represents the resurrection of Christ, and not just his crucifixion. All that may very well be true, but I'm not sure it's the whole story.

There's something creepy and morbid about a crucifix isn't there? I mean, who would wear a piece of jewelery shaped like a body dying in agony? Who would hang a beat-up, bleeding man from their wall? What kind of sick person could take inspiration from such a gruesome scene?

Well...I do. Being someone who's body has been wracked with pain, I take comfort in remembering that Christ had a body. I wear a crucifix under my shirt and over my robe because it's important for me to remember that Christ didn't have a body that was above pain, but that his body was just as capable of hurting and bleeding as my own. The crucifix helps me remember that I'm connected to Christ not just through the “one Spirit” but also through my very body. The miracle of Christ, the miracle of God's incarnation in a human body is that the same God who is “above all” is also “in all and through all,” even my own weak, hurting body.

The crucifix also tells me that bodies matter to God, that things like hunger, homelessness, and disease are important to God. Seeing the body of Christ helps to remind me of the suffering bodies of those all around us in the Akron and Cuyahoga Falls communities: those whose bodies are cold because they aren't covered with proper clothes or shelter, those whose bodies are starved with hunger, those whose bodies are addicted to chemicals that are slowly destroying them. Seeing the body of Christ hanging there, suffering, draws me closer to all those who suffer and it encourages me to see Jesus in their struggles, for “that which you have done to the least of these, you have done unto me.”

Finally, the crucifix reminds me that the Church, the Body of Christ still on earth, is called to suffer. Living in our comfortable, wealthy society, it is perfectly acceptable for us to go through our whole lives and only work for the comfort ourselves and our individual families. But the suffering body hanging on the cross so close against my skin reminds me that I'm part of a community that has been called to “bear its cross,” a community which has been called to leave behind comfort, safety, and warm-fuzzy feelings for the sake of God's mission of salvation in the world. It helps me remember that that the world is fallen and that if we are to join Christ in his ministry to transform the world, then we must be willing to sacrifice something of ourselves.

So the next time you see my crucifix hanging from my neck, don't worry, I haven't become Roman Catholic. Just take a second to remember the Body and the suffering God it belongs to.

Rome and Canterbury on Christian Unity

2010-09-30T12:00:00.001-04:00

Two weeks ago, the pope stepped into Westminster Abbey. Pope Benedict XVI joined the spiritual head of the Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, along with representatives from all other major Christian groups in Great Britain for a service of evening prayer. As Father Raymond J. de Souza put it, "sometimes words are inadequate to the moment, and this moment, carrying in itself nearly a thousand years of history, brought an abiding and expectant silence to Westminster Hall as Britain's political establishment waited for Pope Benedict XVI at the site where St. Thomas More and other martyrs were condemned to death for their Catholic faith."

At such a gathering, how could ecumenism be ignored? In their addresses, both Benedict and Williams focused on Christian unity, revealing how each approaches questions surrounding the challenges of ecumenism in the 21st century. At the suggestion of a close friend and future Episcopal priest, Joshua Caler, I share their reflections now with you in their own words.

Pope Benedict XVI:
Dear friends in Christ,

I thank the Lord for this opportunity to join you, the representatives of the Christian confessions present in Great Britain, in this magnificent Abbey Church dedicated to Saint Peter, whose architecture and history speak so eloquently of our common heritage of faith. Here we cannot help but be reminded of how greatly the Christian faith shaped the unity and culture of Europe and the heart and spirit of the English people. Here too, we are forcibly reminded that what we share, in Christ, is greater than what continues to divide us.

I am grateful to His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury for his kind greeting, and to the Dean and Chapter of this venerable Abbey for their cordial welcome. I thank the Lord for allowing me, as the Successor of Saint Peter in the See of Rome, to make this pilgrimage to the tomb of Saint Edward the Confessor. Edward, King of England, remains a model of Christian witness and an example of that true grandeur to which the Lord summons his disciples in the Scriptures we have just heard: the grandeur of a humility and obedience grounded in Christ’s own example (cf. Phil 2:6-8), the grandeur of a fidelity which does not hesitate to embrace the mystery of the Cross out of undying love for the divine Master and unfailing hope in his promises (cf. Mk 10:43-44).

This year, as we know, marks the hundredth anniversary of the modern ecumenical movement, which began with the Edinburgh Conference’s appeal for Christian unity as the prerequisite for a credible and convincing witness to the Gospel in our time. In commemorating this anniversary, we must give thanks for the remarkable progress made towards this noble goal through the efforts of committed Christians of every denomination. At the same time, however, we remain conscious of how much yet remains to be done. In a world marked by growing interdependence and solidarity, we are challenged to proclaim with renewed conviction the reality of our reconciliation and liberation in Christ, and to propose the truth of the Gospel as the key to an authentic and integral human development. In a society which has become increasingly indifferent or even hostile to the Christian message, we are all the more compelled to give a joyful and convincing account of the hope that is within us (cf. 1 Pet 3:15), and to present the Risen Lord as the response to the deepest questions and spiritual aspirations of the men and women of our time.

As we processed to the chancel at the beginning of this service, the choir sang that Christ is our “sure foundation”. He is the Eternal Son of God, of one substance with the Father, who took flesh, as the Creed states, “for us men and for our salvation”. He alone has the words of everlasting life. In him, as the Apostle teaches, “all things hold together” … “for in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (Col 1:17,19).

Our commitment to Christian unity is born of nothing less than our faith in Christ, in this Christ, risen from the dead and seated at the right hand of the Father, who will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. It is the reality of Christ’s person, his saving work and above all the historical fact of his resurrection, which is the content of the apostolic kerygma and those credal formulas which, beginning in the New Testament itself, have guaranteed the integrity of its transmission. The Church’s unity, in a word, can never be other than a unity in the apostolic faith, in the faith entrusted to each new member of the Body of Christ during the rite of Baptism. It is this faith which unites us to the Lord, makes us sharers in his Holy Spirit, and thus, even now, sharers in the life of the Blessed Trinity, the model of the Church’s koinonia here below.

Dear friends, we are all aware of the challenges, the blessings, the disappointments and the signs of hope which have marked our ecumenical journey. Tonight we entrust all of these to the Lord, confident in his providence and the power of his grace. We know that the friendships we have forged, the dialogue which we have begun and the hope which guides us will provide strength and direction as we persevere on our common journey. At the same time, with evangelical realism, we must also recognize the challenges which confront us, not only along the path of Christian unity, but also in our task of proclaiming Christ in our day. Fidelity to the word of God, precisely because it is a true word, demands of us an obedience which leads us together to a deeper understanding of the Lord’s will, an obedience which must be free of intellectual conformism or facile accommodation to the spirit of the age. This is the word of encouragement which I wish to leave with you this evening, and I do so in fidelity to my ministry as the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Saint Peter, charged with a particular care for the unity of Christ’s flock.

Gathered in this ancient monastic church, we can recall the example of a great Englishman and churchman whom we honour in common: Saint Bede the Venerable. At the dawn of a new age in the life of society and of the Church, Bede understood both the importance of fidelity to the word of God as transmitted by the apostolic tradition, and the need for creative openness to new developments and to the demands of a sound implantation of the Gospel in contemporary language and culture.

This nation, and the Europe which Bede and his contemporaries helped to build, once again stands at the threshold of a new age. May Saint Bede’s example inspire the Christians of these lands to rediscover their shared legacy, to strengthen what they have in common, and to continue their efforts to grow in friendship. May the Risen Lord strengthen our efforts to mend the ruptures of the past and to meet the challenges of the present with hope in the future which, in his providence, he holds out to us and to our world. Amen.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams:
Your Holiness, Members of the Collegiate Body, distinguished guests, brothers and sisters in Christ:

Christians in Britain, especially in England, look back with the most fervent gratitude to the events of 597, when Augustine landed on these shores to preach the gospel to the Anglo-Saxons at the behest of Pope St Gregory the Great. For Christians of all traditions and confessions, St Gregory is a figure of compelling attractiveness and spiritual authority – pastor and leader, scholar and exegete and spiritual guide. The fact that the first preaching of the Gospel to the English peoples in the sixth and seventh centuries has its origins in his vision creates a special connection for us with the See of the Apostles Peter and Paul; and Gregory's witness and legacy remain an immensely fruitful source of inspiration for our own mission in these dramatically different times. Two dimensions of that vision may be of special importance as we reflect today on the significance of Your Holiness's visit to us.

St Gregory was the first to spell out for the faithful something of the magnitude of the gift given to Christ's Church through the life of St Benedict – to whom you, Your Holiness, have signalled your devotion in the choice of your name as Pope. In St Gregory's Dialogues, we can trace the impact of St Benedict – an extraordinary man who, through a relatively brief Rule of life, opened up for the whole civilisation of Europe since the sixth century the possibility of living in joy and mutual service, in simplicity and self-denial, in a balanced pattern of labour and prayer in which every moment spoke of human dignity fully realised in surrender to a loving God. The Benedictine life proved a sure foundation not only for generations of monks and nuns, but for an entire culture in which productive work and contemplative silence and receptivity—human dignity and human freedom—were both honoured.

Our own culture, a culture in which so often it seems that 'love has grown cold', is one in which we can see the dehumanising effects of losing sight of Benedict's vision. Work is so often an anxious and obsessive matter, as if our whole value as human beings depended upon it; and so, consequently, unemployment, still a scourge and a threat in these uncertain financial times, comes to seem like a loss of dignity and meaning in life. We live in an age where there is a desperate need to recover the sense of the dignity of both labour and leisure and the necessity of a silent openness to God that allows our true character to grow and flourish by participating in an eternal love.

In a series of profound and eloquent encyclicals, you have explored these themes for our day, grounding everything in the eternal love of the Holy Trinity, challenging us to hope both for this world and the next, and analysing the ways in which our economic habits have trapped us in a reductive and unworthy style of human living. In this building with its long Benedictine legacy, we acknowledge with gratitude your contribution to a Benedictine vision for our days, and pray that your time with us in Britain may help us all towards a renewal of the hope and energy we need as Christians to witness to our conviction that in their relation to God men and women may grow into the fullest freedom and beauty of spirit.

And in this, we are recalled also to the importance among the titles of the Bishops of Rome of St Gregory's own self-designation as 'servant of the servants of God' – surely the one title that points most directly to the example of the Lord who has called us. There is, we know, no authority in the Church that is not the authority of service: that is, of building up the people of God to full maturity. Christ's service is simply the way in which we meet his almighty power: the power to remake the world he has created, pouring out into our lives, individually and together, what we truly need in order to become fully what we are made to be – the image of the divine life. It is that image which the pastor in the Church seeks to serve, bowing down in reverence before each human person in the knowledge of the glory for which he or she was made.

Christians have very diverse views about the nature of the vocation that belongs to the See of Rome. Yet, as Your Holiness's great predecessor reminded us all in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint, we must learn to reflect together on how the historic ministry of the Roman Church and its chief pastor may speak to the Church catholic—East and West, global north and global south—of the authority of Christ and his apostles to build up the Body in love; how it may be realized as a ministry of patience and reverence towards all, a ministry of creative love and self-giving that leads us all into the same path of seeking not our own comfort or profit but the good of the entire human community and the glory of God the creator and redeemer.

We pray that your time with us will be a further step for all of us into the mystery of the cross and the resurrection, so that growing together we may become more effective channels for God's purpose to heal the wounds of humankind, and to restore once again both in our societies and our environment the likeness of his glory as revealed in the face of Jesus Christ.

The Anglicans: Part 2

2010-09-24T09:12:00.000-04:00

Not surprisingly, the rest of the Christian Church has been watching the events unfold within Anglicanism...

ANGLICANS AND CATHOLICS
Outside of their relationship with the East, the Catholic Church's ecumenical dialogue with the Anglican Communion had been the most successful. Anglican bishops could mount a serious claim to apostolic succession, occupying the same historic sees of the medieval and early Church. In fact, since the 19th century, a strong movement within Anglicanism viewed their tradition not as a Protestant denomination - but as a branch of the catholic Church along with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Dialogue had progressed so far that Roman Catholic Cardinal Kaspar, former head of the Vatican's ecumenical office, discouraged efforts to "convert" individual Anglicans, claiming that Anglicanism had integrity in its own right as a Christian tradition.

Then, in October of last year, the Vatican shocked the world by sidestepping Cardinal Kaspar and opening up the way for Anglicans disillusioned over gay and female bishops to "enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony." Bishops and priests could remain married and retain part of their liturgy as an Anglican rite in the Catholic Church.

The Vatican said that it was responding to many requests by Anglican bishops and priests around the world, but it is hard not to read the move as a closing door or at least as putting the Archbishop of Canterbury in an awkward position. On the positive side, for the first time ever, the Catholic Church has expressed a desire for the distinctive gifts that Protestantism (or at least Anglicanism) has to offer. But negatively, it appears that the Vatican thinks they can receive these gifts without imagining a way where Anglicanism can come into full communion with Rome as a whole.

So far, few Anglicans have taken up the Catholic Church's offer. However, it looks like that might change in the near future, which brings us to...

ANGLICANS AND PROTESTANTS
Protestants need Anglicans. Anglicans possess the rich liturgy, "big tent" theology, and episcopal authority needed for any kind of successful long-term visible Protestant unity. Methodists, in particular, should return to their roots as an evangelical movement in communion with their mother church of Anglicanism (the church that the Wesleys refused to leave). And indeed, Anglicans have united with Protestants in India and have reached full communion agreements with the Lutherans and almost full communion with the Methodists in the US and the UK. Then, in February, the Methodist Church in England took things a step further. They surprised the Church of England's General Synod by announcing that they were prepared to merge for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

And yet one of the major holdups for Protestant unity - especially between Anglicans and Methodists in places like the UK - has been the ordination of women as bishops. This is a place where Methodists are not likely to compromise in the event of any church union. But at the same time, the ordination of women as bishops has been a sticking point for Anglo-Catholics who continue to hold out hope for unity with Rome. Then, just a few months ago, the Church of England's General Synod decided that women bishops should be allowed, rejecting a compromise put forward by the archbishop of Canterbury. While the decision must still clear several hurdles, it seems clear that women - who have been ordained as priests since 1992 - will soon be able to serve as bishops in the Church of England.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?
Will Anglicans opposed to ordination of gays and women take Rome up on her offer? What does this mean for the future of dialogue between Anglicans and Catholics? Will we see a united Protestantism (in Britain and elsewhere) that includes the ordination of women as one of the gifts it has to offer Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

The Anglicans: Part 1

2010-09-17T08:56:00.002-04:00

At 80 million strong, the Anglican Communion is the third largest Christian tradition in the world, after Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Although initially born out of King Henry VIII desire for a divorce (and an heir to the English throne) in 1538, Anglicanism emerged from the Reformation as a middle way between Rome and Geneva, between the papal supremacy of Catholicism and the sola Scriptura of Protestantism.

Anglicanism grew with the spread of the British Empire to include a confederation of national churches in fellowship with the mother Church of England - and with the see of Canterbury in particular. Unlike the bishop of Rome, the bishop of Canterbury functions as a "first among equals" for the bishops of the Communion. So what makes a church "Anglican?" Traditionally, it involves a commitment to the four poles of the so-called Lambeth Quadrilateral: the Scriptures as the ultimate rule of faith, the great Creeds as the sufficient summary of faith, the sacraments, and the historic episcopate (succession of bishops) as the means of unity and administration in the Church. In addition to these marks of identity, Anglicans are perhaps best known for producing the most beautiful Christian liturgy in the English language (the Book of Common Prayer) - and for their commitment to social justice.

Over the past few years, the world's religion writers have been fixated on the fate of Anglicanism. I have wondered before why Anglicanism, which represents a mere 2% of the American population, has been the focus of so much attention here in the United States. Maybe it's the pomp and circumstance that Midwest, middle-class Presbyterians simply can not muster, or maybe it's just a holdover of Anglophiles in the US media. In any case, unless you've been hiding under a rock for the past decade, you've heard of the troubles facing the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Anglicans vs. Anglicans
While the roots of the current discord are complex, they certainly came to a head in 2003, when Gene Robinson, a man living in an openly gay relationship, was ordained by The Episcopal Church (the US arm of the Anglican Communion) as the bishop of New Hampshire. Subsequently, Anglicans around the world have divided over the ordination of homosexuals, and to a lesser extent, the ordination of women. Exacerbating tensions were preexisting frustrations between conservatives/evangelicals and liberals/progressives in the Communion.

In the US, conservative members and congregations in the Episcopal Church who were disillusioned with their bishop's position on homosexuality voluntarily placed themselves under the authority of a more conservative bishop - often from overseas. Since their church buildings remained the property of the Episcopal Church, conservative Episcopalians began forming and building their own separate churches. As a result, for the first time in many American towns, you had two "Anglican" churches - those remaining in the Episcopal Church and those in new conservative Anglican churches (under the authority of rival conservative bishops). In June 2009, 700 of these breakaway Anglican churches (about 100,000 people) united to form the Anglican Church in North America. While the Episcopal Church remains the official arm of Anglicanism in the US (despite objections), in February 2010, the Church of England affirmed "the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family."

So, at this point, the question in the United States is: will the real Anglicans please stand up?

Conservative Anglicans charge that liberal Episcopalians have long ago abandoned the clear teaching of Scripture and have rejected the Communion's 2004 plea for a moratorium on the consecration of openly gay bishops. In fact, the Episcopalians went ahead and ordained their second homosexual bishop in May, a move decried by the Archbishop of Canterbury and which resulted in the Episcopal Church being suspended from participating in the official ecumenical dialogue of the Anglican Communion.

On the other hand, while they have been removed from representative functions of the Communion, Episcopalians can still claim to be the only officially recognized Anglican body in the United States. They further point to the fourth principle of the Lambeth Quadrilateral - the historic episcopate - and accuse conservative Anglicans of ignoring the authority of their bishop and engaging in the unprecedented practice (at least for Anglicans) of "choosing their bishop" (who happens to have a theological opinion closer to their own). Such behavior is closer to a congregationalist polity rather than an episcopal one. That is why many moderate and some conservative Anglicans remain within the Episcopal Church - perhaps disagreeing with the church's hierarchy but believing they can only challenge it as authentically Anglican from within.

What are your thoughts? Who can speak for Anglicanism today - especially in the United States?

Exciting News!

2010-08-31T22:40:00.001-04:00

I apologize for the lack of updates over the past couple months. I think that I am finally adjusting into my new schedule as a pastor serving in my first appointment. As I have told many of you, there is nothing I would rather be doing every day...and I still can't believe I'm getting paid to love people!

Despite this blog silence, all has not stayed completely quiet on the ecumenical front. A couple months back, I decided to enter an essay contest for the National Council of Churches entitled: "Moving Forward Together: Visions of Young American Ecumenists." Approximately 10 essays were selected to appear in an anthology to be presented at the National Council of Churches Ecumenical Centennial Gathering in November - and then are intended to be published.

Drawing in part from my posts on this site, I wrote on the topic of unity -- and my essay was selected! I titled my essay "The Scandal of Main Street Steeples: Imagining Christian Unity in Postmodern America."

Also, over the next couple months, I'm going to start blogging again, this time addressing some of the more current ecumenical news concerning the various major Christian traditions.

Here's the order: Check back often and be sure to keep the conversation going!

1. The Anglicans
2. The Lutherans
3. The Catholics
4. The Presbyterians
5. The Methodists
6. The Orthodox
7. The Evangelicals
8. The Pentecostals

Imagining Christian Unity in Postmodern America

2010-07-05T09:32:00.000-04:00

With the decline of the mainline Protestant denominations and the rise of apathy toward organic church union, it would seem that ecumenical Christianity in America has seen its heyday come and go. Indeed, the tremendous growth in autonomous Christian megachurches exists in sharp contrast to the traditional denominations that supported the ecumenical movement. Has the twenty-first century inaugurated the death of ecumenism in the United States?

On the contrary, half a century of dialogue between the Christian traditions has yielded unprecedented doctrinal convergence and clarity regarding the remaining issues that divide the church. It is the task of a new generation of Christians to build upon the successes and failures of the ecumenical movement and press on toward the realization of full visible reconciliation between the churches. With all that has been accomplished, we cannot give up now!

While aspects of postmodern thought threaten to devolve into radical individualism or nihilistic meaninglessness, the rise of postmodernism has opened up exciting ecumenical opportunities. In new places of interaction between people representing the full range of Christian denominational affiliations, an informal ecumenical dialogue has developed. No longer is ecumenical conversation confined to professional theologians and denominational representatives. Today, it is bubbling up from everyday life at home and at work. The Lutheran accountant cannot avoid the experiential witness of her Pentecostal neighbors; the evangelical employee is confronted by the spiritual discipline of his Catholic co-worker; the Presbyterian college student is influenced by the mystical theology of her Orthodox roommate. These discussions have contributed to a growing appreciation for the gifts of other Christian traditions. In the place of strong sectarian identities there has emerged a newfound sense of humility in the face of the religious other’s testimony. Beneath the surface of the nondenominational and emerging church movements, there are thousands of young Christians who desire to see the Church overcome the denominational bickering that has paralyzed its witness in the past.

Additionally, the rejection of a single religious narrative in American society has uncovered the need for churches to rediscover a missional identity in their own backyard. As I mentioned in the comment section of a post here recently, the extraordinary success of church unions in places like India serves as a reminder that the ecumenical imperative is strongest in a missionary-minded Church. As evidenced by their alarming decline, mainline Protestants can no longer assume a position of privilege or establishment in American society. In a culture torn apart by divisions and increasingly hostile to the Gospel, there is a need for these churches to recover the evangelical mission that supports the quest for Christian unity. Likewise, evangelical churches must adopt a vision of visible unity in order to be truly “nondenominational” and fully live into the incarnational dimension of the evangelical mission. By embracing an evangelical ecumenism within a missional context, mainline and evangelical Christians in America may discover new energy in the search for full Christian unity together.

By looking back to what God has done while continuing to engage creatively with the particularities of the present, Christians can begin to imagine a way forward. One needs to look no further than the Church of North India to see what a Spirit-led evangelical ecumenism can accomplish. Still, given the breakdown in talks aimed at a similar union in the United States, American Christians have the opportunity to expand the vision of the united churches to include a postmodern respect for diversity. Might there be a way to realize a united Protestant church in America that celebrates the distinctive contributions of the various denominational traditions? Taking their cue from the Church of North India and other united churches, participating denominations could come together around essential doctrines, mutual recognition of ministry, and a common decision-making process. New measures would be taken, however, to protect the unique gifts of the uniting churches with as much freedom as possible at the local level.

One potential way to imagine such unity in diversity is to incorporate the concept of religious orders in any contemporary model for Protestant unity. Just as Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, Benedictines, Cistercians, etc. are unquestionably united as Catholics while remaining distinct in their particular order’s emphases and practices, so too Protestant denominations could function as different orders within a wider united Protestant church. Yet instead of being limited to a group of clergy, whole congregations along with their clergy could be part of a specific Protestant order. As originally a renewal movement led by John and Charles Wesley in the Church of England, my own tradition of Methodism is best understood as an evangelical society in search of a catholic church within which to properly function. Could all the major Protestant traditions discover a truer expression of their own self-identities as societies or orders in a united church instead of as fragmented denominations? Like a rich tapestry or a complex harmony, it is possible to imagine a united Protestantism that thrives on the diversity of gifts that each tradition brings to the larger Church.

Of course, the details of what exactly these Protestant orders might look like would need to be carefully worked out. It would certainly be no small task for groups used to acting as independent denominations to make the transition to being part of a much larger whole. But in order to allow for the full range of gifts within Protestantism, any overarching church structure would need to provide enough freedom for the congregations of each order to remain faithful to their traditions – provided they are not in conflict with the essential doctrine of the united church. Envisioned in this way, uniting congregations across the street from one another may continue to look very different, but would be recognizably united in one Protestant church around commonly held essential doctrines and polity. Even if differences between denominations prevent some from joining in a union, the potential exists for enough Protestants to unite – as they did in North India – that those who are ecumenically minded can remain faithful to their tradition, but no longer as a visible end in itself. In addition, a united Protestantism would be better equipped to engage in constructive dialogue aimed at unity with the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Grounded in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the importance and possibility of Christian unity calls for each generation of Christians to imagine afresh how to more faithfully embody the reconciliation we have received through Jesus Christ. As a fellowship of justified sinners united in one Lord by the power of the Spirit, the Church's contradictory display of division is exposed as an incomprehensible scandal. In the face of rapid decline in an increasingly antagonistic culture, American mainline Protestant churches in particular cannot afford to remain ambivalent toward such displays of disunity or confine the missional identity of the Church to international contexts. By embracing the relationship between ecumenism and evangelism and building on the example of united churches in the past, Protestant Christians living in postmodern America must boldly imagine a new way of being one that celebrates diversity within visible unity on the way to full reconciliation within the Body of Christ “so that the world might believe.”

Beyond Denominations?

2010-06-19T08:46:00.001-04:00

Over the past twenty years, a remarkable shift has taken place in American religion. While most of the large Christian denominations in the US went into decline, "nondenominational" Christianity - typified by megachurches like Lakewood, Saddleback, and Willow Creek - experienced an explosion of growth. Nondenominational churches grew from less than 200,000 adherents in 1990 to over 8,000,000 today. When grouped together with those who identify only as "Christian" or as "Evangelical", this group comprises 11.8% of the US population.

Part of the success of nondenominational churches has been their ability to harness the shifting winds toward postmodernism in American society. In a culture that chafes at authority, tradition, and establishment, any sign of "your grandmother's church" has to go. In the place of stained glass, hymns, pews, and robes, nondenominational congregations have embraced nondescript buildings, rock music, theater seating, and jeans in an effort to attract religious "seekers". Instead of conforming to the catechisms and creeds of a single dominant tradition like "Calvinism" or "Lutheranism" - nondenominational churches provide individuals who are frustrated with denominational divisions with the freedom to draw from a variety of Christian beliefs and practices.

In spite of their disillusionment with Christian denominationalism, these independent congregations see no reason to insist on visible unity. A national or worldwide structure over all the churches conflicts with a postmodern vision of the Church as a decentralized network of Spirit-led and Bible-listening believers.

So, then, is the nondenominational movement the answer to the scandal of denominations? Are we moving into a new age of post-denominational unity? While the culture may be moving toward a “post-denominational” future, I believe that denominations continue to have an important role to play in the quest for Christian unity.

First off, they confront the reality that the Christian Church is sadly but visibly divided. I am glad that so many Christians are eager to move past our denominational divisions – but if all local congregations drop their denominational labels and become “Grace Church” or “Bible Church,” this division does not go away – in fact, it is amplified (from 10 denominations to 1000 congregations)! Without a common history and tradition, people tend to create their own personal version of Christianity (or their pastor's version) – and any overarching unity that exists seems to resemble the surrounding culture more than Christianity.

Denominations provide a history, a language, a tradition in which to live out the Christian faith. Each denomination brings its own gifts to the larger body of Christ. In order for the Church to truly move toward a visible undivided (nondenominational) church, we must first listen to “the grace given to you in Christ” in our brothers and sisters who are committed to different traditions from our own. Then, we can struggle together to find creative ways of building common ground while remaining faithful to our own own tradition. This is difficult ecumenical work, but I believe it is the best way to take each of our denominations beautiful and unique voices and blend them into a unified, harmonious chorus.

Lastly, while postmodernism includes many positive developments - including the humility that is essential for Christian unity - more and more people are feeling adrift, isolated, and disconnected. It’s hard to devote your life to something when all truth is relative, when everything is ultimately meaningless. This is why I know many friends my age who are finding peace and rest in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, which claim historical apostolic authority. In my own experience, I feel deeply committed to my own Methodist tradition – and yet still realize that my denomination is only one small part of the Christian Church and that we are called to “be one".

The way to work toward healing the divisions of the Reformation (and beyond) is by understanding and appreciating the differences of the denominational traditions – not pretending they do not exist.

There Already is One Church (It's Mine)

2010-06-08T10:15:00.000-04:00

Growing up a fundamentalist Baptist, I was taught that ecumenism is a bad thing - that it threatened to water down the truth by uniting with false teaching. The roots of this conviction hail back to the beginning of the 20th century, when conservative Christians who were alarmed at rising modernistic trends in the churches (e.g., Darwinism, higher criticism, denial of the miraculous) reaffirmed traditional Protestant theology by staking out certain "fundamental" tenants of the Christian faith. These fundamentals included the inspiration of Scripture, the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ, and atonement for sin through Christ's death on the cross.

As the century progressed, this original fundamentalist movement split into those who remained engaged in the world (present-day "evangelicals") and those who withdrew from the world in an effort to maintain purity (present-day "fundamentalists"). Within the second group, the list of fundamentals expanded beyond the initial understanding of what you believe to include things like what kind of Christian music you listen to, what Bible translation you read, and what clothes you wear. Furthermore, many fundamentalists began advocating what they called "secondary separation" - meaning that churches should not only separate from those they disagreed with, but also from like-minded Christians who had not adequately separated from those they disagreed with. As a result, for these fundamentalist Protestants, the "true Church" ended up consisting of their own local congregations (and perhaps a handful of other people who happened to agree with them on everything).

Key to understanding this fundamentalist separatist impulse is the connection between "the inspiration of Scripture" and "my church's interpretation of Scripture." Thus, other Christians could affirm the entire Nicene and Apostles' Creeds and still be labeled "apostate" because of their method of baptism or preferred Bible translation. In such an atmosphere, ecumenism is next to impossible because there are few to no other Christians left to unite with! In order to achieve true unity, fundamentalists insist that all other Christians must assimilate to the entirety of their congregation's particular interpretation of Scripture.

Although I have focused on fundamentalist Protestants, this model of Christian unity is held by most of the world's Catholic and Orthodox Christians as well. The list of non-negotiable "fundamentals" required for Christian unity is merely substituted for another. Pope Benedict caused a media firestorm in 2007 when he re-released a statement clarifying that Protestants cannot be true churches (in the proper sense) because they lack apostolic succession - ordination at the hands of bishops who are in unbroken unity with the first apostles of Jesus (see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094) Because of this defect, Protestant pastors lack valid ordination and therefore cannot perform valid sacraments. In order to achieve true unity, all other Christians must submit to the apostolic authority of the pope and accept re-ordination at the hands of Catholic bishops (which, at least at this point, would include assimilating to the entirety of Catholic doctrine). Similarly, the Orthodox insist on re-ordination at the hands of their bishops and complete submission to their doctrinal tradition.

Most Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants will concede that people can be true Christians even if they are outside the true Church. In the Vatican II document Unitatis Redintegratio, the Catholic Church clarified that those “who believe in Christ and have been rightly baptized” exist “in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Catholic Church” where their “sacred Christian rites...can truly engender a life of grace and give access to the communion of salvation.” Additionally, these communities have “by no means been deprived of meaning and importance in the mystery of salvation,” for “the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” In other words, there is sufficient overlap with the doctrine of the "one true Church" (be it Catholic or fundamentalist Protestant) to acknowledge that those in other communities can be "Christian" or "saved." However, more is needed - full doctrinal assimilation - in order to achieve Christian unity. In the meantime, there remains one true Church along with many Christians who have not yet fully assimilated to the truth of what it means to be the "Church."

Positively, this approach to Christian unity refuses to be satisfied with a cheap unity that waters down important doctrinal differences. However, if our differences are not essential to what it means to be "Christian," then why should they be essential to what it means to be united as "Church"? After all, to be baptized into Christ is to be a member of Christ's body, the Church. The picture that emerges from the assimilation model is a divided, disfigured Body of Christ - the true Church - with sundry lopped off parts of Christ's Body lying on the ground (Christians, perhaps, but not fully united to the Church). Ironically, such a gory image should provide the needed impetus for Christian unity that other models have failed to achieve.

Catholics, fundamentalists - what are your thoughts? Admittedly, this post is tainted by my own biases as a mainline Protestant. What would you offer as correctives to my analysis? How might you imagine a way forward that is faithful to your understanding of what it means to be Church?

A United Church of America?

2010-05-10T08:39:00.000-04:00

The model for Christian unity that has been the most successful over the past century has been the "lowest common denominator" or the "Uniting church" movement.

Interestingly enough, the Uniting church movement has its roots in Christian evangelism. On the mission field, European/American distinctions between "Presbyterian" and "Baptist" seemed silly. Why impose the centuries-old wounds of the European church on a fledgling church in southern Africa?

So, in 1910, missionaries from across the globe converged in Edinburgh, Scotland for a Conference of World Mission and Evangelism. The chairman of the conference called for the "evangelism of the world in this generation" under the ecumenical motto taken from Jesus' prayer "that they may be one." Springing from this 1910 conference in Edinburgh, a growing consensus of missionaries viewed Christian divisions as the single greatest barrier to the spread of the Gospel.

This evangelical call to ecumenism led to the fusion of two or more churches across the world, many times from different confessional families. In these mergers, the uniting churches shed their denominational labels and joined together around a set of agreed upon doctrines. Typically, these unions involved Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Methodists - most notably in Canada (1925), Thailand (1934), the Philippines (1948), Zambia (1965), and Australia (1977). Even more significantly, church unions in India included Anglicans - and thus episcopal structures of governance - first in the South (1947) and then in the North (1970). The Church of North India is the most comprehensive uniting church in the world - including Anglicans, Baptists, Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ, Methodists, Brethren, Presbyterians, and some Pentecostals.

If it could happen in India, why not America? Similar efforts aimed at full unity between Protestants in the US were made, but broke down for the following reasons:

1) Bishops: In both England and America, Presbyterians were reluctant to accept the need for bishops. Anglicans, for their part, insisted on the need for bishops, with some even calling for the re-ordination of pastors from non-episcopal traditions - a deal breaker for most Presbyterians and Methodists.

2) Bureaucracy: Especially in America, where the churches are still relatively large with thousands of congregations and millions of members, many feared that a united Protestant denomination with an accompanying bureaucracy would drag down the mission of local churches.

3) Shifting Emphasis: By the 1960s, the emphasis of an older generation of Protestant missionaries on Christian doctrine and Christian unity shifted as a younger generation focused more on political issues and unity between different religions. As a result, efforts at Christian unity have lost their sense of evangelical urgency, especially in the World Council of Churches.

4) Vatican II: Also in the 1960s, following the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed itself to full ecumenical dialogue with other Christians. Given the sheer size and historical self understanding of the Catholic Church, it did not make sense for them to become a member of a federation like the World Council of Churches. Instead, they began talks with other "world confessional families" - with Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and Reformed. So, the conversation has shifted from unity between different Protestants to unity between Catholics and Protestant "families" (which has so far yielded few visible results).

5) Decline: In places where the church did manage to visibly unite, church unions often set off a period of steep membership decline. The United Church of Canada - one of the earliest uniting churches bringing together Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Methodists - went from representing 6% of Canadians with over a million members in 1965 to representing less than 2% of the population with less than 600,000 members. At its current rate of decline, the United Church of Canada will cease to exist in the next twenty years. This has caused great alarm among potentially uniting churches in the United States (although they themselves are already declining), who warn that a watered down identity leads to a less compelling witness.

For all these reasons, the Uniting church movement has stagnated in the twenty-first century. Sadly, those churches that did manage to unite seem destined to be regarded as anomalies within Christianity - as simply one more denomination among many instead being part of a movement sweeping toward one visibly united Church.

What are your thoughts? Could the Uniting church movement be revived - or modified - for Protestants in our present context? Or was it hopelessly flawed from the outset?

Which Way Forward?

2010-04-26T09:38:00.000-04:00

Over the past month or so, I have tried to express theologically why the movement toward full, visible unity is imperative for the Christian, and particularly for the Protestant. We cannot claim to worship a God who embraces the physical and remain satisfied with the spiritual. We cannot expect the world to believe in God's reconciliation if we are content to remain unreconciled to our sisters and brothers.

In spite of common blood and name, the Church is like a feuding family that is unwilling to forgive or forget, paralyzed by its past and unable to embrace a future together.

Now, I was a history major, so I'll be the first to say that the past matters. Some of the Church's divisions were born out of good reasons, perhaps even necessity. Most Catholics today will concede that Luther raised some valid grievances - points that were later addressed in the Council of Trent - but that the Church would have done well to keep him within the fold instead of forcing him out. My own tradition, though originally a renewal movement, was institutionalized when English bishops vindictively refused to ordain and send priests to American Methodists hungry for the sacraments. Today, many Anglicans and Methodists recognize this split as regrettable and steps have been taken - most strikingly in India - to restore their broken unity.

For those of us who "share in one Spirit," might we trust that God's grace is greater than our brokenness and imagine the original reasons for our schism (whether valid or invalid) being swallowed up by love and reconciliation in the present? Might we envision a reunited family, the past forgotten and a common identity embraced?

OK, you might be thinking, but what would this family reunion look like? What is the way forward?

First of all, it requires everyone to come to the table for conversation - even the uncle that you hate. The first step toward unity is the ability to listen in humility, to hear what someone else is saying. This, of course, doesn't mean you will necessarily agree with them, but there can be no possibility of reconciliation if the differing parties don't even know each other.

This is the great achievement of 20th century ecumenism - somehow, they were able to bring Christians from all stripes into the same room where they could get to know each other. In this room, many stereotypes and semantics were ironed out. Not all Catholics think they can save themselves! Not all Protestants think good works don't matter! Particular differences were clarified - but it became much harder to dismiss entire traditions when you looked in someone's eyes and saw the spirit of Jesus there.

In the wake of these conversations, three main strategies for unity have emerged among Christians:

1) Lowest Common Denominator - what are the things we hold in common? This "core" becomes the basis for unity and all other differences are either thrown out completely or judged to be non-essentials. This has been the approach adopted by "uniting" church movements among Protestants in Canada, Australia, India, and some other parts of Africa, Asia, and Europe.

2) Assimilation - one church is right (or the closest to right) and the rest are wrong or misguided (at least in regard to the things that keep them separate). All of the "wrong churches" must conform to the beliefs of the "right church", thus restoring unity. This has been the approach adopted by most Catholics, Orthodox, and various fundamentalist Protestant groups.

3) Non-denominational - local assemblies of believers are united by their common faith. This group agrees with #1 that there is a "core" that all Christians hold in common, but rejects the need for a single overarching structure in favor of a federation of local, independent churches. This approach is rapidly gaining prominence among young, postmodern Protestants in the United States.

In the next three weeks, I'll address each one of these options in more detail. Obviously, none of these models has yet led to full, visible unity among the churches, which is why I'll then offer my own vision for what a Christian family reunion might look like in the future.

The way forward seems uncertain. How might you imagine a reunited Christian family?

Disunity on Display

2010-04-18T18:53:00.000-04:00

It was a beautiful, late summer morning, and I was driving a car full of groomsmen to my old roommate’s wedding ceremony. As we meandered through the tranquil countryside of upstate New York on the way to the church, the conversation turned to religion. The best man, sitting next to me in the passenger seat, asked about my studies in divinity school and we began talking about the differences between various Christian denominations. About halfway through our discussion, we followed Route 21 into the tiny village of Palmyra. There, at the intersection of Main and Canandaigua Streets, our eyes could not help but drift up to notice four soaring church spires that pierced the sky. On each corner of the intersection stood a different church – Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopal. The best man, who attended a suburban nondenominational congregation, remarked how he had never really thought about Christian disunity until he saw it dramatically displayed on that street corner.

That moment remains etched in my mind whenever I consider the importance of Christian ecumenism. As it turns out, another young man – Joseph Smith – was troubled by that very same intersection over a hundred years earlier. Born and raised in Palmyra, Smith’s frustration with the competing denominations in town contributed to his disillusionment with traditional Christianity. Thus the scandal of Christian division – embodied on a remote corner in New York – gave birth to the new religious movement of Mormonism.

What about you? Do you worship across the street from another church? What keeps us divided? How does our disunity effect our credibility or "witness" to the world?

Is Unity Realistic?

2010-04-12T09:22:00.000-04:00

My good friend Derek recently made the comment on Facebook regarding the blog phenomenon in general: "your blog: nobody cares." In spite of the irony of his criticism being posted on a public forum, I think he has a point. A blog that seeks to address large, important questions - but that nobody reads - may be therapeutic for the writer, but in the end is kind of, well, pathetic.

That being said, I want to thank those of you who have been offering feedback and asking questions. While I am grateful for the chance to organize my thoughts on this subject and be able to refer back to them, my main purpose in writing is to encourage conversation and dialogue on the subject. So keep your comments coming! I will continue to develop my posts in ways that correspond with your questions/interests (you can also check out two polls listed on the right side of the page to help me with this).

In the past two posts, I have sought to convey why I think unity is essential to the Christian gospel (incarnation, reconciliation, evangelism) and therefore to the Christian understanding of "Church". For Protestants in particular, who are responsible for much of the Church's current visible disunity, ambivalence toward division is inexcusable. While most seem willing to acknowledge that unity is important for the Church's integrity (at least in theory), three very important questions are commonly raised.

1) Given the current state of the Church, is unity even realistic?
2) If we are to strive after unity, how might we envision a way forward?
3) What qualifies as "essential" versus "opinion" for Christians who seek to be united?

Obviously, these three questions are interrelated. In future posts, I'll be focusing almost exclusively on the second and third questions. But in this post, I want to briefly address the first question: is Christian unity realistic?

For me, the answer to this question is deeply embedded in the Christian understanding of how we, as human beings, are reconciled to God. Led by the Holy Spirit, Christians should seek to be reconciled to each other in the same way that we have been reconciled to God (see 2 Corinthians 5). In Christian theological lingo, this involves two important steps: justification and sanctification.

JUSTIFICATION: For Christians, the biblical story of God’s redemption of humanity reaches its climax in the cross of Christ. Through Christ’s atoning work on the cross, humanity is justified before God and able to enter into a restored relationship of love by faith. Yet despite their status as justified sinners by the grace of God, Christians continue to wrestle with the ever-present reality of sin until Christ returns in final victory. The Christian, then, is simultaneously sinner and saint.

Lesslie Newbigin, a bishop in the Church of South India and a leading 20th century evangelist and ecumenist, contends that the doctrine of justification by faith through grace provides the theological underpinning for the Church’s quest for unity. Like the individual believer, the community of faith is both grace-filled and sinful. While the Church is meant to be a place where God’s love is experienced through the fellowship of believers, its communion is disrupted and discredited by countless denominational divisions. The Church is simultaneously the Body of Christ and a squabbling bunch of sinners.

SANCTIFICATION: Here's where the Wesleyan side of me kicks in. Absolutely central to a Wesleyan understanding of salvation is the conviction that we should not remain content in our current sinful state. Rather, the same Spirit who draws us into a restored relationship with God also empowers us to become holy - to love and serve God as we were intended. The Holy One’s call for us to “be holy” takes us by surprise. Incredibly, we discover that God has written us into the divine plan to save the world. Though our sin is great, God’s grace is infinitely greater. To deny this call to holiness is to “reject not human authority, but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you” (1 Thessalonians 4:8).

Despite our present state of sin, God mercifully works within us, calling us forward to perfect love and participation in God’s Triune life. Likewise the Spirit empowers the Church to be the community of reconciliation and love that fulfills God’s eschatological purpose, where “all flesh will see the salvation of God” (Luke 3:6). For too long, Newbigin says the churches have spent time and energy arguing over “what the churches are – surely it is time for us to meet one another in penitent acknowledgement of our common failure to be what the Church ought to be” (if you're interested, see Newbigin's work on ecclesiology: "The Household of God"). Instead of remaining content in its sinful sectarian state, the Church is called to embody in our institutional life the same unity with one another that has been given to us in Christ.

Viewed this way, the answer to the question - "is unity realistic" - is a resounding NO if the Church is relying on human strength alone. But if we are willing to humble ourselves and trust in the same Spirit who is able to graciously lead sinners toward holiness, we may begin to glimpse together what the Church "ought to be."

What are your thoughts? Can Christians hope for unity? Or is this hopelessly unrealistic?

Why is Unity Important?

2010-04-05T12:29:00.000-04:00

Ideological disagreement appears to be an unavoidable part of the human experience. The bitter rhetoric in the US over health care reform is only the most recent high profile example of this truth. People look at the same thing, hear the same words - and come away with two completely different interpretations.

The centuries old hope (at least in the "West") that science, education, and technology would unite the world has collapsed in the wake of the unprecedented human strife throughout the twentieth century. Postmodern efforts to build unity center less around grand meta-narratives (science, religion) and focus more on respecting diversity and learning to live together without killing each other.

In light of these observations, I will offer two reasons why I think unity is important.

The first reason is functional and applies on a wider, sociological level. It is mutually beneficial for human beings to be united around particular principles that promote human dignity and life. People will continue to disagree with one another. But if people can agree on the fundamental need to protect human life/dignity, then all other disagreements no longer become a reason to kill one another. This is where I think interfaith and religious-nonreligious dialogue is so important. It is safe to assume both that the multitude of human religions are not going away tomorrow and that all nonreligious persons will not suddenly be convinced of the divine. In the meantime, then, it would be beneficial to work toward a set of agreed upon principles that promote and protect life.

The second reason is particular to the Christian narrative. The search for Christian unity is not an idealistic effort to sit around and sing Kumbaya. Neither is it an effort to throw away all the particulars of Christianity and settle on the lowest common denominator. I believe that unity is absolutely essential to the integrity of the Christian story - to the good news of Jesus Christ (incarnation and reconciliation) and the proclamation of that news to the world (evangelism). United by faith in the gospel, there is room for natural disagreements over what Wesley called "opinions" within the Church. We may not all think alike, but reconciled to God and to each other, we are called to love alike.

INCARNATION: "For just as the body is one and has many members...so it is with Christ. For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" (1 Corinthians 12:12-14)

Christians believe that the defining moment in human history is when God became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. God is not some invisible life force limited to the spiritual or intellectual realm. No, as Christians recite in the great Creeds of the Church, God became "truly human," embracing the messiness of physical human existence in order to restore our capacity to be in relationship with God. Christians celebrate this truth each year at Christmas and in the use of the physical elements of water, bread, and wine as a means of encountering God.

Why, then, is this central conviction suspended for Christians when it comes to the Church? The same loving God who entered into history and became truly human desires the Church to be the continuing embodiment of God’s love - "the Body of Christ" in the world. Christians' satisfaction with an "invisible" Church contradicts their belief in a God who became the visible Body of Christ.

RECONCILIATION: "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation...entrusting the message of reconciliation to us" (2 Corinthians 5:18-19)

This gets to the central point of why God became human in the first place. Through Jesus' atoning work on the cross, humanity is reconciled to God and able to enter into a restored relationship of love by faith. The New Testament is clear that a loving relationship with God overflows with love for neighbor.

How, then, can the Church be faithful to the Scriptural witness of Christ’s reconciling work on the cross and yet remain unreconciled with one another? Instead of remaining content in its divided state, the Church is called to return to the foot of the cross and embody in its visible life the unity and reconciliation given to all people through Jesus.

EVANGELISM: "I ask on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me." (John 17:20-21)

Finally, Christians believe that God's Spirit empowers the Church to be the community of reconciliation and love that fulfills God's purpose for the world, where "all flesh will see the salvation of God" (Luke 3:6). Christians are called to be agents of God's reconciling love to people in every nation and on every continent.

But how can the world be expected to believe in God's reconciliation when the Church remains an unreconciled fellowship? Thus, when the Church is actively engaged in proclaiming its Gospel, it is able to see Christian divisions for what they are: an intolerable scandal that contradicts the Church’s witness to God’s reconciliation of all things in Jesus Christ.

What do you think? Is unity important to you? For similar or different reasons?
Can we agree on a common set of principles that promote human life? What qualifies as "opinion" within the Church?

The Ecumethodist Task

2010-03-30T23:33:00.000-04:00

Welcome!

I created this blog as an outlet for my own thoughts on the search for Christian unity in a postmodern world. But my sincere hope is that it might also stimulate dialogue with other Christians, as well as with people of other faiths or people of no faith. In a world full of division, the Church's continued scandalous disunity contradicts its gospel that Jesus Christ has reconciled us to God and to each other.

For Protestant Christians in particular, who do not claim to represent "the Church" in its fullness (like Catholic or Orthodox Christians), the willingness to remain visibly divided in a myriad of denominations is inexcusable. For years, I wrestled with questions surrounding the nature and authority of the Church. I came to the conviction that if I was to remain a Protestant, it could not be as an end in itself. Rather, to be Protestant is to be ecumenical, to be led by the Holy Spirit toward a unity that includes the many gifts scattered within the broken Body of Christ.

Methodism has provided a tradition in which I could live out these convictions with integrity. As originally a renewal movement led by the Wesleys in the Church of England, Methodism has never understood itself to be the fullness of what it means to be the Church. It is better understood as a kind of Protestant evangelical "order" (along the lines of the Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, etc.). Methodism, then, requires a catholic Church within which to properly function. Here are some favorite quotes relating to ecumenism from John Wesley, an eighteenth century Anglican priest and founder of Methodism:

From Wesley's "Character of a Methodist":

"From real Christians, of whatsoever denomination they be, we earnestly desire not to be distinguished at all, not from any who sincerely follow after what they know they have not yet attained. No: "Whosoever doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." And I beseech you, brethren, by the mercies of God, that we be in no wise divided among ourselves. Is thy heart right, as my heart is with thine? I ask no farther question. If it be, give me thy hand. For opinions, or terms, let us not destroy the work of God. Dost thou love and serve God? It is enough. I give thee the right hand of fellowship. If there be any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies; let us strive together for the faith of the Gospel; walking worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called; with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; remembering, there is one body, and one Spirit, even as we are called with one hope of our calling; "one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."
(http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/character/)

And here, from his "Letter to a Roman Catholic":

"Come, my brother, and let us reason together...We ought, without this endless jangling about opinions, to provoke one another to love and to good works. Let the points wherein we differ stand aside: here are enough...to be the ground of every Christian temper and every Christian action....if we cannot as yet think alike in all things, at least we may love alike...In the name and in the strength of God, let us resolve, first, not to hurt one another...secondly, to speak nothing harsh or unkind of each other...thirdly, resolve to harbour no unkind thought...fourthly, endeavour to help each other on in whatever we are agreed leads to the Kingdom. So far as we can, let us always rejoice to strengthen each other’s hands in God."
(http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/letters/1749b.htm)

More than ever, I am convinced that the Church needs thoughtful Protestants who are committed to the gifts of their particular traditions (be it Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, Baptist, Pentecostal...) and to offering them up to the Church as a whole. This is hard, slow work that requires patience and humility. Yet the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church still confesses with Jesus Christ, who prayed for his followers to be one, that "what is impossible for mortals is possible with God." (John 17:21; Luke 18:27)