The "Shambles" of the Mainline

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)

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

Groups like the Quakers and Pentecostals have affirmed the gifts of women for ministry from the very beginning of their movements, while mainline Protestants – including Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Disciples, Congregationalists, and some Baptists – did not begin granting women full clergy rights until the twentieth century.  However, since the earliest days of Methodism, certain women demonstrated what John Wesley called an “extraordinary” call from God to share the good news and so were licensed to be preachers.  Wesley’s own mother led a Bible study in her home that drew so many people that it began to rival her husband’s ministry as the parish priest.  Thus, United Methodists have always been mindful that some women are not only persuaded of a call from God to preach, but also that the living out of this call has produced much spiritual “fruit” (Matthew 7:16) – drawing many to a deeper love of God and neighbor.  Today, women lead around 8% of all American congregations and account for 20% of mainline Methodist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran clergy.  

SCRIPTURE

We believe that God is active in the world, revealing himself to us over the course of human history.  Over hundreds of years, God inspired ordinary people to write of their encounters with the divine in stories, letters, and poetry (to name a few biblical genres) – words that were collected together in the Bible.  When read in faith, these words are for us the living Word of God, telling us the good news of God’s purpose for us. 

As United Methodists, Scripture is of primary importance for understanding God and how we are called to live in the world.  And yet, it is necessary to acknowledge that the Bible has been interpreted in many different ways.  Often, particular passages are taken out of context and wielded like weapons to support causes that contradict the Bible’s message as a whole.  For this reason, the Bible is not read in isolation, but instead is interpreted through the lens of tradition (what has been “handed down” [1 Cor. 15:3] through the community of faith), reason, and experience.  We approach the Bible, 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 into all truth” (John 14:26).

With this in mind, we maintain that certain so-called “proof texts” against the full inclusion 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 oppose women’s ordination.  In similar ways, sincere Christians have relied on isolated 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, it is necessary to establish what the rest of Scripture has to say about women and their role in the Church.

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

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

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

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

5.     Women held significant leadership roles in the Church.  It is clear that “femaleness” is not a barrier to full participation in salvation, baptism, or discipleship.  This being so, it is logical to conclude that Christian ministry is also extended to all people.  Indeed, the New Testament affirms that women participated in the ministry of the Church on many different levels.  In fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, God poured out his Spirit upon all flesh, so that women should “prophesy,” the same word that connotes the sharing of the Gospel message (Acts 2:17).  Thus the arrival of the Spirit points to a new context for the ministry 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 among the apostles” (Rom. 16:7).

TRADITION, REASON, AND EXPERIENCE

In light of the larger narrative of Scripture, it seems reasonable to maintain that women should not be universally excluded from leadership within the Church.  In these “latter days,” God has poured out his Spirit on all flesh, leveling barriers 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 females must be understood as a re-imposition of old sinful divisions within the Church.

However, it must also be acknowledged that for the vast majority of the Church’s history, women have not been able to participate fully in the leadership of the Church.  This is partly due to a particular interpretation of the aforementioned Pauline proof-texts and partly because of the belief that only a man could stand in the place of Christ as a priest (since Jesus was a man) and that Jesus only chose twelve male apostles. 

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

OBJECTION: BE SILENT, WOMEN!

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

Still, it should be noted that a selectively literal reading of Paul’s writings on women casts suspicion on the motivations of the interpreter.  Why is it that those who oppose women’s ordination strenuously quote Paul’s advice that women “be silent” (1 Cor. 14:34) and that they should not “have authority over a man” (2 Tim. 2:12) – but ignore his explicit 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 a literal interpretation would suggest (they may testify, sing, offer prayer requests, etc.), instead they are carefully excluded by men from the recognized power structures and leadership in the Church (despite doing most the work).  It is in these selectively literal contexts where women are excluded from leadership that men in authority most often overlook domestic violence, sexual abuse, and exploitation of women in the Church.  If those who oppose the ordination of women want to be taken seriously, they should be consistent in their literal interpretation of Paul and should root out all forms of abuse against women in their churches. 

1.     1 Corinthians 14:34-35: “Women should be silent in the churches…If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home.”  Perhaps the most obvious point is that this passage does not refer to who is leading the service, but only to those who are in the congregation.  Moreover, the “silence” here implies “reverence” or “respectful attention” more than limitation, since women (who were overwhelmingly uneducated) may have been asking questions or causing other disruptions 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 worship within the particular context of the church at Corinth, not restricting half of the body of Christ to total public silence for all time.

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

To a lesser extent, opponents of women in Church leadership roles will point to the requirements 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 fathers with disciplined children who obey their teachings.  This not only makes an assumption (beyond the text), that Paul and Timothy were married men with children, it demonstrates the opposite bias of a literal interpretation of the texts 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 to the biblical proof-texts (widely circulated in evangelical Protestantism), Catholic and Orthodox opponents of female ordination often cite tradition and theology.  The Catholic Church's opposition to the ordination of women has hardened in recent years, although a majority of churchgoing American Catholics are actually in favor of female priests.  Supporters of the Vatican's policy point out that God became a man, not a woman.  It makes sense, then, that only male priests can fully represent Christ to the people in worship.  Furthermore, Jesus chose all male apostles when he certainly could have selected from among his devoted female followers.  

Certainly, proponents of female ordination should not simply dismiss centuries of church practice.  However, in the case of the argument that a female cannot sufficiently represent Christ in worship, it is helpful to remember Gregory of Nazianzus' maxim that "that which he did not assume he did not redeem."  In other words, the incarnation is about Christ assuming and redeeming our common humanity, not "maleness" - otherwise, all women remain unredeemed!  Furthermore, to follow this narrow logic, one would also have to exclude all Gentiles from ordination as well.  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 human and to stand as a representative of Christ to the people in worship.

The second objection of Jesus only choosing male apostles is more difficult to address.  But surely, even though the apostles were given particular authority by Jesus and the early Church, we should remember the faithfulness of his female disciples, who remained by his side when the apostles fled.  We should 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 he meant to exclude women from leadership in the Church for all time.  Indeed, the leadership positions women did hold in the early church (particularly Romans 16:1, 7) and the spiritual fruit of women in ministry today seem to imply the contrary.

YOUR DAUGHTERS WILL PROPHECY

Even in traditions where they cannot serve as pastors/priests, women have lived out calls to ministry over the centuries as nuns, missionaries, pastors’ wives, deaconesses, and teachers.  Within Methodism, women have served as class leaders and local preachers.  Over a period of time, the fruit of this ministry has been observed by our corner of the Church to be blessed by the Holy Spirit.  We believe that the reasons for excluding women from full participation in the Church’s leadership contradict the greater message of Scripture – that in Christ there is no longer male or female – as well as our own experience of the effectiveness of females in various non-ordained ministry roles.  Thus, as United Methodists and other Protestants, we have come to a consensus that women should be ordained as a witness to the wider Church that we are truly living in the latter days, when the Spirit is poured out on all people and our “daughters shall prophesy.”

End the Protest

Protestant Christianity is coming up on its 500^th birthday.  In just 5 years, I expect we’ll see news articles and television specials commemorating half a millennium since Father Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of Wittenburg’s church.  Only today, the movement spawned by Luther’s hammer counts twice as many adherents in places like Nigeria than in his homeland of Germany.  Far from being 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% of all Christians. 

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

There’s no doubt that Protestantism, as a movement, has been a successful one if you’re looking at numbers and influence.  But has it achieved what it set out to do 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 enough to get kicked out.  Sure, he turned out to be crazy about a few things, but Luther’s excommunication is one of the saddest 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 the reformers’ concerns.  Even more of those original protests have been answered by the staggering amount of change embraced by the Catholic Church over the past century.  Mass in the peoples’ language?  Check.  Empowering the 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,” Protestantism has fallen victim to the thing Catholicism has always most criticized it for.  Without one central focus of unity and authority, it continues its never-ending course of fragmentation into thousands of denominations.  Today, after a brief period of ecumenical consolidation, independent evangelical and Pentecostal churches and mainline squabbles over sexuality threaten to splinter historic Protestantism beyond recognition. 

Life outside the Catholic Church for Protestants has always been a necessary evil until the reformers’ “protests” have been addressed.  Now they have.  We’ve achieved what we set out to do as a movement.  What we must now address is the unnecessary evil of remaining divided in spite of Jesus’ prayer that we “might be one…so that the world will believe.”

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 the nearest Catholic parish and sign up for RCIA.  I was born and raised a Protestant Christian and as a Methodist minister, I am determined to work for unity from this side of the Reformation divorce.  Neither can I (or any self-respecting Protestant, for that matter) accept the Catholic claim to be the only true church, especially in an age where half of all baptized Christians aren’t Catholic!

What we Protestants can and should do is acknowledge the negative consequences 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 individual freedom, we have too often been willing to ignore wider Christian tradition and permit (or condone!) unnecessary further divisions within the Body of Christ.  Given our current disjointed state, we can certainly say that although we do not need a pope to be “church” – the office could 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 that our differences with the Catholic Church present a sufficient barrier to unity.  Most people sitting in Protestant and Catholic pews already believe this to be true!  But before we can make such a positive claim, it is important that we are clear on what it is that we already hold in common.  I believe Ephesians 4:5 provides a beautiful starting point and rallying cry: “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”  One Lord Jesus Christ, God with us, the Savior of the world.  One faith as contained in the Bible and interpreted by tradition, reason, and experience.  One baptism by water and 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 only thing that holds us back from greater unity is the insistence that we must accept more than this to truly be brothers and sisters.  We’re ending the protest.

WHAT IF?

Of course, the Catholic Church would not welcome Protestants back into their fold without some kind of re-ordination (which would, conceivably, exclude at least all women – a deal breaker for my own United Methodist tradition).  But at least, we Protestants 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 our Catholic brothers and sisters are willing to meet us halfway.

For sure, living in separate communities for 500 years provides lots of practical challenges, not least of which are those boring issues of denominational property and pension plans.  But the recent Anglican Ordinariate provides some cause for hope (or at least some creative imagination).  Here are married (re-ordained, yes) Anglican priests being received into the Catholic Church and allowed to continue many elements of their worship and traditions!  What if we could retain our own denominations’ gifts and emphases? What if particularly befuddling Catholic dogmas could be re-presented to us Protestants (since we were excluded from most of those conversations in the first place)?  What if the ordination of future Protestant 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 denominations could exist in communion with Rome as autonomous churches like the Byzantine Catholics?

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

Bridging the Divide?

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

• Evangelicals. 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.  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

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?

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

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.