Larry has posted a very interesting entry on his blog about his current understanding and engagement with ecumenism. As he and I co-pastor an ecumenical congregation, it makes sense for me to engage it somehow. At the very least, I encourage you to read through it. He is, in one sense, responding to a conversation about the ordination of women (check his comments) (or here for more comments about women's ordination etc) and the liberal/conservative divide. It is an insightful post. I do have some things to add, however, that may also illuminate how Larry and I understand ecumenism (and thusly, the Church) differently.
There are two Baptist documents I have been playing around with over the past few months. First is Oneness in Christ: American Baptists are Ecumenical. It is a tract of sorts with two or three brief essays about voluntary connectionalism and how that relates to ecumenical conversations. Remember, we Baptists are congregationalists. So, to be ecumenical all we need to do is be in cahoots with another Baptist church. One essayist suggests we are thusly always ecumenical. Of course, this demonstrates that we also understand our own ecclesiology as separate Churches and not simply separate congregations in one Church...or that there is a wider Spiritual Church that can, if generously defined, contain everyone from Quakers to Orthodox. It is an ill-defined theology.
The second document is the December 1985 American Baptist Quarterly. It contains several essays about BEM and the World Council of Churches. Joseph Cardinal Bernadin actually wrote one of the articles in this issue entitled "The Challenge of Peace." Who knew? The issue contains several arguments for and against ecumenical dialogue in general and the specifics of BEM and the World Council of Churches.
This takes me to one of Larry's statements.
I do not believe nor do I think I have ever believed that the Reformation recovered or refounded the Church. In a very real sense the Reformation was a failure (I do not believe I have invented this veiw it is how I have read Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, espcially Braaten in Mother Church) while at the same time the Reformation had very catholic impulses. It seems to me in his own way though using this point to argue for a return to Rome, Louis Bouyer made a similar point. This paradox has various causes: the nature of the personalities involved on both sides, the state of the papacy and possibly even due to the dominance of nominalism at the time. What ever the reasons the Reformation did not end with a reformation of the church but further schism in/of the church. Schism that has continued down to our own day as Protestantisms continue to multiply and divide ChristiansThis is a good jumping off point for me.
What is it that we protest, we who are Protestant? Once upon a time in England, Baptists were actually trying to prove their orthodoxy and not making room for their heterodoxy (London Confession, 1644). Now, we live in a world where Baptists disagree with one another about whether orthodoxy or heterodoxy is preferable. The recent struggles, shrouded in polity, over the issue of human sexuality are a great example of how this is playing out in Baptist circles. This ongoing conflict demonstrates that by attempting to protest a specific theological framework four hundred years ago (pedobaptism, 2 ordinances-vs-any number of sacraments) we have perhaps established a culture of protest. We live to disagree. We exist to schism. This particular dynamic troubles me. It is atomizing and hyper-individualist.
E. Glenn Hinson, a Baptist church historian and spiritualist said in a class I took from him that the Baptist people need to begin to slowly walk back upstream ecclesially to rediscover from whom we come. Our close cousins are the Quakers and even Salvationists. Our parents are the Anglicans...and the Calvinists. If there ever was a tool for discovering the confused theological genetics of a tradition, it is that exercise. But in the end, the wisdom of Hinson's statement reveals itself. We are compelled to step out of our individualism and experience the whole of church history in the west...and even eastward if we are willing to go back one thousand years or more. We can travel this stream though the spiritual disciplines practiced by faithful people for centuries.
The goal for Hinson is encounter...not to borrow spiritual ideas or liturgical doodads. Can we, as Baptist Christians, meet others as Christians? Can they inform and infuse our faith. If indeed there are a cloud of winesses and scripture states, then how can we encounter them? Can we encounter Benedict, Ingatious, Teresa of Avilla and even Pachomius? Surely.
Of course, this is met with opposition. We are Baptists after all. There is one true Church. It is First Baptist. That school of thought exists...but I digress (again).
Ecumenism is the spiritual and ecclesial discipline of Hinson's treading back upstream, bringing with us the lessons learned and the gifts of our own tradition(s) while encountering those who can still teach us how to encounter Christ himself. It absolutely is institutional and individual reconciliation. "Borrowing" spiritual disciplines (Several ABC Pastors I know are Benedictine oblates at local Protestant monestaries.) is not a sin but essential to this reintegration into the life of the wider church. Learning to use icons, venturing to Taize, etc is essential.
So too is proclaiming what God has given to us Baptists. I still question the rightness of Papal mojo. Sure, bishops make sense. We have Executive or Regional ministers who serve as de facto bishops. They have pastoral and ecclesial responsibility and power. The specifics may be different, a bit more diffused, but there you go. In this instance, I lean Eastward. I like Pope Benedict. I simply want him to be Rome's bishop and not my own. I have one, thanks.
The individual engagement with the written Word of God is essential. No tradition disputes this. Once upon a time, however, the church struggled with how to educate people in the faith because of illiteracy. Now we struggle on the opposite end of the spectrum. But we Baptists, and other free church traditions, can teach (remind) other traditions how to encourage believers to engage their faith both as individuals and as members of a community. Fear and trembling means responsibility...so too does being the priesthood of all believers. This is not to depreciate the priesthood but to elevate the people.
At Reconciler we tread a fine line. I admit it. Larry will preside one week. I will the other. So too will an Episcopal priest. We give voice to each of our traditions in this worship. This is to make room for that voice to inform, for the particularities to be made known, and to sanctify what would be holy...in the hopes that the Church will bless us in our return.
Okay, that is enough for now. I am interested in what you all think. Larry? Fogey? Todd? Jane Ellen? Others?
Posted by tripp at August 3, 2006 09:05 AMThanks for the welcome. I've been enjoying the community so far and am making a concentrated effort to weasel my way into all your hearts and blogrolls!
Posted by: Katie at August 3, 2006 11:40 AMHow does this concern of yours affect your daily work with the people in your congregation?
Because I'm not a religious professional, I don't spend any time thinking about what promotes or detracts from the church... any church or denomination. So whenever you do, I learn something.
But I also ask, "What does it really matter?" In my opinion and experience, Christianity is a one-on-one deal between the mortal person and God. And in my opinion, God is more concerned with the state of individuals than with any organizations we little folks choose to set up.
Posted by: Megan at August 3, 2006 11:48 AMI think Hinson's thought articulates the puzzle I feel though not being Baptist I don't use the same words. After all if you are returning upstream you aren't simply staying the same, nor are you expecting others to come down the stream.
Or am I making too much of the metaphor.
It is perhaps Iluminating you quote a Baptist I reference Lutherans, and in doing so we express a dissatisfaction with the division and schism: The culture of protest as you say. And in that I hear echoes the paper I wrote on covenant ecclesiology: I essentially stated in it that we could either choose to follow the logic of separation or the logic of unity, both which are at work in Covenant ecclesial life.
We can argue the individual vs communal line some other time I think. But this is the kind of thing I face in the church every day. If Falwell says something, I get phone calls. If the Pope writes something, I get letters. It is always surprising to find how som many people, maybe a little like you, will bring their frustration about the practices and beliefs of other Christian groups to the pastor's attention.
The point, however, may not be to speak theologically about the issue all the time. The ideal response may be to meet the spiritual/emotional needs of the person who is so moved as to be publically frustrated.
Posted by: Tripp at August 3, 2006 11:54 AM"som many people, maybe a little like you, will bring their frustration about the practices and beliefs of other Christian groups to the pastor's attention."
Eh?
How like me?
I don't bring anything to the attention of the pastor at the church I attend.
Posted by: Megan at August 3, 2006 12:04 PMThanks for the invite! Well, I'm knackered after writing so much in Larry's com-box but still game.
I knew that there are non-episcopal churches that read the Fathers to mean every one of their communities is a diocese or church unto itself, every pastor a bishop ... like St Ignatius on the whole Catholica being present when the local church gathers round the bishop. (Reminds me... A rector I knew was dubbed the Patriarch of Pinner by his bishop for having so many churches in his care. Well, why not?) And... there's something to that. Especially now, in this 'po-mo' society. To quote a good friend of mine, as liturgically and theologically conservative as I am I'm also keen on possible new ways structurally to do things, one of which could be the micro-diocese: the old parish church as cathedral and 'small groups' doing what the bigger parishes used to. (Not too different from the old school: mediæval cities for example have an old parish church on just about every block; too many to use now - everybody could walk to church.) Though I've not been, Reconciler reminds me of that possibility. It's hard to have natural, literal neighbourhood or village communities any more, though - I imagine Reconciler like where I go on Sundays is not. And... are there even enough Christians to pull off more than one micro-mini-parish in a given place?
This communion ecclesiology still works beautifully among the Orthodox, who all share one faith (with a few hiccups like contraception) and essentially the same praxis but with a decentralised command structure - literally independent churches - much like the Anglican Communion where it seems to be flying apart. Why the difference?
Meanwhile in Rome the Holy Father still tells the truth (I believe) but things are a right mess, as bad as in Anglicanism. Again, why?
I remember when 'The Challenge of Peace' came out. Bernardin had a very different praxis from me but I'm a believer in the almost seamless garment (he actually said the less ringing phrase 'consistent ethic of life').
The Reformation was a mistake but think I understand what caused it and can feel for Luther.
To me, and I think this relates to ecumenism, it looks like Baptists are still protesting all right; different beliefs but the same principle of private judgement. (Or Jerry Falwell and Jack Spong are brothers under the skin.) You end up with real micro-churches - of one! As you wrote: 'we have perhaps established a culture of protest. We live to disagree. We exist to schism. This particular dynamic troubles me. It is atomizing and hyper-individualist.'
Precisamente, signore.
As long as that principle calls the shots, even if you borrow from your Catholic neighbours East and West, can ecumenism work and eventual union happen?
If you accept pædobaptism even personally are you really still Baptist?
Of course that move upstream means paddling Catholicwards - you'll reach a point where you're no longer Protestant as Newman said - but I won't presume to tell you exactly how to do that.
Regards,
John Beeler
Megan we clearly have very different understanding of the meaning of Christianity.
But then I see that Jesus gathered a group of 12 disciples around him as signifying that what Jesus taught was not about the individual and God alone but about the individual person God and huamnd community. Then I also believe that the church is nto a human institution but was founded by God when the Spirit descended on the disciples on Pentecost after Jesus' Resurection and Asenscion.
So Ya, how Christians relate to each other "institutionaly" makes not only a diffence to me but to the members of Reconciler and everyone I meet.
Megan,
Well, I mispoke. I assumed that the questions/discussions we have here on-line are also conversations you have at church. Sorry about that. These conversations on-line, however, are very much like the ones I have at church. People will approach me at coffee hour with issues around my sermon. "You said...So I was wondering if..." I spend the entire hour talking about this kind of thing.
John,
Reformation and Protestantism assume that there is a catholicism. They are attempts (however successful or unsuccessful) to encourage catholicism. We know how the history works. But we cannot blame it solely on the religious movements. Political States had just a ittle to do with it. If Prince Bob wants power, he might become protestant or not depending on what was advantageous. King Henry is famous for it, but everyone pushed political power in religious circles.
Once the poltical institutions separated, the religious institutions lost an opportunity to reconcile. Strangely, in the US we may have an opportunity for actual reconciliation because there is no state church. We don't have to get the state to follow.
As a Baptist, I assume catholicity. It is communal...God's revelation to the world, a covenant with God's people.
FWIW: I was baptized as an infant, never as an adult.
Posted by: Tripp at August 3, 2006 01:30 PMExcept old Harry was just a schismatic. An open and notorious evil liver, sure. But never a Protestant.
As you've probably read I think one reason Anglicanism is imploding is there is no state control forcing its 'comprehensiveness' together, much the way Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia broke up.
Post-modernism does give Christians a new opportunity as in most places there is no state coercion or social pressure any more to be a nominal church member so the people you get are probably there for better reasons.
I read in Fr Young's blog that your infant baptism was accepted... rather like Jews for Jesus... at what point does one (or a congregation) stop being Baptist or Jewish?
Posted by: The young fogey at August 3, 2006 01:46 PMLarry, your first line made me laugh! I thought we figured out that we disagree a long, long time ago.
Posted by: Megan at August 3, 2006 01:59 PMYF,
At what point? Well, that is a good question. I don't know. I ask myself that all the time.
I am a sacramentalist.
I was baptized as an infant, and because I believe it actually does something, I won't be baptized a second time...for that is what it would be. But my adult affirmation is solid. My former congregation accepted it. One Baptism.
It is an interesting hybrid...and as you said, when does the hybridization create something truely new? I don't know.
But this is what it may look like as we move closer together. It will be messy for a long time.
Harry was an interesting guy. But think about Charlemagne and the German city states. Geneva and Zurich are other good examples. It is hardly as simple issue of doctrine.
Posted by: Tripp at August 3, 2006 02:00 PMMegan,
I am glad my first line made you laugh.
Ya, we did figure that out a long time ago.