In a recent interview published in Christianity Today, Stanley Hauerwas discussed his recently published autobiography. Hauerwas is a scholar who helped found the neo-Anabaptist school of thought with John Howard Yoder. He is a Methodist who taught at Catholic Notre Dame and who attends an Episcopalian congregation. He said,
A. Let me be clear: I am a Methodist. By that, I mean I think John Wesley was a recovery of Catholic Christianity through disciplined congregational life. Therefore, now that I am a communicant in the Church of the Holy Family [Episcopal Church], I understand myself still to be Methodist because I think the Episcopal Church is the embodiment of much that Wesley cared about. I think that’s true in much of Roman Catholicism. I don’t think any of us should look to Christian unity by thinking we can heal divisions of the past by some kind of artificial agreement. But by going forward, trying to live faithful to the charisms [gifts] within our ecclesial identifications, God hopefully will bring us into unity.
Q. When you just said, “The Episcopal church is the embodiment of much that Wesley cared about,” I think you are referring to a particular congregation and not the denomination as a whole.
A. I say, “We’re all congregationalists now.” I don’t particularly like it, but we are. How to ensure given that reality that Eucharistic assemblies are not separate from each other is one of the great challenges before us. The role of the bishop is very important to make sure that Eucharistic assemblies are not isolated from one another. There are also other ways to do it. Certainly sending people from one congregation to another helps.
I have great sympathy for and agree with much of what Hauerwas teaches on many subjects. His Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony
Hauerwas is, I think, exactly right to note, “We’re all congregationalists now.” Christians have largely abandoned denominational loyalty, and so they choose a congregation for reasons having little to do with its denominational affiliation. Indeed, the fastest growing segment of American Christianity are the nondenominational churches.
Therefore, denominational organization and discipline may mean something to the leadership and the few remaining denominational loyalists, but most people are concerned solely about their own congregation and its interior life.
Now, I like the fact that we are so intensely concerned with our own congregations. The denomination is a concept utterly foreign to scripture. It’s good that our churches can be places of intense faith in Jesus and love for one another — rather than places we attend to declare our position on an doctrinal dispute long forgotten.
Moreover, Hauerwas is quite right in saying, “How to ensure given that reality that Eucharistic assemblies are not separate from each other is one of the great challenges before us.” But it’s a little frivolous to suggest that the solution is the work of the bishop (only works within a single denomination and doesn’t produce real unity anyway) or “sending people from one congregation to another.” These suggestions are not the cure.
The cure, I believe, is very simple, but just a hair outside of neo-Anabaptist thought. The fine tuning required in neo-Anabaptist thought is to recognize that “church” refers not only to a congregation but to all congregations in a given community. All congregations in Tuscaloosa are “the church” in Tuscaloosa. We are both plural and singular.
At the plural level — the churches in Tuscaloosa — we must, as Hauerwas likes to say, be the church. We must love each other in real, tangible ways that dramatically change and encourage and strengthen each other. The love we have for each other must necessarily be strongest within each congregation.
At the singular level — the church in Tuscaloosa — we must also be united. It’s a scriptural command. It’s just that unity at the level isn’t about bishops and visiting each other’s churches. It’s about unity of purpose and ministry. The churches present unity to one another and to the world that surrounds them by working as one to pursue Christ’s mission in Tuscaloosa, planning coordinated evangelistic efforts and coordinated missional programs to care for the hurting and needy. Indeed, if the churches work together — across denominational lines — the entire community becomes the object of ministry. That is, the churches can plan how to fight poverty, improve education, care for the elderly … all sorts of things … at a community level. There is power in unity. And there’s far more power in unity at the community level than the denominational level.
And when the churches come to understand that, and to care far more about their neighbor down the road than the church heirarchy 10 states away, we will indeed by congregationalists — but united congregationalists.
In another article in Christianity Today, “One Church, Many Congregations,” I learned about an organization called Christ Together, formed to do exactly this. And that’s very exciting! Their website declares,
OUR MISSION
Helping the whole Church bring the whole Gospel to the whole city
The Whole Church
We believe that when God looks down from Heaven, he does not see many different churches throughout a city, but one Church, gathering in multiple locations.
Christ Together consists of churches from many different backgrounds and styles of worship, reflecting the full beauty and diversity of the Church. When the Church comes together, it exponentially increases its ability to spiritually impact its surrounding community.
Exactly!
Very interesting. I agree with your conclusions.
Here in Monroe/West Monroe it has been a great blessing for churches to work together for the common good of the community. Even most of the churches of Christ are working alongside other groups in prayer, ministry projects, with a view of transforming our Parish.
Now, I am happy to say, that if you ask someone who the spiritual leaders are in Ouachita Parish 3 church of Christ preachers are going to be near the top of the list. Its all about love and love that is not out and about in shoe leather is not really love at all.
Royce
If everyone on the Alabama football team decided to play according to their own personal understanding of their roles it would be a nightmare. Instead they drop their individuality for the concept of team. As a team they do well, as a group of individuals they are disfunctional. There isn't any difference with this example and the churches in Tuscaloosa (or W.Monroe). To the degree that they function as a unified body, the greater the impact. However, the tendency is to dwell on the differences, draw lines in the sand, and segregate. I'm not sure that there is any more effective attack on the church than division. But, Lord have mercy, if we ever got it together what a difference Christ could make through us.
Oh, Woo Pig Sooeey.
I think you will need someone with gifting because that will take a lot of coordinating.
I would say you also need size to drive that. People tend to listen to what we deem successful in our culture and in our culture that is a large group of people meeting together.
Then you run into the reality that even with unity you have to draw the line somewhere. I can't imagine the early church uniting with gnostics just because there were unmet needs in the community.
Then while you are united you have to come to an agreement on how to impact the community.
I think I am with Hauerwas on this one.
Unity can be more broad than some of us think. We don't have to agree on worship style, eschatology, or church government to have unity.
Unity is also more narrow than some of us think. What unites is our common faith in Jesus. With all of our differences in heritage, family, and group distinctives, we are one only because our common trust in the person and claims of the good news.
Royce
Price,
You were making so much sense until that last comment …
Darin,
I agree on all points.
What Price wrote made perfect sense. The different congregations even in our district in Vienna (to keep the area Small) are: Evangelical-Free Church, Four Corners (Charismatic), International Baptist, Christian International (former Greater Grace), Church of Christ (House Church), three Lutheran, one Reformed and several Catholic congregations.
NOT ONE of those even dreams of giving up ONE IOTA of there added man-made traditions in order to become more unified. So all the talk about unity becomes a farce, and that's Hauerwas' text, too. It is a farce to speak of unity, while still insisting on having it your own way as Methodist, Baptist, Mennonite, Lutheran and whatsoever. The Kingdom of God is not Burger King ("Have it your own way" – which applies only to the Whopper).
This is not unity. This is sanctifying schism by nice but ineffective words. Cooperation in small matters here and there and once in a while is nothing but a sugar coating over a cake of stone. As long as there is not ONE church under ONE leadership with ONE order and discipline in a city, there is no real unity. As long as we can be excommunicated by a church of Christ because of e.g. a divorce and remarriage and can join a (let's say) a Methodist church, we mock unity.
And BTW – once again – the matter of baptism is being dropped when we listen to a methodist speaking of unity. Baptism is one of the seven Ones that are really indispensible! This is a fatal and wrong approach towards unity.
One church – many congregations. This is not unity, this is church-individualism. Unless we die to ourseklves, we will never become one. This was the insight of Barton Stone, and he was absolutely right about that.
Do you notice that when the topic of unity is presented, it all boils down to "tolerance" and "cooperation" but not to "repentance from error"? And I don't mean to exclude the churches of Christ from that, and neither their progressive wing
This – I know – sound unrealistic, visionary, far too radical … But it DOES make sense, Jay. So much sense! While congregationalism does not achieve unity at all … Think BIG, brothers!
Just to make it a little better understood, let me quote a bit, and comment on it:
Are you sure? When God looked down at Corinth, He did see one church, but a divided church. God is neither blind, nor deaf nor indifferent aboutthe differences in the church. When He speaks of unity, He does not reduce unity to an agreement to the Apostles Creed.
To be sure, Christ is still in the midst of all seven lamps, but some He will reject, some he will accept, most of them He calls to repentence. Do we hear His voice?
In many cases it is not about style of worship. It is about doctrine (Arminian, Calvinist, Unitarian, Trinitarian, Dispensational, Amillenialist … a small sample of all the reasons why churches split!). Then it is about the question Who is a Christian, which is not a small issue: Do we have to regard every sprinkled baby as a brother or sister in Christ? Or is baptism only for thos who hear the gospel and repent? You see – and I'm writing this with passion – you cannot close your eyes to the question of baptism for the sake of unity! Because then you become one with people who are not even Christians, but do insist on the validity of their sacrament!
I don't even have to address the issue of female preachers and elders … Don't you see, that this kind of unity Hauerwas sees is actually the opposite of what the Bible teaches? Please, do think a bit deeper on these matters! Where is the beauty he sees? I think this is terrible!
Alexander
Abasnar,
I take it from what you have written here (and in other comments) that you only consider people who have been baptized to be Christians. Have you ever considered that many people who have been immersed are not Christians? The only Bible evidence is a changed life. Unless you believe that God is predisposed to justify everyone who is immersed there is a problem with your conclusions.
Everyone who has been in churches of Christ for a long time can list off many people who supposedly did the 5 acts, including baptism, and after a while left the church and went right back to life as before. (The same is true of other churches). The answer for about those people is that they lost their salvation. My question is, what Bible teaching would lead you to believe they ever were saved? The Bible evidence of salvation is not baptism or church of Christ but a consistent life life of walking in the light, loving God, loving the brothers, and loving the lost.
You are making the classic mistake of thinking only your small group is right with God.
Royce
That's not correct. Please don't confuse different issues here. When we talk about unity, it is actually not about individuals in different denominations, but about churches. That's quite a difference. I am not satisfied with a unity that merely acknowledges that there are Christians in every denomination (which is a fact I will never deny), because this kind of unity sanctifies the disunity among the denominations.
There are only two possible ways for restoring unity:
(1.) These individuals are called out of the different denominations, so they will become one in a practical sense; as functioning members on a real and visible body of Christ.
(2.) Whole congregations break from their denominations, forsake their creeds and extra-Biblical names and confess unity by striving to obey the whole counsel of God.
So it is not about individual salvation, Royce; and it is not about individual Christians in the various Christian sects. It is about becoming ONE by calling the different sects what they are: Sects. In the same strict sense as Paul addressed the Party-Spirit in Corinth.
The only consistent answers to this mess are:
The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery (Barton Stone et.al.)
Declaration and Address (Thomas Campbell et.al.)
Both documents reveal the heart of the RM-approach. And even though hardly two other Christian leaders could be more different than Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell (personality, trintiy, eschatology, pneumatology) their approach proved to be unifying.
But what is being presented above as a good example for unity falls short of achieving unity. It just acknowldges the borders between the denominations and urges us to respect these borders and treat each end every heresy in the other congregations with tolerance. No Way, Royce! By this we are sanctifying the schisms, but this way they will never be overcome!
This is playing with the word unity, but at the same time avoiding unity.
Alexander
Churches who don't hold to all seven ONEs in Eph 4:4-6 stand outside the Biblical boundaries of unity. This is the least we should be able to agree upon. So we should not "play" unity with Methodists or Lutherans and the like where there is no unity. Because they don't baptize.
Alexander
I might be wrong here, but I believe the last comment Jay was referring to was "Woo pig sooey."
Regardless, it made for some good discussion.
Huh? Both groups baptize and the Lutherans baptize "for the remission of sins".
The sprinkling of infants is not a baptism. And not all who are called Christians are Christians. And not every fellowship that is called a church of Christ is a church of Christ.
This means: We must not be superficial when aiming for unity.
We must strive for the real thing, even if it questions ourselves.
Alexander
abasnar,
You have your list of essentials (seven ones…), another coc man has his list, another has a different list, and on and on. Now I ask, which of those is correct only the one who agrees with you?
To pretend that the coC is the only "Lord's church" in view of all of our fragmentation, name calling, and damning of each other over a variety of issues is laughable.
How can anyone, with a straight face and a clear conscience talk about the standards that must be met to have unity with other groups when we don't even have unity among ourselves?
When unity is based on anything broader than personal faith in Jesus it is then uniformity and not unity. I invite you to read two posts on "unity". http://gracedigest.com/2010/06/05/the-secret-of-c… and http://gracedigest.com/2008/04/11/christian-unity….
When one looks at the differences of understanding between the Apostles, the conflict that at times was made quite evident….the members of the Corinthian church as well as others….I find it difficult to believe that we must all walk in lock step with one another in order to have a greater sense of unity. Perhaps if we focused on our unity in our belief in the son of God as our Savior and joined hand in hand, it would be easier to listen to one another and in the end we would move closer to a more common understanding. As it is now, we hide behind the signs out front and segregate ourselves and no one is listening to the other. In fact, more often than not we label one another, condemn one another and cause more conflict that is prudent to exert any kind of influence on a world that needs to hear about Jesus. That just doens't seem to me to be the right approach. Surely, we can, as a body of believers, do better than that.
alexander wrote: "The sprinkling of infants is not a baptism. And not all who are called Christians are Christians. And not every fellowship that is called a church of Christ is a church of Christ."
I believe the groups that you cite also offer baptism at any age…for the remission of sins. Catholics too baptize adults. Would that be enough to be called Christian? If you were baptized at an age where you are old enough to understand why?
Alexander, I think I could make a pretty good case that the evidence of the "one Spirit" in a Christians life is the fruit of the Spirit, not the physical fact that they were once dunked in a tub of water. I see many "dunked" persons whose lives provide no evidence of the fruit of the Spirit and I also see many "undunked" persons whose lives show abundant evidence of the fruit of the Spirit. You tell me what I am to make of this?
I hit the submit button before I meant to… I'll tell you what I make of this… If a person tells me that Jesus is their Lord and Savior and I can see the Spirit at work in them, I call them Brother or SIster. That doesn't mean mean that I endorse sprinkling and I often get to tell them why I think that immersion is the better form of baptism but I do not tell them "Sorry… I really can't have a Christian relationship with you because you really aren't a Christian".
Eph 4:4-6 is a description of the unity of the spirit. All are quick to agree, that we are one in the Spirit, but when it comes to the details we disagree. As long as all is summed up by "Spirit", everyone can interpret this according to his own taste.
So everyone has its OWN understanding of unity, but we should have ONE understanding. What do you think the reason is, why Paul then lists 7 ONEs? To clarify the idea of unity or to give just some suggestions that are in no way binding?
I quickly add, that Eph 4:4-6 is not all that could and should be said. Mat 18:20 is very strong, too; or 1Co 14:34-38 ties unity to a very touchy issue in our days.
The thing is, WE have NO RIGHT to decide on what constitutes the boundaries of unity, but the WORD OF GOD sets some very clear boundary markers. If we don't recognoze them, we won't be recognized either (see 1Co 14:38).
The problem is: Lutheran, Catholic or any infant-sprinkling church consist of three groups of people: A vast majority, who only attend church for Christmas and Easter and for the "rites of passage" (birth, confirmation, wedding, funeral). A second group, who hold fast to the traditions of the church without any living relationship to Christ or spriritual fruit. A third group that takes the faith seriously – for the most part still unbaptized. So even if they offer adult baptism, this occurs very seldom (and I even would be very tolerant about the "mode" of pouring instead of immersion).
In these churches unbelievers are yoked to believers, and church discipline (disfellowshipping because of sin) normally does not happen. That's why I don't accept them as churches according to God's New Testament.
Baptism is one of seven carefully chosen topics:
One Spirit – we need to be born again
One Body – the church functions as a visible congregation of mutual service
One Hope – We believe in the resurrection and the coming glory
One Faith – We confess the same basic beliefs and obey them
One Lord – Christ is our Lord and we follow and submit Him
One Baptism – We have been baptized in His name for the remission of sins
One Father – therefore we are born again into the family of God
Which of these seven Ones do apply to infant-sprinkling churches? Actually, each ONE should be replaced by SOME to be honest:
SOME SPIRIT – a few are born again
SOME BODY – a few members function in the way they should forthe benefit of others
SOME HOPE – some really believe in the forgiveness of sin, while many are very indiffererngt about it
SOME FAITH – 75% of the Lutheran Pastors in Austria (according to a Lutheran Pastor) are not believing the Gospel; those who do still have a very selective faith due to the liberal theological education
SOME LORD – A few really want to do what the Lord commanded
SOME BAPTISM – actually very few are really baptized according to their confession of Christ as Lord
SOME FATHER – Yes, there are genuine children of God among them, but they are the minority
So, please, face the facts! How can we speak of unity with such churches? Call the believers out of them and let them collapse!
That's OK on an individual level (and I do the same). But when we speak about unity and congregations, we have to look at a bigger context.
Unity is based on more than a personal faith.
You have to be in the same room in order to live out unity in the first place.
You have to agree on what to do, when you start worshipping together.
You have to agree on doctrine, when you start building a up a congregation.
You have to adhere to a lifestyle of obedience to the Lord in order to be one.
…
Royce, you can't reduce unity to e mere "spiritual" matter – unless, of course, you want to create an invisible unity. But when we want to create a visible unity, then (to a certain degree) conformity is a must. And I see the kind of unity promoted in the text about Hauerwas as just a zeal for an invisible unity.
That's playing emperor's new clothes: "Do you see the divisions? I don't – what a miracle." But the churches are as divided as ever …
And so the term unity becomes an empty shell. By forsaking its original meaning as oneness on a spiritual and bodliy level, "unity" becomes open to interpretations that support and stregnthen divisions. Think it through, whether this is not a highly dishones approach to unity. Tell me, whether this is in line with Christ#s vision. I cant't follow your reasoning.
Alexander
Alexander said:
"Royce, you can’t reduce unity to e mere “spiritual” matter – unless, of course, you want to create an invisible unity. But when we want to create a visible unity, then (to a certain degree) conformity is a must. And I see the kind of unity promoted in the text about Hauerwas as just a zeal for an invisible unity."
Ah… that's the point. The Lord adds people to the Church so unless we have some special insight into what the Lord is doing, the only one who has the official list of the Church is the Lord. So, the Church really is invisible to us flesh and blood people. That could place us in the uncomfortable position of making a judgement with regard to someone (who we regard as "outside" the Church) when the Lord says they are "inside". If that's the case, who's causing the lack of unity? Myself, I'd rather accept someone as "in" and find out later they are "out" than vice versa.
Doug
So the church of Corinth should not be too much concerned about the splits, because they were still one in Christ? Was Paul wrong in rebuking them?
You play "Emperor's New Clothes" as I pointed out above.
Go to the scriptures: Tell me of any church in the New Testament that has been an" invisible church". And then go to all exhortations to unity in the letters and ask yourself, whether these were written to visible or unvisible churches.
In the early days of the church of Christ, there was ONE church in each city, under ONE leadership, meeting in various places throughout the city. It was a unified church, and this was maintained for at least 150 years in most places, until the first schisms occured (Montanists, Donatists, Novatianists).
What kind of unity did Christ Jesus envision?
a) a spritual unity of peaceful/tolerant co-existence of various traditions (more or less scriptural)? (With some common activities, such as soup-kitchen and – e.g. a baseball-contest?)
b) a unity of dedicated followers of Christ who strive to obey everything He commanded and form ONE visible church (not all in one building, but under one leadership, committed to each other as members of ONE body)
You seem to say, it is not us who decide who is in and who is out:
a) Well, we have "a vote" when we baptize or don't baptitze a person
b) And we have "a vote" when we discipline a person and have to disfellowship a sinner.
This means: What we bind or loosen on earth is bound or loosened in heaven also. In Heaven, not only in our congregation – so baptizing or disfellowshipping is not a matter of a local congregation only, but of the whole church.
This means: We accept adult baptism from every denomination, given it was based on faith. And we don't accept disfellowshipped persons in our midst without having talked to the former congregation.
But these are just two aspects of visible unity, concerning the "individual level".
But overcoming the schism means: Give up your denoiminational ties, man-made creeds and traditions and become unified in a practical and visible sense: Seek to settle differences, to learn from each other, to agree on leadership.
We've only unified two congregations in Vienna, but I know from this experience that it works. We now meet as six house churches under one leadership – a small scale model of how it ought to be.
I know it works, from personal experience.
I know it works, from the early RM-history
I know it works from the earliest churches of Christ (up to 200 AD)
So, why on earth should we be satisfied with less than that when speaking (dreaming ?) of unity. The emperor is still naked – a child can see that. We should become a little more honest about it.
Alexander
Alexander said (How do you get your quotes to show up in a different background color anyway?):
Unity is based on more than a personal faith.
You have to be in the same room in order to live out unity in the first place.
You have to agree on what to do, when you start worshipping together.
You have to agree on doctrine, when you start building a up a congregation.
You have to adhere to a lifestyle of obedience to the Lord in order to be one.
Alexander, I'm struck by the number of "You's" in the above quote. Obviously, "You" have found something that works for "You" as "You" mentioned in your next posting… House Churches, etc. I'm glad that works for "you" but do "I" really have to accept what "You" have decided on things like doctrine and lifestyle for "You" and "I" to be in fellowship? Quite frankly, I doubt that there are many congregations that would have 100% agreement on the last 2 items in your list.
"I" am going to a Prison tomorrow in a Prison Ministry with a group of men that represents 8 different denominations. We've been meeting together for 8 weeks and have built unity based on these things:
1) The Bible is God's authoritative and inspired word for our faith and lives.
2) Belief in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3) Belief in the Deity, death and resurrrection of Jesus Christ.
I obviously didn't include a lot of things that you would say are necessary for Christian Unity but the things I mentioned are sufficent to form a Christian community and it does make a Christian Unity statement to the Prison inmates when we introduce ourselves as being from 37 different Congregations and 8 different Denominations. Obviously, there are things that I would include in "my" list above if it were up to "me" but is that really necessary? Let's be real… "Your" list and "My" list will probably never be identical. "You" probably would say that they would be if "I" would just obey God's Word but all of Christian experience shows that's not the case. Well meaning and intentioned people have earnestly tried to do just that and the result has just been additional division. Incidently, I've attended at least 2 "House Church" group meetings, they likely aren't identical to "Yours" so that makes 3 of them so meeting in a house isn't the answer.
So, let's "us" just muddle along and try to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Enjoy the trip!
Doug
Cooperation is not the same as unity, Doug.
We also cooperate with different congregations and are in fellowship with the Evangelical Alliance – this is cooperation. And this is fine. But it is not unity.
Alexander
Okay, I guess I can see a little difference between the two but I believe when unity becomes the enemy of cooperation, that's where the cause of Christ is damaged and the world sees the Church as mean spirited and bigoted.
I also still believe that unity in doctrine and lifestyle is probably only acheivable when one person or possibly a small group of persons manages to convince the larger group of people to accept their thinking on these two subjects. In a way that's what the early church did with the Bishops ruling over the congregants in a city. It would be a hard pull to acheive that now days. And having said that, I think we've probably run this subject into the ground.
Blessings,
Doug
Alexander,
What is the "Evangelical Alliance"? Do they have a web page?
http://www.worldevangelicals.org/
And there are groups in most countries, also in Austria
Interesting that they should use the word "unity" four times on their "about " page
http://www.worldevangelicals.org/aboutwea/