With thanks, as always, to Ben Myers for letting the world know about the best theological writers out there on the internet, this post at The Divine Wedgie (what an awesome blog name) got me thinking about something.
What if we in the Church were far more concerned about how we confess the faith than how we profess the faith? What if we recalled that the first confession of faith, as recorded in the Bible, consisted of three words yet contained all any Christian needed to say about who God is, who Jesus is, what God in Christ has done for the world, and what it means for us and the world? Jesus is Lord. That's all any Christian really needs to affirm. Each word, individually, is so loaded with meaning the Universe wouldn't be large enough for what they contain. Taken together, in pieces and in total - Jesus is; is Lord; Jesus is Lord - says all that needs to be said.
Obviously, we aren't satisfied with this kind of simplicity. We prefer to put all sorts of stumbling blocks on the road of faith, insisting believers navigate the maze of our own construction in order to pass the test of belief we have set up. It's a ridiculous, haughty exercise of human sinfulness to insist that it is profession that is as important as confession. Confession is the mark of the Christian; profession is the source of far too much human-engineered confusion and strife.
The various mutual denunciations of Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, Anglican, Wesleyan, and Evangelical professions of faith are testimony to the all too human willingness to dismiss large groups as unworthy of God's love and care. Add to that the many and varied and contradictory theological schools, the disputes that range from the denunciation of St. Paul's mission to the Gentiles through the disputes between St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure to the Reformation and its radical off-shoots, to the explosion in theological exploration of the past two to three centuries, we have been far more likely to insist those with whom we disagree are not just wrong, but dangerously so, than we are willing to lend an ear to something new, to be open to the Spirit blowing from a direction of its own choosing.
The modern Christian churches have been, it seems to me, far more concerned with theological conformity than confessional simplicity. Theologians as different as Friedrich Schleiermacher, G. W. F. Hegel, Adolf Harnack, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth, Gustavo Gutierrez and more have been denounced by one or another individual or group for the ultimate sin of heresy. Yet, isn't heresy little more than the insistence that, sometimes, what passes for orthodoxy might have missed something important? While it certainly is the case that heresiarcs tend to be far more "dogmatic" than the orthodox, it is often the case that such errors as they make - whether the members of the Corinthian congregation who insisted there was no resurrection of the dead or the panoply of contemporary folks who insist on a "personal relationship with Jesus" as a mark of salvation - are those rooted in love.
There continue to be people who insist that Jesus' claim that the Way is narrow makes them Divinely appointed engineers, marking off the boundaries of acceptable profession of faith. That's OK, I suppose; everyone needs to feel needed. All the same, even if one or another detail may not jibe completely, it seems to me Christian unity should rely far more on our mutual confession, Jesus is Lord. Everything else is negotiable.
15 comments:
"All the same, even if one or another detail may not jibe completely, it seems to me Christian unity should rely far more on our mutual confession, Jesus is Lord. Everything else is negotiable."
But this merely opens the door for insisting it means what one prefers it means, rather than seeking to discover what it should mean. Those of us of the latter camp do not insist that we are absolutely correct, as those like you feel better in assuming. Rather, we simply refuse to allow that all possibilities are equally valid. There MUST be one understanding that is true, or the as close to truth as any human can get.
Thus, "Jesus is Lord", while true, lacks any significance to the seeker as a stand alone statement. Can one still be a hit man while acknowledging the truth of that statement? Does the hit man need to reassess his career path in light of that statement? What about that statement compels him to make any change whatsoever if that is all he needs to know?
The path is indeed narrow, but Jesus, who is Lord, is the One who preaches that fact. "Jesus is Lord" is the beginning. It is the starting point of our understanding. But it is not "all" we need to know.
GKS,
In theory "Jesus is Lord" should/could be sufficient. I also agree that simpler is freferable to more complicated. But how would you suggest one respond to someone who said "Jesus is Lord" while living as if Jesus was not Lord. It seems as though simply mouthing the words without living as though they are true negates the statement "Jesus is Lord"
Or how would you interpret the statement "Jesus is Lord" from one who debies either the existence or or the diety of Jesus?
Or to put it another way, are you suggesting that there is only one definition of the terms Jesus and Lord in this context?
I'm not trying to generate controversy here, I'm genuinely curious to hear what you think.
hmmm.. clearly he doesn't understand the meaning of "go away".
Hmm.. Blogger ate my comment.
"Christian unity should rely far more on our mutual confession, Jesus is Lord. Everything else is negotiable."
I agree. But it doesn't. So, I think a more practical view is that people should just mind their own business. While you and I would agree that, as a Methodist and a Presbyterian, "Jesus is Lord" ought to be enough to bridge any differences, there are others who want every to make sure every i is dotted and t crossed. I don't have a problem with such folks as long as they keep to themselves in their own little groups.
The problem becomes when such people stop minding their own business, it seems to me.
For example, the OPC and EPC were formed by fundamentalists who wanted a long list of things on which everyone in the denomination had to agree. That's fine, and it's why I'm not in the OPC or the EPC. The problem comes when people in what eventually became the PCUSA do not realize that we had this argument back in the 20's, they lost and left to form the OPC, we won, and we are going to rely on our mutual confession that Jesus is Lord (still the only thing you're asked when you join the PCUSA.) Unfortunately, they attempt to incorporate their list of wacky fundamentals into a denomination that has already rejected them for a century. This causes them to then whine about heterodoxy and tie the denomination in nots for decades.
All this just because, as far as I can tell, they missed out on a 20 minute lesson on Presbyterian history back in confirmation class and they've been in the wrong denomination ever since.
Or as another example, the RCA and CRC basically split over a hymnal. Seriously.
For a generation now, the UMC has faced the self-appointed doctrine police who call themselves Good News. This morphed, quite briefly in the mid-1990's, in to what was called the Confessional Movement. As far as I know, those folks are still around - the UMC is like my Mom and doesn't throw anything out - but neither poses any real danger to the integrity of the denomination. Indeed, both are, much like the pestering concern-trolls you suffer in the PCUSA, ignorant of so much UM history and doctrine, one weeps that their ranks are filled by people who attended seminary, went through the rigorous process of becoming ordained, and are supposed to know something about this stuff.
I was, once upon a time, convinced they were a threat. The constant threats by Good News to force a split in the Church over gays - the only issue they really care about; they wouldn't know sound doctrine if it bit them on the ass - has become ludicrous. I once told a group that if they wanted to leave, I hoped they be slow enough the door DID hit them on the ass on the way out. As a professor of mine in college used to say, shit or get off the pot.
The real threat, at least at our upcoming General Conference, is what is called "Call To Action". The Church actually paid an outside management consulting firm to study the denomination, they issued a report, and now its up before General Conference for approval. Among the more idiotic things they are threatening is elimination of guaranteed appointments, which would destroy our polity as a whole. Why have a bishop and a cabinet and work under appointments if these aren't guaranteed? That there are underperforming clergy, the alleged problem this worse cure was designed to address, goes without saying. Destroying part of the core identity of the UMC because a few goobers ride out their years for free housing seems a bit like using artillery to kill a mosquito.
Yeah. We've had the same problem, as many of the fundies threaten "Schism or Else!" every year there's a GA. They don't leave, but the moderate (and clearly more gracious than I am) middle, continues to placate them for some reason, even though there's no evidence that more than a small number would leave anyway.
And if they did, so what? It isn't like the PCUSA has cornered the God market.
Like your group, they've attempted to do what they can to eliminate anything that is actually Presbyterian, like oh, say, eliminating the Presbyterian form of Government entirely, and completely giving up on the Reformation entirely and becoming Catholic.
I'm leading a class on doctrine, a 30-week course called "Christian Believer", and we got talking about the upcoming General Conference last week.
One of the huge problems with Call to Action is that most folks in whose name the Council of Bishops have endorsed this pile of garbage have no idea that it exists, let alone what it says. I was unsurprised when the Council endorsed CtA's recommendations in total at their first meeting after the report was released; they paid for it, and the last thing any bureaucrat is going to do is reject recommendations from a panel they hired to tell them stuff.
Right now, the UMC faces real challenges, not the least of them being the way the Book of Discipline interferes with local pastoral discretion in deciding how to minister to their congregations. Threatening any punishment up to and including the revocation of orders, no UMC clergy under appointment can perform a same-sex union. Even in states where this is legal, including here in IL. So my wife would have to turn down a request from church members to perform this basic pastoral duty because the denomination holds the sword of Damocles over her head.
Several years ago the Judicial Council ruled a minister in the Virginia Conference had acted legally when he refused membership to a self-admitted gay man. I don't have to tell you there were howls across the country when they ruled this way, even among people who might not be all that gay-friendly.
These are the issues General Conference needs to address. These are the problems that we need to face squarely, prayerfully, thoughtfully. That's what John Wesley, the least passive-aggressive human being to lead a church, meant by Holy Conferencing: Get together and face serious issues in an attitude of prayerful respect, always with the focus on the church as a means toward building up the Kingdom. Not pouting and stamping your feet because some people don't like the way the rules keep changing in the larger world.
Instead, most of the time is going to be taken up dealing with CtA which, since many people I know who have read the report and are aware of the recommendations it makes, will exhaust most of the intellectual and spiritual energy of the meeting. I predict it will go down to defeat, although the margin may be narrow. Our denomination is screwy; we're growing in areas of both the country and world where the population, thus the size of the Annual Conferences, are slim. Our largest Annual Conference are in the old Confederacy; I think Virginia reformed but when Lisa was under appointment there, it still had eighteen districts. Between it and the several Texas Conferences, GC is weighted toward the folks who still think the old ME Church, South disbanding back in 1939 was a bad idea.
"Not pouting and stamping your feet because some people don't like the way the rules keep changing in the larger world."
That pretty much describes the fundamentalist wing of our denomination. We have a trust clause in our Book of Order which states that the church property is owned by the Presbytery. It has been there since the last reunion in the 80's. People have known it was there; it wasn't any surprise.
Yet now, when a small number of churches want to pick up their toys and leave, they're having a fit about it, and they don't think it should apply to them. In other words, they want to protest what they see as people violating the Book of Order by ... yup, you guessed it ... violating the Book of Order.
Of course, any Presbyterian can leave the denomination at any time for any reason. But they don't leave, because they can't take their money (ie. property) with them. So the only way they can serve both God and Mammon is to stay and annoy the rest of us. (Wouldn't gardening be a more fulfilling hobby, I wonder?)
They could, of course, propose an overture to simply change the Property Clause, which would be the Presbyterian thing to do. But that has not, apparently, in 30 years yet occurred to them. (They're not very clever.)
Frankly, I'd be happy enough to see the back of them that I have no problem letting them leave with their property, as long as some reasonable and fair accommodation were made to those in their congregations who wanted to stay in the denomination. But given their childish attitudes, it is unlikely that such a reasonable compromise is going to happen often. First, I suppose they'd actually have to admit that there are people in their congregations who do want to stay. (And it assumes they actually want to leave anyway, which I doubt. They'd rather sit around and bitch.)
The US Supreme Court recently upheld the validity of the UMC's Trust Clause after a church somewhere down south tried to take the building with them when they tried to leave. At the very least, it seems to me similar such clauses as the PCUSA's and any other - I'm sure the dioceses own the property in the Episcopal and Roman Catholic Churches, and wouldn't be surprised if the same were true for the Synods in the ELCA - that might have them.
Yup, I read that. And then I read the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the fundies in the PCUSA over the SCOTUS decision.
We've wandered a tad off-subject, and while I don't police my comment section that way, I would like to point out that the questions asked - "But isn't 'Jesus is Lord' empty of meaning?" - ignore the fact that I address that very point in my post. Those three words are filled with all the meaning of the entirety of the relationship between God and Creation. I wrote it, I said it, I believe it.
Somehow, that point was either ignored or missed by two readers. Go back, read the post again, then get back to me.
As to Alan's point that this basic confession can unite those who might have doctrinal disputes, I think that's true. Back in the 1970's the WCC published its BEM document (Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry) that sought to clarify what unites the variety of Christian confessions. It's a pity it isn't read and studied more; it has formed the basis of recent action between the UMC and ELCA, in which agreed to recognize the orders of the other denomination. If a Lutheran pastor wishes to become a United Methodist, or serve a UMC church, he or she need not go back to seminary, or be reviewed by an Annual Conference's Board of Ordained Ministry. Similar actions have been taken with the Episcopal Church.
Why? Because Lutherans and United Methodists agree on matters of doctrine?
The UMC is, and always has been, proudly non-confessional; we do not have a common confession of faith in the way the Lutherans and Reformed Churches (including the PCUSA) do. This alone should be a major obstacle to the kind of practical union that's taken place. It's happened, though, because both denominations recognize that what unites us - our confession of the Lordship of Jesus, and the efficacy of the means of grace in the sacraments of baptism and Eucharist, and the special charism of ordained ministry - outweighs the differences that, for all intents and purposes, are little more than reasons for people to yell at one another. This is ecumenism as it should be practiced, not submission to some arbitrary authority (as the Papacy demands of any who wish to formalize relations with the Roman Catholic Church).
Indeed it can be a stumbling block to ecumenism between those denominations with confessions and those without. However, even those denominations with confessions have this problem ... if they don't share the same confessions. Thus, how long did it take for the PCUSA, the RCA, the UCC, and the ELCA to make a formula of agreement of ministry and sacraments? It happened just a few years ago, so the answer is "Way too long", and they're all Reformed denominations!
(Interestingly, the CRC, also an obvious and natural participant in this formula of agreement, refused to participate for reasons that were not at all credal ... which is kinda funny given this discussion, and pretty much makes your point.)
Back in the 90's there was a real opportunity for uniting the major Methodist denominations. The AME Church, the AME Zion Church, and the CME Church were all in discussion and there was some hope, on all sides that the old racist divide that had spawned these other churches could be overcome.
The AME Church, in particular, has much to teach the UMC. They retain the old Wesley Class Meeting as part of their local church polity; bishops are not consecrated for life, but appointed for a term then return to pastoral ministry under appointment, and while not part of their Discipline, in practice no AME pastor under appointment serves much more than five or six years.
At the end of the day, though, the UMC was far too heavy-handed with our sister churches; never mind an array of folks from across the Confederacy complained about everything they could think of in order to derail the process of union. Too bad, but illustrates the point that even those churches who share doctrine (the Articles of Religion of our Books of Discipline are exactly the same, word for word) can find enough reasons to fight without resorting to technical theological arguments.
"...Jesus is Lord. Everything else is negotiable."
In broad terms I agree with the sentiment.
So, I apologize if you addressed this and I missed it, but I don't see where your original post addressed the question I asked.
So, may I as again?
How would you respond to someone for whom both "Jesus" and "Lord" are negotiable.
I'd apreciate any answer you'd like to give.
Post a Comment