From
November 2003 St John's Eagle
“The Unity of the Churches" - By John Harcourt
The Prayer Book
teaches us to pray for the unity of the church:
"Father, we pray for your Holy Catholic Church; That we all may
be one." (p. 387)
But, from the beginning, the nature of the unity we pray for has been
problematic. The first century congregation in Jerusalem was divided
into Hebraists and Hellenists, between those who were convinced that
the Law of the Jews was binding on all and those who opted for a greater
freedom from the past. By the ending of that first century, the burning
issue was Gnosticism is the material world intrinsically evil? Must
we be snatched from it for union with pure spirit? The history of the
church is one of division, heresy, and schism, down to our current fear
that the Anglican community is about to collapse over the issue of homosexuality.
An image that often occurs to me is that of the New England town, its
commons dominated by three churches, often with a handful of others
gathered around its extremities. All human groups are inherently unstable;
their temporary unity is continually fractured by new churches, each
with its own formulation of the Christian faith.
Perhaps
part of the problem lies in our all inclusive word "church".
The New Testament records individual congregations at Jerusalem, Antioch,
Damascus, etc. churches able, from time to time, to cooperate with one
another but basically bound by loyalty to their founders, churches that
were for all practical purposes self governing. Only gradually, over
several centuries and vast social changes, did the idea of a high authority
emerge. Groups of bishops met when they felt that orthodox doctrine
was being challenged, as at Nicaea in 325, when the Arian version of
Christianity was rejected. For some time, ecumenical councils were the
standard response to disunity; only much later did the bishop of Rome
assume authority over all the churches of the Western world.
Yet even Roman claims
were constantly challenged by the Albigensian revolt, by the Protestant
Reformation, to give but two examples. And the reformed churches proved
to be equally unstable: the Anglicans were held together by the exercise
of royal authority, but sixteenth century England was poised between
the Catholics on the one and the continental reformers on the other,
and honeycombed by more or less secret groups each with its own version
of Christianity. Later, the secession of the Methodists would prove
to be a major blow. Our current problems are serious indeed, but hardly
new to Christian experience. It has all happened before and will continue
to happen until the end of time.
Perhaps our preoccupation
with doctrinal unity needs to be reexamined. If we believe that we know
God's will, absolutely and unconditionally, then we will kill and die
for our beliefs: present attitudes in the Middle East can be duplicated
by countless examples from our own recorded history.
But what if we
were to agree that God's will is essentially unknowable, that our guesses
are merely faint, far off reflections of that will, radically conditioned
by our position in history and in geography? Thus viewed, variety of
interpretation is not something to be decried, but rather something
to be welcomed, a joyful acceptance of the reality of our human situation.
We must, of course,
hold to our own constantly developing insights, but we can listen with
sympathetic understanding to the differing views of others. It would
be, in my view, rash in the extreme to reject any sincere effort to
express the essential mystery that God was in Christ. The New Testament
offers many ways of "understanding" that mystery; Jesus understood
himself largely in the language available to a Jew living in the first
part of the first century. The books of the New Testament interpret
his mission in terms of the cultural models they were familiar with.
In all times, in all places, people have used the metaphors and symbols
they had at their disposal. All of us together can hardly begin to exhaust
the essential truths. Conviction must not be confused with certainty:
we can act decisively with our relative vision, without denying the
rights of others to theirs.
Too often, church
unity has been defined in organizational terms. This attempt to achieve
unity is doomed to failure. A super power structure is not the appropriate
model for us. There are other ways.
The concept of "one
church" has had a powerful revival in the past century or two just
as we have entertained thoughts of a supreme political power to contain
the excesses of nationalism. But neither the religious nor the political
option works.
We should, I think,
give serious consideration to recent developments in Episcopal Lutheran
relations. The presence of a bishop at ordination ceremonies is accepted,
but life in the Episcopal and Lutheran congregations continues much
as before, with the added dimension of intercommunion. Extending such
an arrangement to other denominations may inflict the least amount of
damage to conflicting egos embedded in existing power structures. Yet,
it may point to a realizable Christian unity, based upon the assumption
of integrity in those we disagree with. The various religious traditions
are part of the richness of Christian history, to be preserved as long
as they continue to be useful.
A simple
test: Do our own deepest convictions lead to a hatred and denunciation
of those who disagree with us? Or can we say, "I'll try to understand
what you believe and why you believe it, even though I disagree."
Together and with countless others we refract part of the glory of God's
continuing self revelation. Until the Day, we can accept one another
around the communion table fundamentalists and liberals, supporters
of gay rights and those who strenuously object.
As we read in the
Letter of James, "the anger of man does not work the righteousness
of God." (James 1:20).
Professor
Harourt is the Charles A. Dana Professor of
English Emeritus at Ithaca College.
