56 - Christian Unity: Where Does It Stand?

Christian Unity: Where Does It Stand?
By Edward B. Fiske

WRITING in these pages recently, Walter Wagoner suggested that the best metaphor for the "new mood" in religion these days is fog. It's not a bad description of the situation of Christian unity. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it is possible to perceive a few shapes moving about-though admittedly in some opposite directions.

THE BASIC POINT: In the long run the logic of ecumenism is inescapable. The New Testament makes it clear that the body of Christ is one. In the last century the churches of the East and West have caught a vision of this essential unity, and this vision has become the definitive theme of Christianity in our time. Moreover, the forces of history are clearly reinforcing what on a theological level must be seen as the work of the Holy Spirit. The world is getting too small for petty divisions. The challenge of western secularism has forced Christians to focus on the threats they face in common rather than on their traditional differences. Financial problems have made it clear that duplication of programs that could be done on a cooperative basis is a luxury that churches can no longer afford.

CONTRADICTION TO THE BASIC POINT: We are now going through a period of neo-denominationalism. The typical American Christian is more aware of his or her denominational identity than a decade ago and more open to supporting sectarian rather than ecumenical endeavors. Some of the reasons are easy to grasp. Denominations---especially when perceived through a local congregation give people a sense of identity and provide familiar moorings after a period of intense turmoil and flux. Like gurus to a growing number of young people, they help people get themselves together to handle today's world. Ecumenism, by contrast, is threatening. It forces new relationships, endangers known and trusted symbols, and urges wider rather than narrower visions.

CONTRADICTION OF THE CONTRADICTION: At the same time we are going through a period of flowering of new forms of ecumenical activity. Local churches, acting spontaneously, are engaged in new steps ranging from shared staff members to regular eucharistic services to the full-scale merger of, say, Presbyterian and Methodist

Edward B. Fiske, a member of THEOLOGY TODAY'S Editorial Council, is Religion Editor of The New York Times, and is a graduate of Wesleyan University and Princeton Theological Seminary.

57 - Christian Unity: Where Does It Stand?

congregations. The publication of Bibles has become an ecumenical effort. Theologians have moved beyond the compare-our-differences stage to the more mature stage of solving common problems across inter-faith lines. Most visibly right now, Key '73 has put together a coalition of Christians who have never before been involved in ecumenical projects-conservative Roman Catholics, the right wing of the major liberal Protestant denominations, and the big evangelical denominations previously identified only with the National Association of Evangelicals.

How do we make sense of these apparent contradictions? Maybe we can't entirely, but one place to start is to abandon a couple of prevailing assumptions about the nature of ecumenism.

OUTDATED ASSUMPTION Number ONE: Ecumenism is inherently liberal. The ecumenical movement grew out of what is normally thought of now as a conservative enterprise-world missions. But it has since come to be seen as the prerogative of liberals. There are some reasons for this. Liberals tend to be less tied to existing theological orthodoxies and thus more willing to take the risk of compromise that is inevitable when mixing with outsiders, and liberals by temperament are more likely to stick up their hands to volunteer for projects involving new relationships. The consequences of liberals taking control of ecumenical programs, though, have been profound. It meant that ecumenism developed under the essentially liberal assumption that the best way to solve a problem (like the "scandal of disunity") was to set up organizations. More important, it meant that ecumenism was "done" around liberal program priorities: social action, evangelism conceived of as development, theological agreements, etc.

Now this is changing. Conservatives are entering the ecumenical picture, and in Key '73 we see ecumenism being done for the first time on a broad scale around a conservative agenda item: evangelism perceived as seeking conversions. (Note that this is not the ecumenical movement, like other movements and institutions at the present time, moving to the right. The liberals are still liberals; now they have been joined by new people.)

OUTDATED ASSUMPTION NUMBER Two: Ecumenism can be measured by progress toward organizational unity. In most people's minds ecumenism has been understood as the creation of viable councils of churches or the merger of existing institutions. Right now, though, this is proving unfortunate, since most big institutions-from government to universities to the press-are objects of suspicion. Take the Consultation on Church Union. It was based on the assumption that a unified organization was the best way to overcome divisions. It was also elitist and assumed that decision-makers and expert consultants could solve the problem, and

58 - Christian Unity: Where Does It Stand?

that all that remained was to sell it to the grass roots. In retrospect, though, COCU now looks like another product of the early Kennedy years (it was proposed in 1960) that also gave birth to American involvement in Vietnam and the space program and some other grand schemes that now look less exciting and noble than they once did.

What I am arguing, therefore, is that we need a bigger concept of ecumenism. Ecumenism is larger than the liberal agendas and preoccupation with organizational forms that have dominated it in recent years. It is big enough to embrace all of the apparent contradictions cited above-the long-run logic of unity, the current neo-denominationalism, and the popular explosion of ecumenical projects.

What does all this mean for practical purposes? To answer this we have to ask something about why people belong to denominations-the supposed enemy of Christian unity. There are obviously some unfortunate reasons, including immaturity, elitism, and economic and social self-interest. H. Richard Niebuhr called denominationalism "the accommodation of Christianity to the caste system of society." But there are also some not-so-bad reasons. Denominations (or smaller units like experimental communities) provide understandable structures for personal belief. They are a practical convenience, giving laymen a structure for expressing their faith and offering religious professionals credentials, pension plans, and ladders for advancement. They provide rational battlegrounds for political conflict, but most important, they give people a context for being Christian in a style that suits them. Different people need different styles and contexts, and if you don't provide for variety within a structure (as Catholicism has traditionally done through its religious orders), then people will find their own new structures. There is, of course, no reason why something like a unified COCU church could not provide for this variety; in fact, its concept of the congregation on paper looks pretty good in this respect. The problem is that the reasons people join a particular church aren't necessarily the ones that they are reluctant to give it up at a later date. The latter is likely to involve factors such as a particular hymn or whether the ushers take up the collection in baskets or buckets.

Fortunately, though, ecurnenism transcends all this. What I would like to propose is that ecumenism be thought of as essentially a realistic style of being a Christian-and also an Episcopalian or Melkite-in today's world. Ecumenism says that we live in tension

*In all fairness it should be pointed out that the leaders of COCU are aware of this and, for practical purposes, have abandoned efforts to draw up a perfect plan of unity in favor of some creative experimentation at the grass-roots level.

59 - Christian Unity: Where Does It Stand?

between the local and the universal. It asserts that one can be consciously part of a denomination but also of the body of Christ. It affirms the positive aspects of denominational identity, yet judges negative ones in light of the essential unity of all Christians. It liberates Christians to work with those in other churches, yet allows them, hopefully after thought and prayer, to pick the appropriate times and places. It frees Christians from any false sense of responsibility that denominational creeds or programs are ultimate. It liberates the Christian to say that he or she is a member of a church but also the church. Martin Marty put it succinctly when he defined the ecumenical spirit as being able to rejoice in another church's success. Until recently this sort of liberation was not a reality for very many Christians.

Obviously not every church perceives itself as operating in this "ecumenical style." I would argue, though, that the possibility for such a style is the most important change that has come over the churches in the last century. Indeed, as Marty also points out, the ecumenical spirit has outrun the ecumenical movement. The troops are out ahead of the generals. You know that something has happened when you see Catholics and Missouri Synod Lutherns holding hands in Key '73. Ecumenical style has triumphed over ideology; Jacob Preus and John Cardinal Carberry are the most important ecumenical leaders of our day.

Some years ago it was jokingly suggested that the United States should simply declare that it had won the war in Vietnam and leave. Without any implication of self-delusion, I would suggest that the churches adopt a similar strategy in regard to ecumenism. They should stop regarding it as an impossible dream and treat it like a present reality, as the best operative style of practicing Christianity today.

As for organizational unity, it will probably come-at least to a degree. But it won't come because committees have got together to map a strategy for merger. It will come when people who have been operating under an ecumenical vision wake up some day and wonder why they were ever separate.