391 - Church Union: Theology and Culture

Church Union: Theology and Culture
By John Dillenberger

From the Reformation into the nineteenth century, Churches came into being out of an earnest concern for theological integrity and cultural relevance. Today, the same regard for theological integrity and meaningful witness demand the union of the Churches. Indeed, the preceding two sentences define the thesis of this article. Moreover, they exclude certain ways of stating the issues. The argument here is not simply that we must make manifest the unity we have in Christ, although in its own way that is true enough. Nor is it that we must unite or find ways of affiliation in order to prosecute our respective and corporate plans more adequately, although there is an element of truth in that also. No attempt is made here to invoke the will of God in behalf of our endeavors, for while the will of God is clear enough, it is also sufficiently mysterious and/or vague to permit pious, conservative, and radical to make equal claims without the minutest sacrifice of position. The point of view in this article is rather that the theological and cultural scenes make mockery of our positions and disclose all too clearly that we are the victims of elusive and inertial factors which form the inner meaning of denominationalism and which make it hard for us to die in order to live.

I

Our past history is clear enough. Theological factors can be enumerated which do define the emergence of each group represented here, including those which have already been brought together by previous unions. At the same time, the theological factors were not disassociated from express cultural and political forces. This is true, whether the historical origin of any two groups is in the same or in a different national body. In short, the theological and cultural forces which have given rise to each of us in the past can be delineated (though we shall not undertake that task here). If

392 - Church Union: Theology and Culture

the perpetuation of a heritage or simply its recovery at appropriate times were all that is called for, we could best meet our responsibilities separately. That would assume, of course, that our task is to be what we once were. If that were a theoretical possibility, it is surely the kind of affirmation of the status quo in which we never genuinely move ahead but become increasingly irrelevant as the dynamics of history drive and forge other patterns of human existence.

The factors which once divided us theologically and helped form our separate existences no longer carry the weight they did then. This does not mean that they are unimportant. Moreover, we must admit that in earlier periods many of those interested in Church union too readily ignored theological factors since it was assumed that they did not matter. Even the initial impulses in the eventual formation of the World Council of Churches had a lack of theological vigor. We have long since passed that period. Indeed, one of the inevitable but ironic by-products of the ecumenical movement is that it has made us all more acutely aware of, and aggressively defensive concerning, our respective heritages. The rather artificial and spurious stressing of our uniqueness as something which must be contributed-usually just as it is in our own respective bodies-to the totality of Christ's Church is one form of this byproduct. But it is a rationalization of one's position in the world, a refusal to accept the necessity of death in order to live again. An even more acute rationalization-and like all rationalizations it is partly true-is that we have made real advance because we have come to see the deeper unity in the midst of our divisions. Indeed there is a deeper unity in our recent history than at the point from which we started. But the all too easy acquiescence in the notion of a fundamentally deep and underlying unity has become the dead center upon which the ecumenical movement is stalled.

Theologically we have moved past that impasse. The major theological books of the last three or four decades cannot be classified as denominational theologies. In most instances, one would not be able to tell the particular Church affiliation of an author merely on the basis of the books. Obviously this is not equally true on matters such as the sacraments and Church order, where indeed a major portion of the difficulty lies. Nevertheless, theological writings of the modern world show a breadth of concern and a depth

393 - Church Union: Theology and Culture

of penetration sufficient to warrant the conviction that significant and comprehensive breakthroughs on all levels, including sacraments and Church order, are not foreclosed.

We are certainly more theological today than we were half a century ago, and there is a growing ecumenical theology. Professors in theological schools live as much in the world of the Church at large -addressing conferences, serving as consultants-as they do in their own denominations. This is not because of their lack of interest in the concreteness of the Church but because of their concern for the totality of the life and thought of the Church. Moreover, faculty members move across the denominational and Church spectrum with considerable ease. A high percentage of men teaching in Episcopal theological schools have come from other denominations, though they have become Episcopalians. Presbyterian schools are divided between those whose faculties have men from other denominations, and those who have become Presbyterian for the sake of taking up the positions to which they have been called. A number of Methodist schools have a large percentage of non-Methodists on their theological faculties, an ecumenical virtue made necessary by the fact that there were not always sufficient Methodists of competence to fill the growing demand. While there is no campaign, organized or unorganized, against denominations among theological professors, their work is cast in other than denominational dimensions. The questions they ask concern the very nature of the Church. Interest in an Episcopal, Presbyterian, United Church, or Methodist theology as such hardly exists in theological schools. Because of this, some have concluded that theological schools are subversive of the denominational pattern.

It is important to characterize our theological heritage still more fully. In the emergence of our respective heritages, theological affirmations had to be made even if the consequence was that of fracturing the body of the Church. It should be kept clearly in mind that the consequent breaks occurred from a concern for the fullness of the Gospel and its tradition. Wherever the Church could not accommodate all of the truth of the Gospel, there were always those who insisted that the essential missing truth had to be expressed, even if that meant breaking from the Church in which one had been nourished. Those who broke away assumed that a greater wholeness of the Church resulted, that is, the wholeness of its truth. In-

394 - Church Union: Theology and Culture

deed new bodies seldom lived simply by their distinctive affirmations, but rather by the way in which their particular understanding formed and dictated the whole. It was only subsequently that the distinctive impulse began more exclusively to determine a history which now no longer breathed the same vitality. Then Church bodies began to live out of their distinctiveness rather than out of their previous concern for the wholeness of the Church. Our Church and denominational fracturing lost the wholeness which brought it into being. In the more recent history, the ecumenical movement has restored the total concern for all of us, the same concerns which in another period produced our divisions. A too narrow theological orientation of the past had to be broken, whether it was an orientation of a structure of thought or of an ethos. A period of distinctive separateness ensued, and in that context the ecumenical movement has in the past decades restored the concern for the wholeness of the Church. This means that our divisions are now more national-geographical, socio-cultural, than theological. Surely, we do not need to feel guilty about our past histories. The point is rather that the reasons for our continued separate existences are no longer present and that new demands are upon us.

II

Let us note the theological advance at some crucial points. We no longer believe that Protestantism stands for the right of private interpretation, the private right to determine one's relation to God or to Scripture. In the late-medieval situation in which the Churches' theological and sacramental realities were affirmed to be of objective import without significant reference to the individual believer, the insistence by Luther upon the role of the individual believer, i.e., his appropriation of faith, could in no sense be interpreted as individualism. The latter development characterizes the Enlightenment understanding of the Reformation. In fact, Lessing admitted that what he had to say could not be found in Luther's writing, but he still insisted Luther's spirit and that of the Reformation were on his side. The situation is similar with reference to the Reformation slogan of sola scriptura. When Luther appealed to Scripture and to right reason, he pleaded for an interpretation of Scripture which rang true to his being but also expressed the heritage of the Church. He set his scholarly understanding of the heritage

395 - Church Union: Theology and Culture

against what he considered to be an inauthentic development of the tradition. The Reformers did not believe that one simply went to Scripture without help. Luther believed that theological students should first study the Sentences of Peter Lombard so that they would have an orientation to Scripture. Calvin considered his Institutes to be an aid or guide in the understanding of Scripture. Nor should it be forgotten that Protestants wrote catechisms and confessions of faith as guides to the understanding of Scripture. Unlike the catechisms, the confessions spelled out theological matters to such an extent that they became dated documents in Church history rather than reliable guides to Scripture. But the intent was to utilize them in the latter sense, just as had been the case in the early Church with reference to "the rule of faith." And if "the rule of faith" left much to be desired in terms of elaboration, the confessions explained too much.

Another way of stating the basic point is, in the words of one of my former colleagues, that Protestants are counselled to go directly to the Bible when, as a matter of fact, Scripture is the most impossible collection of books in the world to read without help. Whether one likes it or not, one comes to Scripture with pre-understandings that already in some sense determine what one finds. Indeed the over-proliferation in historic Protestantism has been due largely to the erosion of its proper concern for the authority of Scripture by a heritage of individualism and subjectivism. But the proper concern for sola scriptura is that of possessing an orientation which enables us to be radically and drastically open to the way in which the Gospel forms and transforms our pre-understandings, i.e., the assumptions and conceptions with which we come. The point is that the tradition with which we come must be formed, and re-formed, and given life and vitality in the light of the way in which God's word breaks through to us from out of Scripture. Indeed, it is important to recall that Scripture itself is a deposit of the earliest tradition, that it is a series of documents which contains the kerygma. But the kerygma and the documents are not identical. An originating tradition containing the kerygma was set aside by the Church so that it could now be set over the Church, so that out of that early tradition the kerygma might shine forth in its power and glory. In this sense the notion of sola scriptura belongs to the totality of the Church and indeed to the catholic tradition as well. The issue is not whether we can all

396 - Church Union: Theology and Culture

affirm the Reformation slogan of sola scriptura. It is rather whether the intention behind this formulation is operative in the life of the Church, Here Protestantism is a way of understanding the catholic tradition and does not need to be set against it.

There are many levels in which the inherited stereotype will not do. Without a developed context of understanding, the Reformation watchwords of justification by faith, or justification through grace by faith, are not adequate; when elaborated in the Reformation setting, they disclose at once the power of the Reformation recovery of faith and at the same time the fact that we no longer think in this same way. The intention in the Reformation understanding is as valid today as it was in its own time. But in our own day that is more adequately expressed in an analysis of the dynamics of the total complex of faith than it is by either the repetition of the Pauline language or the Reformation formulations. The medieval-Reformation understanding of justification with respect to righteousness on the one side and the Enlightenment-liberal conception of faith on the other, have from quite opposite perspectives made it impossible for us to rehabilitate this language without needless explanation. It is therefore more significant to elaborate the nature of faith in its relation to the objectivity affirmed in grace, including its sacramental expression, than to return either to the older Protestant or to the traditional catholic language.

Does not a similar situation obtain in the matter of Church order? Those with an historical frame of mind always find it ironic that all Churches appeal both to Scripture and to the tradition of the early Church in defense of their views on the ordering of the life of the Church. Indeed, this can be done with a degree of justification, for the various elements claimed can be found there. The picture is indeed sufficiently fluid to permit various claims. Bishops, presbyters, the gathered community of the Church, all find their place in Scripture and in the early tradition. And the historical episcopate is about as historical as one can get, though that history does not necessarily argue for the notion of an unbroken succession nor for its theological or historical necessity. Surely there is little doubt that the Church of the future will have bishops and those in situations of proper spiritual-ecclesiastical pre-eminence. The difficulty is that certain assumed and defended views of the episcopacy have, to date, made a more radical re-examination of it difficult if not impossible.

397 - Church Union: Theology and Culture

Theologically, the Church of the future must be comprehensive in nature, if one may borrow a term dear to Anglicans. But comprehensiveness must be distinguished from eclecticism and from the simple adding together of components. Where each Church wants to contribute out of its own active history, the danger is that notions of advance become confused with simple arithmetic. We must ask, "What is the nature of the Church?" with a faith and a confidence that what we think significant will not be lost but find its proper place in something which is quite different from patching together our respective heritages. In fact, Church union will not genuinely advance unless we are willing to face the possibility and necessity of our own death in the hope that a new resurrection will not only include what we have treasured but provide for it in new settings and with new riches. Unless we are willing to believe, by God's grace and our own free labor in the light of it, that such a possibility could emerge, there can be little hope in our conversations, even if we should succeed in finding rubrics of unification. Church union does mean dying to self in order to live.

III

Thus far we have been concerned with theological-historical factors. There are also theological-cultural concerns. The difference between two Methodist Churches or between two Presbyterian Churches is frequently greater than the difference between a Methodist and a Presbyterian Church. At many levels, the man on the street has difficulty in distinguishing between denominations. Partly this is due to ignorance; but partly it is because the difference in essentials, if not in ethos, has all but disappeared. In some instances, this disappearance may be accounted for by the theological climate in which ministers are trained; in some respects, it may be accounted for by the general homogenization of American culture, by the way in which the Church has adapted itself to the cultural milieu. The latter is greatly augmented by the mobility of Americans. Although the number of individuals who remain in the area in which they grew up still far exceeds those who move from place to place, the fact is that the latter exert a disproportionate influence upon the life of society. They establish trends and patterns and ways of assimilation. The degree to which human cultural mobility takes one to the Church which is geographically nearest, or most con-

398 - Church Union: Theology and Culture

venient, or fits in most easily with one's general pattern of social existence, is a fact variously to be interpreted. It may be no more than the path of least resistance. Yet the courage born of theological ignorance frequently has creative consequences, opening individuals to new patterns of development and experience. This is not a plea for the creativity of ignorance, but the confession that God is indeed able to turn all kinds of situations to his purposes.

Our cultural situation today demands more imagination with respect to the forms of the life of the Church than we have dared to think. This does not mean that cultural factors necessarily do or ought to determine the life of the Church. The Church as Church should not reflect the culture; but the contours of the life of the Church must be formed with regard to the cultural setting in which the Church is called upon to be a witness to the community of God. In that respect, theological and cultural factors must be joined for a proper understanding of the Church and its mission.

There are developments which provide some hopeful analogies. On the mission field, the confusing irrelevance of separate programs is all too apparent. Indeed, that is why new forms of the life of the Church and of renewal have emerged here more rapidly than on the domestic scene. A similar hopeful situation obtains on many college campuses. There are, of course, the usual denominational groups working side by side, each competing for students and particularly wishing to keep its own, and rationalizing it all on the theory that there is plenty of work for all on the godless campuses of America. But there are also situations on university campuses where the fundamental unity of the Church is manifest in new forms of life and relevance. Such forms are more than cooperative efforts. They reflect the emergence of new ways of doing things, in which there is one mission with many facets. Such new developments do not reflect the common denominator approach of three or four decades ago. They represent theological vitality and are geared to the concerns of a university. They are frequently upsetting to Church bodies, partly because their creativity challenges traditional patterns both in Church and in education. But they may also be the vanguard of the future and a barometer showing that cultural situations do provide contexts for new forms of the life of the Church. The same can be said of experiments going on in the inner city.

399 - Church Union: Theology and Culture

Any concern for the union of Churches must include the inevitable objection of bigness and alleged bureaucratic organizations and structures. We can readily grant that the forms of communication and association in the modern world have tended to produce larger and larger units. But whether we are big or small is not really the issue. It is rather that the factor of bigness needs to be taken into account. There are ways in which a united Church can be divided according to special functions or according to geographical units in what could well be a modification of the older parish system. At this point, this is said only as a counter-thrust to the fear of bigness.

But the necessity for the unity of the Church must now be affirmed on the basis of the dynamics of the cultural scene as well as from the theological standpoint. The cultural analysis, however, is not that we can simply do the job better united, though that may be true enough. There are those, of course, who believe we can do the job better if we stay as we are, following the American system of competition with its variety and diversification fitting every need. The point to be stressed here is that the dynamics of our cultural scene dictates our unity, but in such a way as to call us to assume more diverse responsibilities than is evident in our separate existences. In short, the many areas of contemporary cultural expression and the great social diversification evident in inner city, urban, rural division as well as in range of job and education demand greater relevance and flexibility than is possible in the denominational pattern. The traditional Churches largely followed economic, social, and ethnic patterns of division. But today, the divisions culturally interpenetrate. They no longer follow class lines nor are they geographically and spatially separable. In that sense, the denominational pattern is sociologically obsolete. The Church as one must witness and work in the multitudinous facets of society, utilizing and developing varieties of appropriate structures. The one Church will have to take on greater diversity of life and work than the existing denominational and Church patterns allow. Hence, Church union in our day dare not be finding machinery which incorporates us into one unit. It must be a whole Church, open to new and exciting forms of life and structure.

There are many levels at which the Church must assume responsibility and find itself transformed and renewed in the process.

400 - Church Union: Theology and Culture

Here let us mention only two, the first of which is obvious enough. This is an age of specialization, and while we glibly speak against over-specialization, the fact of the matter is that we will increasingly have our specialties and that they will need to be related to total human and humane conceptions. Specialization is not wrong; it is rather that specialization has frequently happened without a vision of the whole. We certainly cannot become competent in all areas, nor should the notion that we could be encouraged. Given our situation, we must take more seriously than we have the development of multiple ministries within the Church. They can provide a context of unity, and greater competence in our manifold responsibilities.

The second selected area illustrating the need for new approaches is the problem of vocation. We continue to hear much about a theology of vocation. Is this really a significant direction or does the theology of vocation express the last gasp of the attempt to make work meaningful in a situation in which this is no longer possible for many? Does it help to tell a man who watches a gauge that his watching it has implications for the economy in Guatemala? Under automation, men will watch gauges fifteen hours a week, either three hours a day or perhaps only two or three days a week. Then one will confront the simple situation that one watches a gauge in order to have a pay check to support one's family. Perhaps we should abandon that problem and think seriously instead of the theology of leisure. Meaningful activity will have to be found apart from one's job. Here the Church has new responsibilities and opportunities of which it is hardly aware.

In the preceding paragraphs, I have tried to show that theological-historical and theological-cultural factors demand of us that we work toward the unity of the Churches. While we have come to be who we are for theological and historic reasons, the same concern for theological expression and historical relevance argues today that we must express the intended unity and comprehensiveness of the Church. Moreover, I have tried to show that our cultural situation demands the oneness of our witness, a manifest unity for the sake of the diversity of the task and opportunities before us. We stand before a genuine mission, and where the mission of the Church is accepted, there it is always renewed and transformed. Where we are

401 - Church Union: Theology and Culture

open to that possibility, the heritage of the past can be brought into fruitful relation to the possibilities of the present.

In short, the theological and cultural dynamics of our situation demand of us courage, resolution, and risks inherent in our time and its possibilities, just as once before the same resolution, courage, and risk brought us to separate existence. The same faith now calls us to express the total riches of God in Christ in forms appropriate and necessary for our time. Therefore we should put aside the question of how well we are or are not doing, of whether we can function more effectively separately or together, of whether or not all Churches should eventually be united. Neither history nor life are met that theoretically. Rather we are called upon concretely to see whether or not these bodies of Christendom, and allied ones, can find greater life and adequate mission to the world in a unity which results from their genuine transformation. It is my conviction that we are called to such a glorious and vigorous exploration.