An Ecumenical Prayer for the Gifts of Various Churches

Recently, I came across a most interesting ecumenical prayer composed early in the ecumenical movement by the Federal Council of Churches, U.S.A. It is entitled: “Prayer of Thanksgiving for the Gifts of the Various Christian Churches.” The full text of this prayer is provided here and can be found in the New St. Joseph People's Prayer Book. I have not seen other ecumenical prayers expressing the same level of enthusiasm for the diversity within Christianity. It makes me wonder how Christian ecumenism has developed from that time until now.

Let us give thanks for the gifts and graces of each great division of Christendom:

For the Roman Catholic Church: its glorious traditions, its disciplines in holiness, its worship, rich with the religious passion of the centuries; its noble company of martyrs, doctors, and saints;

We thank you, O Lord, and bless your holy name.

For the Eastern Orthodox Church: its secret treasure of mystic experience; its marvelous liturgy; its regard for the collective life and its common will as a source of authority;

We thank you, O Lord, and bless your holy name.

For the great Protestant communions; We thank you, O Lord, and bless your holy name. For the Congregationalist jealousy for the rightful independence of the soul and of the group;

We thank you, O Lord, and bless your holy name.

For the stress in the Baptist Churches upon personal regeneration and upon the conscious relation of the mature soul to its Lord;

We thank you, O Lord, and bless your holy name.

For the power of the Methodists to awaken the conscience of Christians to our social evils; and for their emphasis upon the witness of personal experience, and upon the power of the disciplined life;

We thank you, O Lord, and bless your holy name.

For the Presbyterian reverence for the sovereignty of God and their confidence in his faithfulness to his covenant; for their sense of the moral law, expressing itself in constitutional government;

We thank you, O Lord, and bless your holy name.

For the witness to the perpetual real presence of the inner light in every human soul borne by the Religious Society of Friends and for their faithful continuance of a free prophetic ministry;

We thank you, O Lord, and bless your holy name.

For the Lutheran Church: its devotion to the grace of God and the word of God, enshrined in the ministry of the word and sacraments;

We thank you, O Lord, and bless your holy name.

For the Anglican Church: its reverent and temperate ways, through its Catholic heritage and its Protestant conscience; its yearning concern over the divisions of Christendom, and its longing to be used as a house of reconciliation.

We thank you, O Lord, and bless your holy name. Amen.

Exploring Protestant Traditions

Recently, I came upon the book Exploring Protestant Traditions by W. David Buschart. After reading a description of the work and glancing at the table of contents I knew it would likely be a worthwhile purchase. After spending some time with this text I am thoroughly convinced that it has been worth it. Buschart has an impressive fluency with the theological languages and beliefs of eight major Protestant traditions (Lutheran, Anabaptist, Reformed, Anglican, Baptist, Wesleyan, Dispensational, and Pentecostal). What’s more, his extensive knowledge is tempered with a gracious openness and affirming posture toward each of these streams of Protestantism.

After picking up Exploring Protestant Traditions I have not thought the same way about inter-Christian relations and ecumenism. Buschart imparts two key lessons (among many others) to his reader: first, each Christian tradition has an “internal coherence” (i.e., “an existential or phenomenological coherence” (p. 24) and second, “many other Christians pursue life in Christ” through these “theological and ecclesiastical traditions” (p. 27). This dual lesson goes a long way toward appreciating the value of the current diversity within global Christianity. It must be stated that Buschart never tries to minimize or hide differences between the traditions, but rather highlights the positive contributions that each can make to the broader body of Christ. This belief is reflected in the subtitle of the book: An Invitation to Theological Hospitality.

For Buschart, the basis of Christian hospitality between churches and traditions is the hospitality of God toward us in Christ. God’s gift of new life to Christians and loving action in creating one kingdom family inspires Christian hospitality. In light of this Christians are to have a “both/and” approach to unity and diversity within Christianity (p. 257). According to the author, it is “possible for someone to both stand within a tradition and stand with other Christians outside that tradition” (p. 258). This is what it means to be hospitable. The eschatological dimension of our faith directs our attention to the future fulfillment of perfect unity and diversity in the kingdom (p. 261). As we wait for this glorious hope it is legitimate to practice hospitality with healthy “differentiation” (i.e., “proper boundaries”) as long as it does not lead to “sinful exclusion” (p. 265). The final goal of Christian hospitality is honoring Jesus’ prayer in John 17:22-23 “that all may be one…so that the world may know [and believe in Jesus]” (pp. 272-275).

One might ask why Buschart limited his study to the Protestant world, leaving out information related to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. To my knowledge this question is never addressed directly in the book, however titles of other works that provide such information are suggested in one of the footnotes. Two worth mentioning are: The Orthodox Way by Kallistos Ware and Expressions of the Catholic Faith by Kevin Johnson. They serve as good compliments to Exploring Protestant Traditions; particularly, for professors or teachers offering classes on Christianity or for self-directed study.

Switching Christianities: Personal Reflections on Christian Diversity and Confessional Identity

For many Christians of various confessional traditions, the principle holds true that what unites us is much greater than what divides us. The diversity of our unique cultures, languages, and traditions does not obscure our fundamental unity in Christ…a unity described by C. S. Lewis as “mere Christianity.” Such a vision has inspired numerous participants in the ecumenical movement. It is also a vision that has been contested by many, especially, apologists of particular Christian traditions. Such a unity, they claim, can only lead to a watering down of the truth preserved by the authentic custodians of the apostolic faith. They see the claims of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant forms of Christianity as mutually exclusive and fundamentally different.

Most of us have encountered both of these views. Assessing the merits of either approach can be complicated at best and discouraging at worst. How does one account for the diversity in Christian belief and practice? Some choose to look to the past, drawing on the history of the early Church and the patristic literature. Others like to focus on the present realities of our post-modern culture in which a plurality of perspectives is not questioned but rather assumed to be the status quo. Others still look to the future with the eschatological reign of God in mind, a time of perfect unity between all of God’s people.

At various points in my own journey of faith I have looked to the past, present, and future for answers to the question of Christian diversity. When looking to the past, I have found great riches in the patristic heritage of the East and West. Inspiring views of the meaning of Christian unity, the sacraments, and the authentic passing on and living of the faith. For many in Christian antiquity, the various local churches shared a fundamental unity from the beginning through their mutual, organic connection with the apostles. This unity was complimented by a common understanding of the gospel and a shared tradition of worship. The many churches holding to these essentials faced persecution by secular authorities and competition from sectarian Christian groups. Despite this, they continued to pass on their faith to successive generations many of whom are numbered today among the Catholic (Roman and Eastern), Orthodox (Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian), and Assyrian churches. Needless to say, in the face of so great a cloud of witnesses from the first millennium of the Church’s history (and their contemporary heirs), I have often found myself questioning many assumptions from my Protestant upbringing.

This process of self-reflection and questioning has often been accompanied by discussions with other Christians, who serve as bearers of the ancient traditions in Catholic and Orthodox communions. They have often introduced me to new ways (or old as the case may be) of thinking about God, prayer, and life in general. Their insights have inspired and stretched my thinking. Many times I have asked myself, can I continue in the particular form of Christianity in which I was raised or should I switch to another one? Should I enter into this great drama of receiving from the ancients and passing on to the next generation? I wish I could say that such questions have always been enlightening and spiritually profitable, but in reality they have often led me turn in upon myself and lose sight of the relational dimension of my walk with God. This is not to say that such questions are unimportant in the search for greater understanding of the gospel, but in some cases they can become ends in and of themselves. That being said, I believe that many Christians do switch to one of the ancient forms of Christianity in accordance with God’s prompting, though others choose not to switch in obedience to God’s will too.

What about the post-moderns on this subject? How do they account for the unity and disunity of the various churches and Christian communities? While many patristic authors support the view of a visibly united Church that shares a common ministerial hierarchy and understanding of the sacraments, post-moderns tend to look elsewhere for a model of Christian unity. For them, it is only through a multiplicity of Christian traditions that true inculturation of the gospel can occur. As the various churches and Christian communities adapt to their local contexts, the culture, language, and other aspects of their people enter the great Christian tradition. This results in a living out of the gospel that is truly universal and sufficiently open to the diverse gifts that God has given His people in various places.

If looking to the past emphasizes the univocality of the ancient apostolic testimony and looking to the present highlights the polycentricity of global Christianity then looking to the future shifts the focus to a perichoretic existence in the kingdom. Only in the eschatological kingdom will the fullness of unity be realized as people of every tribe, tongue, and nation enter into the great doxology to the one God. Then the perfect and loving unity of Father, Son, and Spirit will be mirrored by the communion of saints. Since this eschatological reality is outside our early understanding of time we can embrace its reality now through examples of the Spirit’s work among us. We can work our way back from the perfect unity shared by God’s people in the kingdom to our present-day reality of a visibly divided Christianity, knowing that both realities are in God’s providential care.

How then should one account for so many people switching Christianities? What is the nature of the relationship between Christian diversity and confessional identity? In my opinion, the answer to both of these questions lies in human nature itself. Since human beings are finite creatures it is natural for them to search for realities that transcend their limitations. This search is ultimately trans-temporal and trans-spatial, leading them into the realm of divine mystery. Only God fully knows how the past, present, and future will be transformed in the eschatological kingdom. Only God sees things as they truly are.

Switching Christianities is a decision that some people make on their journey of faith. It is a decision that is often made after much reflection and prayer. It is difficult for us to assess the validity of these decisions because only God knows a person’s heart condition. In spite of this, one does not need to be indifferent to the phenomenon. There is objective truth even if humans cannot know it exhaustively like God can. The ancient, the post-modern, and the eschatologically oriented believer all can learn from one another. The fullness of the truth that they are all seeking is in the person of Jesus Christ. Only through His initiative and power will the current reality of Christian diversity be transformed into the eschatological reality of the one, united people of God.

The following prayer by Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185-ca. 245) is a most fitting way to close this reflection: “May the Lord Jesus touch our eyes, as he did those of the blind. Then we shall begin to see in visible things those which are invisible. May he open our eyes to gaze, not on present realities, but on the blessings to come. May he open the eyes of our heart to contemplate God in Spirit, through Jesus Christ the Lord, to whom belong power and glory through all eternity. Amen.”

Bridging the Ancient and Modern: The Example of Thomas Oden

There is without question a renewed interest in our times of exploring the patristic heritage. While such interest might seem to be a positive development to traditional patristic scholars, many have critiqued the new movement as prone to a selective reading strategy for approaching the ancient texts. In some quarters, this critique is developed further to suggest that any Protestant or Christian not associated with the ancient churches (Catholic or Orthodox) must, by default, embrace some form of selective reading. I would like to answer this critique by holding up the example of Thomas Oden. In Classical Christianity, a revision of Oden’s three volume systematic theology, he proposes a consensual theological method based on widely agreed upon figures and theological statements. In his scheme, greatest preference is given to scripture followed by patristic sources, then medieval theologians, reformation figures, and finally modern interpreters. Oden’s method attempts to be authentically ecumenical in its reading of sources, searching continuously for consensus and complementarity. He is aware of his locatedness as an interpreter in the Methodist tradition, which makes his interpretation of the ancient texts all the more careful.

Taking into consideration Oden’s example, perhaps those traditional patristic scholars, who are disappointed with the treatment of ancient texts by post-modern Christian interpreters should acknowledge that there exists a continuum of selective reading. Some groups and individuals like Oden are committed to an in-depth, careful, reading of the texts (even if from a Protestant ecclesial context) whereas others may in fact be more inclined to take only those things from the patristic texts that they agree with or like, leaving the rest (this is sometimes charged against certain emergent church approaches). Acknowledging an interpretive continuum also highlights that, in some sense, all of the Christian traditions read the church fathers selectively depending on their point of reference. For example, some Orthodox might feel this way toward some Catholics when discussing issues like Papal primacy and vice versa.

If the problem with new approaches to patristic texts is their allegedly arbitrary picking and choosing, where should the line be drawn for traditional approaches, which also can read these same texts selectively? In ecumenical dialogues, it is common to see the Catholic and Orthodox Churches acknowledging their profound closeness, rooted in their ancient, undivided heritage. Oden’s approach seeks to draw on this ancient, undivided heritage in a way that is faithful and authentic. One can see quickly that the Nicene Creed serves as the orienting motif of his entire work. Some traditional patristic scholars may questions whether he has gone far enough beyond the bounds of his particular confessional context, but others will see in his method a genuine and responsible approach. From my perspective, it is impressive to see the degree to which Oden has built bridges between ancient and modern forms of Christianity.

As appreciation grows for the patristic literature in popular Christian circles I believe that we will be seeing other approaches similar to Oden’s. In the end, this could create renewal of the larger Christian communities as greater numbers of people become aware of the ancient heritage of the Church. It is good that more popular discussion is happening related to ancient figures and ideas because modern Christian communities can learn valuable lessons from the history of those who have gone before them in Christ.

This is certainly Oden's vision for all Christians for he writes: "all of these traditions have an equal right to appeal to the early history of Christian exegesis...Protestants have a right to the Fathers. Athanasius is not owned by Copts, nor is Augustine owned by North Africans. These minds are the common possession of the whole church. The Orthodox do not have exclusive rights over Basil, nor do the Romans over Gregory the Great. Christians everywhere have equal claim to these riches and are discovering them and glimpsing their unity in the body of Christ" (Matthew 1-13, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture; InterVarsity Press, 2001, xvii).

Many Traditions, Many Gifts, One Spirit, One Lord

I am very interested in the concept of gifting for exploring the Holy Spirit's work in drawing all Christians (and their larger ecclesial traditions) back together into one body without loosing a sense of each one's unique vocation. If one can speak of the various divided churches and communities as possessing unique gifts, perhaps, by God’s providential wisdom, these have been given to encourage greater cooperation, love, and, ultimately, unity among God's people in His saving plan for humanity. This all occurs in the context of repudiating past sins, errors, and divisions.

Let me offer some examples of what I am talking about when I speak of gifting in terms of broader ecclesial communities. These are generalizations and I realize that one could see examples of all three of these in each of the traditions respectively, but I think there is something to the way in which they are emphasized in each tradition according to its own heritage and vocation. They are: Spirit-centered experience (a gift emphasized in Pentecostalism), Word-centered proclamation (a gift emphasized in Protestantism), and Community-centered, apostolic oversight and practice (a gift emphasized in Catholicism and Orthodoxy).

This could be parsed out in a variety of ways. In spiritual discernment one could speak of pneumatological elements of discernment including the gift of discernment (emphasized in Pentecostalism), dynamic understanding of circumstances in light of Scripture (emphasized in Protestantism), and inspired guidance for weighing events in light of Tradition (emphasized in Catholicism and Orthodoxy). Related Christological elements of discernment could include Christ’s character experienced through the spiritual fruits (Pentecostalism), Christ’s teachings recorded in Scripture (Protestantism), and Christ’s authority incarnationally and visibly preserved by the Church and the passing on of Sacred Tradition (Catholicism and Orthodoxy).

In terms of soteriology one could speak of the Pentecostal emphasis on manifestations of the Spirit in transforming and healing human beings (the language of "baptism in the Spirit"), the Protestant emphasis on union with Christ in faith as freeing individuals (the language of "imputation of righteousness"), and the Catholic and Orthodox emphasis on sacramental cleansing and healing (the language of "infused grace" and "participating in the divine nature" respectively).

In terms of ecclesiology one could speak of the charismatically sustained service of the local body and spiritual unity of all Christians (Pentecostalism), the Word-centered confessional unity of the churches (Protestantism), and the visible unity and apostolic succession of the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

I think John Paul II captures the hopefulness necessary for and inherent in such a vision of gifting and Christian reunion: “One...is capable of bringing forth good even from evil, from human weakness. Could it be that these divisions have also been a path continually leading the Church to discover the untold wealth contained in Christ’s Gospel and in the redemption accomplished by Christ? Perhaps all this wealth would not have come to light otherwise...More generally, we can affirm that for human knowledge and human action a certain dialectic is present. Didn't the Holy Spirit, in His divine 'condescendence,' take this into consideration? It is necessary for humanity to achieve unity through plurality, to learn to come together in the one Church, even while presenting a plurality of ways of thinking and acting, of cultures and civilizations. Wouldn't such a way of looking at things be, in a certain sense, more consistent with the wisdom of God, with His goodness and providence?” (Crossing the Threshold of Hope, 153).

In addition, Miroslav Volf's approach to gifting is quite helpful. He suggests that Christians in community reflect the perichoretic relations of the Triune God as they serve one another in love with their unique gifts, affirming one another without subordination or homogenization (see: After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity). Perhaps this image could be applied to larger Christian traditions as they serve one another in Christ and cooperate at the regional and global level.

One final point needs to be mentioned. Each ecclesial tradition needs to examine what it identifies as its own gifting, realizing that all of the practices and teachings (often thought of as a unique heritage) within a given tradition may not be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yves Congar attributes some of these developments to social, political, and historical factors that do not always contribute positively to the cause of Christian unity and should not necessarily be retained (I Believe in the Holy Spirit, 2:203-204). A reunited Church could affirm the particular gifts of many Christian traditions, but invite such a critical self-examination in faithfulness to the vision of unity in Jesus' prayer in John 17. If the various Christian traditions can be assured that their own gifts and sense of vocation will contribute to the direction and well-being of a reunited Church then perhaps greater openness to the idea might ensue.