An Ecumenical Prayer for the Local Church

I came across the following ecumenical pryer for the local church in David du Plessis' book The Spirit Bade Me Go (pgs. 177-178). The prayer was originally published by the World Council of Churches and drafted by the Commission on Faith and Order for the week of prayer for Christian unity in 1960. The theme for the prayer is the unity of the local congregation in the unity of the universal Church based on 1 Corinthians 12:27-28. This prayer is very unique. I found it quite interesting.

My congregation is a manifestation of the universal Church in this place.
My congregation is a diversity of different members with different spiritual gifts.
My congregation is is a unity in which this diversity is bound together in an organic whole for the common good.
My congregation is an ecumenical microcosm which in its unified diversity shows forth the essential oneness of the Church of Christ and identifies it with "all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," whether in the congregation around the corner or at the ends of the earth.

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.

How Christians Refer to Each Other Matters

Recently, the Wooster City Chamber of Congress sponsored a religions roundtable as part of their yearlong leadership Wooster program. This event invited participants from seven religious traditions (Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Mennonite, Nazarene, Mormon, and Unitarian Universalist) to present their faiths to leaders from local businesses. Each presentation lasted twenty minutes, providing an overview of the history, beliefs, practices, and local expressions of these religious traditions.

I was able to attend this roundtable as a presenter for the Mennonite tradition. It was an incredible experience as I was able to learn from and interact with a wide range of leaders in the community. They had many questions and insights about the Mennonites. I tried my best to answer and respond to them (not being raised as a Mennonite did not help in this regard).

Looking back on the whole experience, which lasted about four hours, I am struck by two details: first, the incredible respect shown by the participants for their neighbors of different faiths and second, the use of the term “religion” by many for describing the various Christian and non-Christian traditions. Most of the participants in the program were affiliated with a Christian church. When referring to Islam or Judaism they often spoke of them as other “religions.” This made perfect sense to me. What caught me off guard was when they described the different Christian traditions (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox) as different religions. From my perspective, they are different expressions of the same religion: Christianity. I made this point several times during my presentations. It resonated more with some participants more than others.

During the presentations, many of the participants seemed to appreciate the language of traditions, expressions, forms, and streams of Christianity. Some however preferred to use the term “religion” for the different Christian groups and one person even mentioned the term “sect.” As I mentioned earlier, all terms were used with the utmost respect so there was no sense that anyone was berating the various churches. Aside from the enjoyment of dialoguing with so many interesting people, I left the roundtable event with one question in mind: how can I effectively share with others a vision for the common foundations that many churches share in the scriptures and the ancient creeds without sounding dismissive of their significant differences?

Whatever the answer may be to this question I do believe that the way Christians refer to each other matters. Paul reminds us that we need to make “every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” because “there is one body and one Spirit…one hope…one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:3-6). Perhaps, if we can recognize these powerful foundations of our faith in Christians of other traditions we will begin to think of them as part of our broader family and as part of one Christian religion.

Discovering the Limits of My Ecumenical Horizon

In the United States, it is not uncommon for Christians from many different traditions and backgrounds to have regular contact with one another (e.g., in the workplace, through parachurch organizations, and other partnerships). Through such meetings Christians can be inspired by the insights and practices of their fellow believers. Unfortunately, these meetings can also be discouraging when the two parties misunderstand or even dispute with one another.

Many of us have experienced both the joy and disappointment of inter-Christian encounters. On the best of days, we are able to seek out common ground with our brothers and sisters in Christ, focusing on the positive elements of our churches. One bad days, we may find ourselves on the defensive or feeling judged for our particular Christian backgrounds. It is in these moments, both good and bad, that we need to remember the limits of our ecumenical horizons.

Personally, I would like to bring the different theological convictions of my fellow Christians into one coherent story. I would love to unite the beauty of Orthodox worship, the unity of Catholicism, the love for scripture in the Lutheran, Reformed, and Wesleyan traditions, the life in the Spirit of Pentecostals and charismatics, and the desire for peace in Anabaptism. I long to bring these wonderful gifts together, but I cannot. It is hard enough for me to hold them together in my own ecumenical vision let alone for others. It is only in the fullness of God’s wisdom and timing that all of His people will be one flock again. I do not know the day or the hour of this, nonetheless I must live in hopeful expectation of it and prepare for it.

Through discovering the limits of my ecumenical horizon, I learn valuable lessons about trust and obedience. I am invited to renew my belief in Christ’s prayer for His followers “that they may all be one” (John 17:21). Christ’s prayer will come to fulfillment one day! In addition, I am called to rediscover the little things that I can do “with great love” (as Mother Teresa would say) in service of the unity of God’s people. Though I am limited, God is more than able to use the small contributions of His followers for His greater purposes. This is particularly true when we line ourselves up with His loving vision for the Church and the world.

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.