Acts 16: 16–34; Psalm 97; Revelation
22: 12–14, 16–17, 20–21; 17: 20–26
The following is a homily by Fr.
Gene Tucker, prepared for St. John’s Church, in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania on Sunday,
May 8, 2016.
“ONE-NESS IN
THE BODY OF CHRIST”
(Homily text: John 17: 20–26)
(Introductory
remark: This Sunday morning, no formal
homily or sermon will be delivered. Instead, we will have an informal time of
questions/comments and responses called “Stump the Priest”. Accordingly, this
written version of a commentary on our Gospel text for this morning is
provided. It will also be posted on the sermon blog.)
In this morning’s
gospel reading, we hear Jesus’ words: “I ask not only on behalf of these (the
original disciples), but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through
their word, that they may all be one.”
Biblical scholars
usually entitle the entire seventeenth chapter of John’s gospel account as
Jesus’ “High Priestly Prayer”.
In this marvelous
prayer, Jesus prays that His disciples, both those who had gathered around the
Last Supper meal (the setting of chapters thirteen through seventeen in John’s
account), and those who would come to believe through their word, would be one,
completely one.
As we look back over our
shoulders at the history of the Church, we would do well to reflect on this
deeply held desire that our Lord has for His disciples in all ages.
We might begin our
historical retrospective in the early Church itself, and we might ask ourselves
the question, “Was the early Church every truly united, truly one?”
Where the very early
Church is concerned, the answers seem to fall into two categories: 1. Yes, the early Church was truly united in common witness to Jesus’
resurrection and to His work of redemption, and 2. No, the early Church wasn’t
truly united, for wide varieties of organization and emphasis seemed to exist
from one church to another.
Let’s explore this
just a bit.
With regard to the
unity of the Church’s common witness to the Lord’s victory over death and His
sinless life, the early Church was truly united. Saints Peter and Paul seem to move from one
community of believers to another, even to ones that they themselves had not
founded (an example is Paul’s tenure among the early churches in Rome, which he
did not found).
And yet, the New
Testament itself bears witness to a wide variety of theological emphases, to
differing methods of organization and governance, and other facets of their
common life. The late Roman Catholic
priest and New Testament scholar, Raymond Brown, wrote a book which explores
this aspect of church history in depth. Entitled “The Churches the Apostles
Left Behind”, it is Brown’s contention that no less than seven differing types
of churches could be found during the New Testament period.[1]
A brief summary of some of his finding include:
- Matthew’s
community: There seems to be no
discernible leadership and no distinguishing clergy among the early
congregation(s) to whom Matthew addressed his gospel account. Apparently,
Brown maintains, decisions concerning issues that were to come before the
congregation were decided by the entire body of Christ (see Matthew 18: 15
– 20).
- The
communities in which the Beloved Disciple (traditionally, this is John)
seem to stress a personal, one-on-one relationship between the believer
and the Lord. Each believer is responsible for his/her own relationship.
- St.
Paul’s letters to Timothy and to Titus stress the importance of bishops as
guarantors of the Church’s unity and the guardians of proper teaching.[2]
These
are but three of the examples that Brown draws from his analysis of the New
Testament’s witness.
The yearning for
Church unity is strong. In the wake of the disruptions to the Body of Christ in
the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches in the year 1054 AD, and in
the further divisions within the Western Church during the time of the
Reformation in the sixteenth century, in recent times various proposals for
Church unity have been advanced. Let’s explore these briefly:
- The Chicago-Lambeth
Quadrilateral: The idea of uniting with other Christian
bodies has long been on the minds of the Episcopal Church, and of the
Anglican Communion as a whole. In 1886, the House of Bishops of the
Episcopal Church adopted the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. This document
was adopted at the worldwide meeting of the Bishops of the Anglican
Communion, meeting at Lambeth, two years later, in 1888. The text of this
document can be found at the back of the Book of Common Prayer, 1979, in
the Historical Documents section at page 876. These four conditions for
church unity were advanced: 1. That
the Church ought to be one, in recognition of our Lord’s deep desire; 2.
That all baptized persons are members of the Church; 3. That our own modes of worship and
organization are of human ordering, and so are of secondary importance in
the quest for Church unity; and 4. That Episcopalians and Anglicans do not
desire to absorb other Christian bodies, but rather to work with other
Christians toward unity. This document set forth the importance of Holy
Scripture as the basis for belief, of the Nicene Creed as the sufficient
statement of faith, of the two Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion as
essentials, and of the necessity of the historic Episcopate, locally
adapted to usage as desired.
- The Consultation on Church Union (COCU): About fifty or so years ago, proposals to organically unify various Christian denominations were advanced. Our own Episcopal church was part of these discussions, which were originally called the “Consultation on Church Union”.[3]. The impetus for these ideas began in 1948, and were codified in a draft document that was adopted in 1970. Eventually, the plans for a Protestant “Super Church” failed to come to fruition. Subsequently, greater emphasis was put on the idea of “intercommunion” between various churches. (It is interesting to note that many of the points of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral were tenets of the proposed unification of the various denominations.) On the other side of the ecclesiastical divide, the Roman Catholic Church, during the Second Vatican Council (which met from 1962 to 1965), also adopted a more favorable stance toward other Christian bodies.
- Ecumenical movements of The Episcopal Church: In recent years, the Episcopal Church has entered into agreements with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), and subsequently, with the Moravian Church. Work has also continued on agreements with the United Methodist Church and with the Presbyterian Church in the USA.
Prior to the arrival
of the ecumenical movement, churches were very much divided in their common
witness to the Lord. Various denominations would issue statements condemning
other members of the Body of Christ. As an example, in 1896, Pope Leo issued a
Papal Bull declaring Anglican ordinations to be invalid. Christians of
differing communities tended to stay in their own orbits, and had
little-to-nothing to do with one another. Some notable exceptions existed here
and there: For example, during the
Yellow Fever which took place in Memphis, Tennessee in 1878, Roman Catholic
priests tended to those who’d contracted the disease alongside Episcopal
priests and nuns.
Yet today, there are
still divisions within the Christian family. One thinks of prohibitions against
receiving Communion that some Christians still maintain against other
Christians as one example. And on occasions that are rarer than they used to be
(although not as rare as they ought to be), one Christian group or another will
make disparaging remarks about other Christians.
What are we to make of
the divides which still exist within Christianity?
Some aspects of our
current situation are disturbing. For example, closed Communion practices do
little to enhance a common bond among Christians, although – with increasing
frequency, members of a Church that practices closed Communion and which
encourages its members not to receive the Sacrament in other Churches routinely
receive the Sacrament in spite of their denomination’s pronouncements.
And to the world
around us which looks upon the Church and upon organized religion in general
with disinterest or even disdain, condemnations of one group by another do
little to bring credit to the Lord we all claim to be following. Wouldn’t be
far better to say something like, “Our perspective in these matters is
different.”?
One can continue to
pray that closed Communion practices will – one day – be a thing of the past.
We can also continue to pray that condemnatory statements by one Christian group
against another will also cease to be heard.
What might we hope
for, in terms of unity within the Body of Christ? My own personal short list
would include the following:
- A celebration of the good
aspects of other Christians: We can learn so
much from observing other Churches and their practices. Each one has
strengths that we might lack. Each one does things that they might do
better than we do. What is true of one part of the Body of Christ is also
true of all the others. We can learn from one another.
- Unity of purpose:
If the various parts of the Christian family cannot be physically united
(and I do not believe that they can be, at least in the near term), then
we can return to the pattern that existed in the New Testament Churches:
We – like they – can be united in common witness to the risen Christ, and
to the advancement of the mission of introducing the world to Christ and
Christ to the world. This way of being the Church in those early years
worked quite well, and it can work quite well for us, as well, for we,
today, find ourselves in much the same circumstances that the New
Testament Church found itself in in terms of the society that existed
then, and which exists in very similar ways, now.
- Offer the gifts that a unique
identity carries: Here we come back to the
principles that were articulated in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of
which we spoke a short time ago. At the time this document was adopted,
Anglicans offered to share with the wider Christian world the strengths
and unique gifts that they possessed: 1. An adherence to Holy Scripture as the basis for correct belief; 2.
The historic Episcopate of Bishops who are in the Historic Succession as
the ideal way of organizing and governing the Church; 3. The necessity of
just two Sacraments, Baptism and Eucharist, as the basis for Christian
life, and 4. Our willingness to set aside our own preferences in terms of
worship styles and practices for the purpose of advancing better unity
within the Body of Christ.
Perhaps unity in
common witness to the Lord is the best solution, for we have seen in Church
history the sad results of having but one unified body with one regulatory
mechanism. Here I am thinking of the situation that existed in the years
immediately preceding the Reformation. Checks and balances against unacceptable
beliefs and practices can be better dealt with if there is room for discussion
and even dissent. (Of course, the opposite is also true: The divisions within
Christianity often make it difficult to come to a common consensus when
difficulties or challenges are encountered.)
In all these things,
our Lord’s prayer that we might be “one, completely one” must never be lost to
our sight. The world around us is watching, sometimes with disdain, sometimes
with active disagreement or even dislike. As the world watches, if we
Christians are united in common witness to the Lord who calls us into
fellowship with Him, then our witness to the Lord will be strengthened.
May this ever be so.
[1] In a very real sense, Brown’s work is
radical, for it seems to advance the idea that the form of Church organization
and governance which is common to the Roman Catholic Church, that is, its
organization according to the principles St. Paul laid out in the so-called
Pastoral Epistles (I and II Timothy and Titus) by having Bishops as the head of
the Church, isn’t the only way to organize a Church. Brown goes further in his
work by suggesting that, by adopting and promulgating only one method of Church
organization, the overall welfare of the Church is undermined. Brown seems to
be advocating more flexibility in governing the Church.
[2] This is the model of Church organization and
governance which has been adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, Anglican
Churches, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, for example.
[3] A later name for this movement was Churches
Uniting in Christ (CUIC).
