A homily by Fr. Gene Tucker, given at Trinity Church, Mt. Vernon, Illinois on Sunday, May 12, 2013.
“UNITED IN WITNESS TO THE WORLD AND IN THE CAUSE OF CHRIST”
In this
morning’s gospel reading, we hear Jesus’ words, “I do not ask for these only,
but for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be
one, just as you and the Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be
in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (John 17:20–21)
Jesus’
prayer, which is now generally known as His “High Priestly Prayer,” encompasses
all of chapter seventeen of John’s gospel account. At the beginning of the chapter (verses one
through five), Jesus prays for Himself, as His “hour”, the time when He will
glorify the Father and will be glorified Himself, the time of His suffering and
death, approaches. Then, Jesus begins to
pray for those who have come to love and know Him, those who were His first
followers (verses six through nineteen).
Now, in the section we hear this morning, Jesus prays for all those who,
down through time, will make known the love of God that is in Christ, praying
that these subsequent disciples will also be united, be one, in Christ.
In its
setting in the gospel, we see that Jesus has been instructing His disciples
since the beginning of chapter fourteen.
Essentially, Jesus is laying out His “last will and testament” in these
three chapters. This prayer closes the
section, and is the final action that Jesus takes before going out from the
Last Supper into the Garden of Gethsemane to be betrayed, to suffer, die and be
raised again on the third day.
Christians
down through time have maintained a vision of unity within the body of
Christ. It is true that this vision has
been ignored, pretty much, at times, as parts of the body wrestle with one
another, or even stand diametrically opposed to one another. Alas, it is also true that, at times, parts
of the body of Christ have resorted to violence to pursue their ends and their
aims. That is a sad part of our history
as the Church, which is the body of Christ.
But, as one
of my seminary professors once said so wisely, “If we didn’t have the Church
that we have now, we would still need the Church. And the Church that would be created to fill
that need might very well look a whole lot like the Church we have now. So, it’s best for us to purify the Church
that we have, and to work for unity within the body, that we may bear witness
to God’s love, made known in Christ.”
In light of
Jesus’ words that we hear this morning, it might serve us well to take a
serious look at the matter of Church unity.
So, let’s pose to ourselves a number of questions and issues as we do
so:
But
it’s possible that, even in the very early years following Jesus’ death and
resurrection, that the Church was a varied, independently operating entity. The eminent New Testament scholar Raymond
Brown, writing in his book, “The Churches the Apostles Left Behind”, comes to
the conclusion that, in those early years, there were about seven different
kinds of Churches, each one possessing a unique theological outlook, and each
one exhibiting different forms of organization. These seemed to operate pretty
much independently of one another.
However, it’s also clear that they bore allegiance to Jesus Christ, and
seemed to recognize in each other the marks of genuine Christian faith.[1]
The
other reality of those times – and of every time – was that there were
challenges to orthodox Christian belief.
The letters in the New Testament contain many references to incorrect
belief or indecent behavior, or to the challenges that false prophets and false
teachers pose to the faithful.
Eventually,
organic unity did come about when the method of organization for the Church
came to be centered around the office of the bishop. Eventually, bishops came to govern an area,
in time known as a diocese. Once this
model of Church governance and oversight gained ascendency, other forms of
governing faded into the background. And
yet, even in the midst of this model of organization, where the Church was
united under the leadership of its bishops, there were varieties of worship styles
and theological emphases.[2]
But, a
top-down model of Church oversight and governance has its limitations, as we
shall see presently.
2. If
the Church isn’t organically united today, is this a poor witness to God?: In
the eyes of those who stand outside the body of Christ, the fact that there are
so many different Christian Churches is often regarded as some sort of a
scandal.
And
sometimes, it is a scandal.
When
there is division within a local Church (or even in the larger Church) over some
small, insignificant issue, and when the division results in separation, then
such a condition does, indeed, constitute a scandal in the eyes of the world
around us, and perhaps also in the eyes of God.
Oftentimes,
splits within congregations or between denominations result from arguments over
secondary issues, things that are known by the Greek word adiaphora. Adiaphorous
things are things that are non-essential.
We could cite some examples of these sorts of things, and our list might
include such issues as: how often will
we celebrate Communion, should women wear their hair in a distinctive style, should
we allow flowers or candles to be placed on the altar, should we use
traditional hymns, or should we sing contemporary songs, should we observe a
liturgical worship style, or adopt a more freestyle manner of worship. All of these things are secondary
issues. But sometimes, they become
central to a system of believing, just as central as Christian doctrines about
the person of Jesus Christ and His work of salvation. When this happens, our Christian values
system gets out-of-balance….we begin to regard secondary things as being
primary and essential.
When
just these sorts of disagreements take place, and when they are not peacefully
resolved in a spirit of Christian love, forbearance and forgiveness, then the
divisions that result are a poor witness to the unity for which Christ prayed.
3.
Can a lack of organic unity be a positive witness to Christ?: Here, I think, the answer is “yes.”
The
variety of expressions of Christian faith that can be found across the globe
arise in part – in my judgment – from the richness of teachings of Christ and
of the mind of God the Father. There is
so much there to learn and to know! No
wonder that parts of the body of Christ have mined the depths of these things,
and have come up with so many different results in terms of their expression of
the Christian faith.
Of course, we live in a world where, commercially, one brand of a product competes with others for market share and dominance. It is out of this culturally-conditioned view of things that differences between Churches can be seen in the light of each Church competing against others for market share and dominance. In all honesty, we have to admit that, at times in Christian history, that was the way of life within the body of Christ….Churches had little or nothing to do with one another, and oftentimes even denounced each other. As we said a little while ago, this, too, is part of our history, a sad part of our history.
But,
the good news is that, in our day and time, this spirit is dying away. Surely,
this must be the work of the Holy Spirit, as Christians are able to see in
other Christians the true marks of faith.
And those marks of faith would consist of the essentials of the
Christian faith, essentials that the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds
articulate. Holding to these essentials,
adiaphorous things are seen in their proper perspective.
Fewer and fewer Churches are
declaring that they are the “one, true Church”, or that they, alone possess
God’s truth. This development ought to
bring cheers of “Alleluia” to Christians’ prayers of thankfulness. A new day is dawning in the quest for unity
within the body of Christ.
So
the result is that Christians are becoming more and more united in purpose, to
work for the spread of the Gospel across the world and into every heart. Christians are united in purpose to alleviate
the suffering of the world, and to feed the hungry, provide water for the
thirsty, to welcome the stranger and to clothe those in need, and to visit
those in prison, as Jesus commanded us to do in Matthew 25:35–39.
The
results of this unity of purpose can be seen in cooperative ministries such as
homeless shelters, food banks, and the like.
The days in which a Church would set up a ministry that duplicates or
even competes with a similar ministry close by are fading away. In the place of this spirit of competition,
new cooperation is arising…one Church will support another Church’s ministry,
instead of duplicating it. As we said a
moment ago, thanks be to God for this new spirit that is gaining ground within
the Christian community.
Before we leave the question of unity in purpose, we ought to acknowledge the weaknesses that are inherent in a unified Church that has as its model of organization top-down leadership. Of course, students of Church history will readily recognize that that was the condition of the medieval Church. Alas, given the reality of human nature, such a model lacks the normal checks-and-balances that are necessary to deter misguided ideas, ideas which can be enforced using an authoritarian approach to differences of conviction. One blessing of the Church today, a Church which is, increasingly, becoming more and more united, though not in an organic sense, is that one part of the body of Christ can inform – and even dissent from – ideas and actions of another part of the body. Put more succinctly, one Church can learn from – and benefit from – the experiences of other Churches.
The
Anglican expression of Christianity possesses a unique identity, being composed
of a catholic strain, a protestant strain, and a charismatic[3]
strain. Our heritage is such that we
have drawn from a wide variety of sources within the Christian experience,
incorporating each of these sources into a unified whole. The Anglican heritage even possesses influences
of the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
So,
from our perspective, we can see the blessings and the worthwhile aspects of
other Christian traditions. One result
of this rich heritage is that we have never claimed to be the “one, true
Church”. Nor have we ever claimed to
have an exclusive lock on God’s truth.
Anglicans value differences of conviction (yes, I will admit, sometimes
this trait can be our Achilles Heel, too!), and we have always valued inquiry
into the truths of God, using the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the
capacities that come with being created in the image and likeness of God (see
Genesis 1:26), capacities to think, to wonder, and to discern.
Poised
as we are as Anglicans, our part of the Christian family proposed a blueprint
for Christian unity back in the late 1800s.
It was proposed by an American priest, and was adopted by our House of
Bishops in 1886. Two years later, the
Lambeth Conference,[4] meeting
in London, adopted this proposal, which is now known as the “Lambeth Quadrilateral”.[5] The text of this proposal can be found in the
back of the 1979 Prayer Book on page 877.
This Anglican proposal for Church unity reads like this:
That, in
the opinion of this Conference, the following Articles supply a basis on which
approach may be by God’s blessing made towards Home Reunion:[6]
a. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as “containing all things necessary to salvation,” and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.
b. The Apostles’ Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol, and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.
c. The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself – Baptism and the Supper of the Lord – ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.
d. The Historic Episcopate,[7] locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and people called of God until the Unity of His Church.
In summary
then, what we must pray for and work toward is unity within the body of Christ,
never losing the variety of conviction within the bounds of the Creeds, and
always respecting the richness of Christian expression. Above all, Christian love and mutual respect
for all who claim the Name of Christ faithfully must be the hallmark of our
lives and conduct. Then, the world around
us will be able to say of us what was said about the early Christians: “See how these Christians love one another!”
Even so,
dear Lord, may all this come to pass, by your guidance, power and grace. May your Church be united in common witness
to the love of the Father for the Son, and the love of the Son for all who have
come to Him in faith.
AMEN.
[3] The charismatic strain has to do with the
power and the work of the Holy Spirit in enlivening and guiding the Church.
[4] The Lambeth Conference draws together all the bishops of Anglican Churches across the world. Its first meeting took place in 1867. It meets, generally, once every ten years. The most recent meeting took place in 2008.
[5] Quadrilateral simply means “four points”.
[6] Home Reunion is a somewhat archaic term for Church unity.
[7] The Historic Episcopate refers to the presence of bishops who are in the Historic Succession stemming from the Apostles forward.
[1] Some scholars think that when Jesus said
that He had “other sheep that are not of this fold” (John 10:16), He was
referring to the time when the body of Christ would consist of various
Churches, some of which would differ from the one that John was a part of.
[2] An example of the varying worship styles can
be seen in the English Church, which had a distinctive identity and worship
style from its earliest years.[4] The Lambeth Conference draws together all the bishops of Anglican Churches across the world. Its first meeting took place in 1867. It meets, generally, once every ten years. The most recent meeting took place in 2008.
[5] Quadrilateral simply means “four points”.
[6] Home Reunion is a somewhat archaic term for Church unity.
[7] The Historic Episcopate refers to the presence of bishops who are in the Historic Succession stemming from the Apostles forward.
