Q: Why is it that some local congregations
do not take part in ecumenical services and their pastors do not participate
publicly in events which involve the clergy of other denominations?
Questions of church fellowship, such
as joint worship or communion participation can become especially sensitive in
small, closely-connected communities like those found in Kossuth County. For people in many congregations, refraining
from participation in joint worship might seem quite foreign, if not offensive,
and because of the strong ecumenical tendencies of many denominations over the
past two generations, many might wonder why others do not participate jointly
like their churches and pastors do.
Because Christianity was largely
united under one or two large communions for approximately its first 1500
years, it was not until after the Reformation that it became common for
Christians of different types to live in the same area, and therefore find
themselves in a position to struggle with this question.
The consensus at that time was that
it would be inappropriate for Christians of different types (Lutheran and
Reformed, Roman and Anabaptist, etc.) to engage jointly in worship or other
official acts until they had resolved their differences. This remained the consensus until a movement
arose in the United States in the 19th century which sought to focus
on the things Christians had in common and disregard the teachings on which
they disagreed.
Some might be familiar with the
saying, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” This approach has been popular among many
segments of Christianity, because the framework allows them to focus on the commonalities
while avoiding disagreement over differences.
While the idea, especially its inclination toward civility and tolerance,
is appealing, it also raises the question of what teachings constitute
essentials and who gets to decide.
So, for example, there are groups of
Christians who desire to affirm every doctrinal distinctive, and even some
things that are mere opinions, as essentials, and therefore insist on dividing,
even over the most intricate of minutia.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, others consider nothing essential
and place even the most foundational teachings of Christianity under the judgment
of the individual to understand as they deem appropriate.
Often, observers are under the
impression that pastors and congregations to decline to participate in joint
worship or other ecumenical activities do so out of a sense of superiority or
elitism—as if they believed their brand of Christians would be the only ones in
heaven, as I’ve often heard it described.
While there are occasionally instances where that is the case, they are
truly rare, and it is typically not true.
Most pastors I know who make the
decision not to participate do so out of a desire for clarity and because they
do not want to confuse observers or give the impression that doctrinal
differences are insignificant. They are
not typically seeking to defend their ideological purity or avoid defiling
themselves by contact with others, but rather to prevent misunderstandings
regarding the nature of the various churches’ positions.
I know many Christians who are very
passionate about a teaching they once believed wrongly, but later learned
otherwise, and as a result saw a transformation from despair to inexpressible
relief. For them, the concern that others
not undergo the same experience takes precedence over the impulse to
participate in joint worship with their neighbors.
For others, they desire so strongly
for all Christians to become truly unified (“of one mind” as Paul says in
Philippians 2:2) that they believe separation furthers that goal by giving an
incentive to discuss and resolve differences.
This would be comparable to the observation that it is healthier for
married couples to resolve their differences rather than merely overlook
them.
I know that in our area, a majority
of congregations, even those who do not participate ecumenically in public
worship, sustain beneficial connections to their broader communities, and that
most of their pastors engage in positive professional relationships with other
local clergy and even participate behind the scenes to achieve common goals and
satisfy charitable needs in the community—attempting contribute to the good of
the community in any way possible, yet without compromising their own
convictions.
No comments:
Post a Comment