Home  |  About the NCC  |  Education  |  Justice  |  Public Witness  |  Unity  |  NCC News  |  Directory  |  Search  |  Make a Gift

Introduction to Ancient Faith and American-Born Churches
By Gilbert W. Stafford

Welcome to “Anywhere,” USA! One finds in “Anywhere” many traditions of the Christian faith. These traditions are, in many ways, widely divergent in their doctrinal emphases, in the ways they live out their faith, and in their corporate worship. At the Church of Christ, for example, one finds a cappella singing of four-part harmony songs, in a plain meeting house, and with a Bible-study sermon. At the Orthodox Church the atmosphere is very different with its brightly colored icons of Christ and the saints, with incense filling the air, and with two processions-the Little Entrance with the Bible, and the Great Entrance with the holy gifts for the Eucharist.

If we were to attend the services of the Pentecostal and the Presbyterian churches in “Anywhere,” we would find significant differences between them as well. In the first, one would very likely find exuberant singing accompanied with hand clapping and hands raising, maybe some tongues speaking, and spontaneous expressions both of joy and of concerns. In the Presbyterian Church, one would likely find a carefully ordered service with congregational responses already scripted for unison reading, a pastoral prayer with no spontaneous expressions from the congregation, and a sermon crafted as the centerpiece of the service.

Let us go to four additional churches in “Anywhere.” At the Roman Catholic Church the culmination of the service is the Eucharist with the whole congregation going forward to receive the holy sacrifice. However, at the Southern Baptist Church the culmination of the service is the altar call during which time persons are called to make a decision for Christ. At the non-programmed Friends Meeting, the congregants sit in silence until someone, moved by the Spirit, speaks. In fact, it might be that the greater part of the Meeting time is spent in silence. Not so at the Episcopal Church: there the whole service is full of words and actions. And if one wants to worship with the Seventh-day Adventist Church one must do it on Saturday.

The examples of other churches in “Anywhere,” of course, could be greatly expanded. In terms of external expressions, it is as though one is in a different world in each of these churches. In too many instances, the churches in “Anywhere” do, in fact, function as though they are in completely different worlds. And yet when one looks beyond the obvious differences one finds in all of them the one faith in Jesus the Christ as Savior and Lord. But how can the churches of this one Lord deal with their divisive issues? What kind of conversation will lead to mutual enrichment and the end of functioning as though the churches in “Anywhere” were in different religious worlds? The Faith and Order Movement is a worldwide movement to answer these questions.

In the 1910 World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh, Scotland, widely divergent churches and other missionary-sending agencies came together to consider how they could unite their witness around the world. The participants in the Edinburgh Conference were there as official representatives of their respective churches or agencies, and not merely because, as individuals, they had the desire to attend a missionary conference.

Near the end of the Conference, Bishop Charles H. Brent of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States-at that time, he was Bishop of the Philippine Islands-issued a challenge. He pled for the churches to convene in the future for the purpose of addressing not only missionary concerns but doctrinal concerns as well. That was the seed that eventually grew into what we now know as the Faith and Order Movement. Faith and Order has, from the beginning, been a forum where churches with very different histories, emphases, and traditions, come together for the purpose of dealing with church-dividing doctrinal issues. Participants trust that as they study divergent histories and confessional understandings, and as they write about and discuss them the Lord of the church will bring about a new tangible expression of the unity of the faith. The first World Conference on Faith and Order was held in Lausanne, Switzerland, in 1927, with subsequent conferences in Edinburgh (1937), Lund, Sweden (1952), Montreal, Canada (1963) and Santiago de Compostela (1993). Faith and Order work particularly for churches in the United States and Canada began in 1957 with a meeting on September 3-19 of that year, in Oberlin, Ohio.

Since 1957 churches associated with the World Council of Churches and with the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, as well as churches associated with neither, have come to the Faith and Order table for discussion. The Church of God (Anderson, Indiana), which I represent, has participated in Faith and Order from Oberlin onwards, even though it is a member of neither council of churches.

Over the years, this North American contingent of the Faith and Order movement has included conversation partners from a wide variety of Christian traditions. The traditions represented include both the ancient ones such as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox, and younger ones such as Pentecostal and Adventist. At the table are churches of both the magisterial Reformation as well as of the radical Reformation. It includes a spectrum of churches with historical connections to England: Episcopal, Methodist, and Quakers. While most of the traditions were born in the European context, others were born in the American context, e.g., Disciples, Churches of Christ, Assembly of God, and Seventh-day Adventist. Over the course of years, one finds traditions as divergent as the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Southern Baptist, and the United Church of Christ. Here one finds both the historic Black churches and the historic Peace churches. Or, to look at the diversity another way, participants represent generic groupings of Christians: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, Wesleyan, Holiness, Evangelical, Pentecostal, Restorationist, and Adventist.

One of the many learning opportunities in Faith and Order is how to talk with each other about differing traditions of “like precious faith.” It is the opportunity for the national entities related to the local churches in “Anywhere” to enter into each other’s world. The environment is provided for seeing others not as enemies of the faith but as friends in the faith “once for all delivered to the saints.” As friends they learn to help each other explore those treasures of the faith, which, heretofore, had been despised, ignored, or overlooked.

A few years ago the ecclesiology study group of Faith and Order, of which I am a part, began asking itself an important question. Were we being intentional enough about focusing our conversational skills on the issues and perspectives brought to the table by churches that relate differently to the two councils of churches? As indicated above, some churches are either members of the councils, or, if not members, at least involved at the highest levels of official conversations. Other churches are not members of the council due to official church policy and religious priorities. In light of these two different kinds of relationships that the churches at the table have to the councils, we decided to devise a way whereby representatives of both kinds of churches could participate on an equal footing in the conversation. We did not want to have meetings at which some mainly listen while others talk. We did not want a church’s official relationship to the councils to determine whether it was an insider or an outsider to the conversation at the table. In order to accomplish this, we chose the pairings, the methodology, and the topics. This book is a product of those conversations.

First, let us consider the pairings. The differences we attempted to engage are multivalent. Seen from one set of coordinates we have here pairings which consist of a study group member who comes from a church tradition that, on the whole, distances itself from the World and National councils of churches (indicated below with a minus mark), and another member who comes from a church tradition that is closely associated with them, either by membership or by ecclesiastical association (indicated by a plus). With that general guideline, the pairings included Church of God (Anderson) (-) and Roman Catholic (+); Church of God (Anderson) (-) and Orthodox Church in America (+); Churches of Christ (-) and Roman Catholic (+); Southern Baptist (-) and Roman Catholic (+); Seventh-day Adventist (-) and Episcopal (+); Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (-), United Church of Christ (+) and Roman Catholic (+); and Churches of Christ (-) and Orthodox Church in America (+). Over the course of the four years during which these conversations took place they were enriched also by persons representing the Assemblies of God (-) and the Christian Reformed Church (-), neither of which holds membership in the councils.

Another dimension of the pairings was discussion between a church rooted in pre-American experience-the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and a church originated as well as rooted in the American experience-the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). The same dynamic of differences apply in the pairings and triads listed above. Roman Catholic (pre-American origin) and Church of God (Anderson) (American origin); Orthodox Church in America (pre-American origin) and Church of God (Anderson) (American origin); Roman Catholic (pre-American origin) and Churches of Christ (American origin); Roman Catholic (pre-American origin) and Southern Baptist (American origin); Episcopal (pre-American origin) and Seventh-day Adventist (American origin).

Of course, all the churches in the US religious landscape have been distinctively shaped by historical development within the US. Two triads demonstrate something of the ways that churches with pre-American roots are at the same time distinctively shaped by their historical experiences and development in the US: Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, United Church of Christ and Roman Catholic; and United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church - USA and the Friends General Conference.

Finally, a last dynamic of difference that we engaged in our pairings and triads was difference in theological style and intellectual accessibility among the churches in dialogue. Some of the churches in our study, often, but not always, those with the closest connections to the past, have highly articulated and carefully monitored written doctrinal systems. Other communities function much more as oral traditions, with shared understandings and insights, well known to those within the community, but hard to document and explain to outsiders. We hope that the record presented here of our interactions can serve as a resource for others seeking mutual understanding across these differences in community style.

Now let us say a word about the methodology. John T. Ford, CSC proposed, and we accepted, the following plan. Each member of the pairings would set forth the position of his or her tradition on the assigned subject. This was not necessarily to be the author’s own personal position but the historic position of the tradition being represented. Writers were encouraged to state the position as succinctly as possible and then to address what this might mean to those outside the circle of Christian faith, and what ramifications it has for other Christian traditions.

Each member of the pairings, then, would submit his or her paper to the other member(s) of the pairing (or triad). A response was to be written under three headings. The first is resonance. What did each find in the other’s paper with which one, out of his or her own tradition, could readily affirm? To what in the other tradition(s) does one’s own tradition say Amen? The object is to identify areas of commonality, similarities, and points of convergence, if not in terms of the language used, at least in terms of the general emphasis.

The second heading is dissonance. What does each find that is contrary to his or her tradition’s understanding of the faith? Under this heading the respondent was to deal with issues with which he or she, though understanding the position taken, disagrees. This is where one tradition says to another: “We think that you are off track with this perspective.” The assumption here is that in order for ecumenical dialogue to be beneficial it always must be honest. The commitment is to bring differences out into the open so that they can be discussed, not swept under the rug of bland congeniality.

The third heading is non-sonance, non-sense. This is the part of the other’s presentation that one finds nonsensical. This part of the other’s presentation is like listening to a language that one does not know; it is like hearing a discourse from a discipline which vocabulary one has never studied. Non-sonance, non-sense may be due to not knowing the vocabulary itself. Or, it may be because one is not acquainted with the basic assumptions for what is being said, or one is not familiar with the theological environment in which the language is used. Consequently, it is an “unknown tongue” that needs to be interpreted.

Having read each other’s original and response papers, the members of each pairing or triad came to the meeting of the whole study group prepared to talk face to face about issues raised in the written work. After the authors of the papers clarified issues, raised new questions, and received interpretations for that which was not clear, the whole study group, then, entered into the discussion. One of the values of this approach was that the whole group had the benefit of a focused discussion that was already in process, into which they, then, could enter.

Third, are the topics-we chose the following: the nature of the church’s holiness, the reconciling nature of worship, apostolicity, and the role of creeds and confessions in the life of the church. Additional topics were Christian initiation, ecclesiastical authority, mission and eschatology, the authority and function of Scripture, and the nature of Christian unity. We chose the pairings and the topics progressively through our four years of biennial meetings. We did it this way so that we could take into account issues that emerged in the course of our work together. “Where to from here?” was the question at every meeting. “What needs to be addressed next? And who among us represents significantly different approaches to the subject?”

What, then, are the values of conversations of this sort?

First, they are mutually enriching not only for the persons directly involved but also indirectly for the traditions they represent. Each tradition has the opportunity:

to affirm common emphases with others of “like precious faith,”

to ask probing questions about matters of disagreement, and

to receive the interpretation of “unknown tongues.”

Those professors of the history of Christianity and of theology who are involved in Faith and Order discussions, then, are apt to be in a better position to interpret more accurately other Christian traditions to their students, to the congregations where they preach, and to the readers of their books and articles. Eventually, in the normal cycle of church life, these informed discussions could have a positive impact on the churches in “Anywhere.”

Churches in every venue too often live in theological isolation. Isolation leads to misunderstanding, and misunderstanding breeds contempt. The mutual enrichment at the Faith and Order table is not only for the benefit of the persons directly involved but is a metaphor of the kind of mutual enrichment that can take place among the churches in “Anywhere.” It is the hope of those involved in this project that, in fact, that will be the case. This book is not, therefore, simply a report about what several of us have done; it is the issuance of an invitation for the churches in every venue of their existence together to enter into focused conversations something like these. We issue this invitation because we are firmly convinced that enrichment awaits those churches in whatever venue-congregational or denominational-that will invest themselves in such conversations.

Second, these focused discussions provide the opportunity for questions to be raised by outsiders about issues that insiders are to close to in order to see. When given the liberty to do so, outsiders can ask questions that insiders find uncomfortable. Each tradition needs to be stretched by such inquiries instead of spending all of its energy dealing only with the comfortable questions from inside the ranks. Having to deal with the uncomfortable questions posed by outsiders sharpens our understanding of our own tradition in God’s economy. It is the environment in which we become aware of those dimensions of our particular faith community that need further reflection. In some instances we may find that we are called to a deepening of our understandings by thinking more carefully about those dimensions of our tradition that, while precious, are held with theological naiveté. In other instances, we may be called to the broadening of our understandings to include dimensions to which traditionally we have given little or no attention. In still others, we may be called to the revision of our understandings in light of perspectives from the wider church that make our traditionally held positions untenable.

Third, these focused discussions provide an opportunity for the surprising work of the Holy Spirit. We may find the Holy Spirit giving us new paradigms: paradigms for the way we think about certain issues of the faith, new paradigms for how we go about being church, and new paradigms for how each of our traditions can relate to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. I think that it is correct that for most, if not all, of the participants in Faith and Order new appreciation is gained for the multiple ways there are for being church. Perhaps one of the first steps toward reconciliation between the churches is the realization that in the economy of God there is much variegation in the texture of our church life. And, furthermore, it is important to realize that to the extent that this rich texture manifests the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, it is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Fourth, this exercise introduces participants to new vocabulary in the lexicon of the wider church. Words, phrases, and concepts that each tradition uses without definition or explanation when conversing in-house, often need both definition and explanation when used in the broader church. The point is not that all traditions should use all the language of others. The point is that the unique vocabulary of each tradition opens windows on the richness of the Christian faith. Words, phrases, and concepts symbolize the reflective life of other traditions in their respective understandings of the “faith once for all delivered to the saints.”

Fifth, sitting at the table of discourse brings with it a mystical experience of the oneness of the body of Christ. At the table for this particular discourse were representatives from Catholic, Orthodox, liberal Protestant and conservative Protestant churches. Both the more liberal Lutherans and the more conservative Lutherans were represented. Both Holiness and Pentecostal churches were present. Representatives from both ends of the spectrum of the Restorationist Movement-the a cappella Churches of Christ and the Disciples-were sitting side by side affirming a common heritage. The range of sacramental theologies were there, from the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican understandings to the Quaker understanding, and in between were Protestants whose theology on the subject, while not Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican, nevertheless uses sacramental language, as well as those who avoid sacramental language, preferring ordinance language. Also a range of spiritual pieties characterized the group. In addition, the positions on church governance and polity ranged from the hierarchical to the strictly egalitarian. However, as we sat at the table of discourse, even with all of these differences and many more, we functioned on the assumption that this was the discourse of brothers and sisters who have the same Lord. We prayed with each other and for each other. When one shared a hurt it was in the atmosphere of sharing it with the fellowship of Christ gathered at that table. Though we live and work in different ecclesial communities we experienced the mystical body of Christ that is more comprehensive than the ecclesial demarcations of any one of our several traditions.

Sixth, it is the hope that this Faith and Order exercise will encourage the churches in “Anywhere” to do the same kind of thing, will give confidence to church traditions that, up to this point, are not involved at the national level in such dialogues, to do so, will prompt state, regional, and local groupings of churches to devise plans whereby they can have focused discussions about theological and doctrinal issues, and will serve as an example of at least one way it can be done.

Seventh, this kind of dialogue dispels the misconception circulated in some quarters that the ecumenical movement is about finding the lowest common denominator for Christian understandings of the faith. Faith and Order is not about watered down doctrine and theology. It is about robust doctrine and theology. It is not about easy solutions to thorny issues. It is not about sweeping differences under the rug. It is about living with those differences, respecting them, and seeking to find what “the Spirit says to the churches” (e.g., the traditions) so that we may hear more fully what the Spirit is saying both to each tradition and to the whole church.

Eighth, we are reminded that when we are in settings like this, our role is not that of espousing our own personal theologies. Our role is to enunciate our best understanding of our respective traditions. Such dialogues are not about personal positions but about the dogmatic, doctrinal, confessional, and theological understandings of various church traditions. It is about their respective histories and operational modes. That raises the level of the dialogue. It is as though in one room, whole traditions themselves come together to converse about the faith. Whole traditions with thousands of years of history sit with whole traditions that are in the hundreds range. Whole traditions rooted in the European context converse with whole traditions rooted in the American context. The person across the table from me, for example, is not simply a person with a personal name. Yes, that to be sure! But that person is the embodiment of a whole tradition. I expect him or her to represent that tradition to me. In this context it is not what he or she thinks that is of greatest interest to me, but what his or her tradition thinks.

Ninth, this exercise reminds us of a crucial guideline for all discourse of this type. We are to seek understanding of another tradition in light of its most recent reflective work and on the basis of its best and most official thinking. Each of our traditions has poor exponents who espouse distorted self-understandings. It is unfortunate whenever we look at another tradition in its poorest light instead of its best.

This raises the issue of the credibility of the spokespersons for a tradition. Is he or she well informed about the tradition? Does the tradition itself place its stamp of approval on him or her as one who is capable of speaking intelligently, accurately, and appreciatively of the tradition? Such credentials are given in a wide variety of ways in the respective traditions. In some traditions it is by denominational appointment; the initiative is taken by the denomination itself. In others it is by denominational consent. A professor, for example, desires to be part of Faith and Order and receives denominational consent to serve. In this case the person takes the initiative. In others it is by approval from or at the request of a representative entity (e.g. a college, a learned society, a religious community) of the tradition. An individual may see the importance of such dialogue but no denominational structure exists to facilitate it and so the person appeals to a college, for example, to approve participation. Or new or additional voices from a tradition would be useful for the overall dialogue processes of Faith and Order and an appropriate institute or society is willing to contribute to the work of Faith and Order, serving as a formal sending body in an accountability structure similar to that used by the denominations.

Faith and Order itself, in the last analysis, however, must monitor who participates in order to make sure that, in its view, the participants do meet the criteria set forth above. In other venues for such discussions, the same kind of monitoring has to be maintained if, indeed, the dialogue is to function at its optimal level.

And finally, such conversations as this book reports is one sign that our Lord’s prayer, “that they may all be one,” is being answered to the end “that the world may believe that you have sent me.” They are a response to the Pauline injunction to bear with one another in love, “making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:2-3). In a world that so obviously stands in need of the reconciling love of God, the church is called to new endeavors that show this kind of love in the way our many traditions relate to each other. What we do at our tables of discussion influence what we do at our tables of communion. And what we do at our tables of communion influences the world either for the good of the Kingdom, or as a detriment.