Freedom in Community
I picked up last night the copy of a new book by Michael Kinnamon (General Secretary of the National Council of Churches) and Jan Linn (Pastor of Spirit of Joy Christian Church). Both are Disciples pastors. Both have taught at seminaries. Michael Kinnamon stood for General Minister and President of the Disciples about 20 years ago and was denied that tenure when he didn't receive the necessary super-majority. I respect both men and value their thoughts -- this is especially true of Michael Kinnamon.
The book that they've written is entitled Disciples: Reclaiming Our Identity, Reforming Our Practice (Chalice Press, 2009). I will be writing a more formal review later, but I can see that the book will elicit commentary along the way, for the purpose of the book is to call forth from my denomination a decision to move toward reform and renewal by reclaiming our identity.
In chapter two, which clearly has been written by Kinnamon, the authors explore the concept of covenant, a concept that is at least in principle holds our community together. We have no creeds and no effective hierarchy -- General and Regional manifestations/expressions are seen as equals to Congregations. But, as the authors point out we've not done well at living out this principle, in large part because a strong sense of individualism has taken hold of our community. Indeed, it has been with us from our very founding some 200 years ago. I'll talk more about covenant in a later post, but I thought I'd first lift up the issue of freedom, a principle that stands at the heart of who we are as a people. That shouldn't be surprising since we were born on the then American frontier shortly after the founding of the American Republic.
Standing at the center of this movement is a commitment to let the people of God read, interpret, and apply the Scriptures for themselves. They quote from Thomas Campbell's Declaration and Address (1809), which states: "Resume that precious, that dear bought, liberty wherewith Christ has made his people free; a liberty from subjection to any authority but his own, in matters of religion" (p. 9). We take this seriously. No one can tell me how to read and interpret this text! But is this true to the faith or an expression of American individualism? Is their no check on my liberties? Should I read and live the text in the context of community?
The Founders imbibed a heady sense of biblical clarity -- believing that the principles of Scripture were self-evident (think Declaration of Independence here). But are the principles of Christian faith self-evident? Kinnamon points to an early issue that vexed our movement, as it did others, that being slavery. Alexander Campbell opposed slavery, but while believing it "inexpedient," did not believe it contrary to Scripture -- at least Scripture doesn't seem to have rejected it outright -- so he did not make an issue of it. Kinnamon responds:
Today we might well ask: Can community be authentic if its unity is preserved at the price of prophetic witness? Shouldn't the church have ways of speaking with authority on so momentous a matter? Doesn't the church community have a proper role in guiding the individual conscience? (p. 11)
We have been struggling as a denomination with this very question since the 1960s when we went through what we call restructure. The issue before us is how to find a way to wrestle with Scripture, allow for diversity and dissent, and yet speak with a clear and coherent voice. The authors conclude that our freedom must be wrapped in a sense of accountability -- one derived from covenant. But more on that later.
The book that they've written is entitled Disciples: Reclaiming Our Identity, Reforming Our Practice (Chalice Press, 2009). I will be writing a more formal review later, but I can see that the book will elicit commentary along the way, for the purpose of the book is to call forth from my denomination a decision to move toward reform and renewal by reclaiming our identity.
In chapter two, which clearly has been written by Kinnamon, the authors explore the concept of covenant, a concept that is at least in principle holds our community together. We have no creeds and no effective hierarchy -- General and Regional manifestations/expressions are seen as equals to Congregations. But, as the authors point out we've not done well at living out this principle, in large part because a strong sense of individualism has taken hold of our community. Indeed, it has been with us from our very founding some 200 years ago. I'll talk more about covenant in a later post, but I thought I'd first lift up the issue of freedom, a principle that stands at the heart of who we are as a people. That shouldn't be surprising since we were born on the then American frontier shortly after the founding of the American Republic.
Standing at the center of this movement is a commitment to let the people of God read, interpret, and apply the Scriptures for themselves. They quote from Thomas Campbell's Declaration and Address (1809), which states: "Resume that precious, that dear bought, liberty wherewith Christ has made his people free; a liberty from subjection to any authority but his own, in matters of religion" (p. 9). We take this seriously. No one can tell me how to read and interpret this text! But is this true to the faith or an expression of American individualism? Is their no check on my liberties? Should I read and live the text in the context of community?
The Founders imbibed a heady sense of biblical clarity -- believing that the principles of Scripture were self-evident (think Declaration of Independence here). But are the principles of Christian faith self-evident? Kinnamon points to an early issue that vexed our movement, as it did others, that being slavery. Alexander Campbell opposed slavery, but while believing it "inexpedient," did not believe it contrary to Scripture -- at least Scripture doesn't seem to have rejected it outright -- so he did not make an issue of it. Kinnamon responds:
Today we might well ask: Can community be authentic if its unity is preserved at the price of prophetic witness? Shouldn't the church have ways of speaking with authority on so momentous a matter? Doesn't the church community have a proper role in guiding the individual conscience? (p. 11)
We have been struggling as a denomination with this very question since the 1960s when we went through what we call restructure. The issue before us is how to find a way to wrestle with Scripture, allow for diversity and dissent, and yet speak with a clear and coherent voice. The authors conclude that our freedom must be wrapped in a sense of accountability -- one derived from covenant. But more on that later.
Comments
A quick reaction came to mind as I read your entry: God granted us free will as a gift of grace in the very act of creation. In Christ we were set free from the Law (a Hebraic Creed?). In both cases there is an inescapable component of accountability - consequences flow from the choices we make, but nevertheless our choice to "abide" with God and to abide in Christ remains our choice - along with the consequences of that choice. God is not about coercive compliance, nor is God about coerced love - but about love and worship freely given in response to the love which God first gave to us.
So as Disciples we engage God, through Christ, by choice and without the constraint of an enforced creed - as an expression of the free will gifted to us. That our denomination would not compel compliance with a creed is entirely consistent with, if not an expression of, the very Grace which God has bestowed upon us and reaffirmed from the cross.
While organizationally we struggle with the details, it seems to me we are on a biblically sound trajectory.
John