The Disciples Plea for Christian Unity
This
Sunday I will be preaching on Christian unity. I am drawing from Psalm 133,
which declares “how good and pleasant it is when kindred live together in
unity.” This is one of my favorite passages. It has served as a foundation for
my own sense of call to ministry. I am an ordained minister in a denomination
that made the pursue of Christian unity its core message. Barton Stone called unity
his “polar star.” Thomas Campbell argued that the division of the churches was
a moral evil (Declaration and Address).
As I
have been thinking on this question, which emerges from the sermon preparation,
but also my invitation to join the Council of Christian Unity board (the CCU is
the Disciples ecumenical arm), I have been looking at the work of Edgar DeWitt Jones
(founding pastor of Central Woodward Christian Church and a noted ecumenical
leader, having served as President of the Federal Council of Churches from 1937
to 1939). I am not Edgar DeWitt Jones, who was one of the premier preachers of
the first half of the 20th century, but I find him to be of a common
mind on things ecumenical. I recently posted a transcript of a speech given to
the 1938 meeting of the Federal Council of Churches, a speech broadcast nationally
on NBC radio. I also have a copy of a
speech given to the International Convention of the Christian Churches
(Disciples of Christ) in 1937, shortly after his election as President of the
FCC. In this speech he speaks of the Disciples relationship to the Council.
He
begins with a reminder that the Disciples movement was born out of a vision to
pursue Christian unity, a vision articulated by Thomas Campbell, that the “church
of Christ on earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one;
consisting of all those in every place that proves faith in Christ and
obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest
the same by their tempers and conduct.” The quote from Campbell’s “Declaration
and Address,” sets up his own sense of the Disciples purpose. He writes
(spoke):
The union of all the churches was, and is, the plea of the Disciples. For this end we were born. For this cause came they into the world. Other churches emphasize this or that important doctrine—missions, benevolences—but the paramount issue with the Disciples has been, and is, the reunion of the divided house of God. Others now have taken up this plea for Christian Union. It no longer belongs exclusively to the Disciples, if indeed it ever did. Today, if the voice of the Disciples Pleading for union is not lost amide the other voices, it will have to rise clear and clarion, and with a new insistence. [Edgar DeWitt Jones Papers, Disciples of Christ Historical Society]
As you read the speech, it becomes clear that Jones is
reminding the Disciples of their founding vision. He commends them for their
participation in the Council, which was committed to bringing “the Christian
bodies of America into united service for Christ and the world.” He notes that at
least some leading Disciples were engaged from the very beginning, though “the
rank and file were slow to catch the vision splendid and perceive the power and
possibilities of the Council.” Here is the rub. While Disciples involvement had
been “excellent,” its financial support was lacking. He was rather blunt with
his assessment of the Disciples commitment financially to the work of the
Council (remember he was its newly elected President): “So pitiful has been our
financial support of the Federal Council that I am abashed, ashamed, humiliated,
to state the facts. We have talked so big and given so little.” He acknowledges
that the Disciples lacked the structures to put forth funds like some of the
other denominations, but still it was rather pitiful. Fortunately, the Association
for the Promotion of Christian Unity (forerunner of the Council on Christian
Unity) provided support from its funds, but it didn’t have sufficient funds to
give as Jones believed Disciples should be doing.
Things are a lot different today
than in the early 19th century, or even the early 20th century.
Supposedly we live in a post-denominational age, where our various theological differences
don’t matter much. This has led to a decline in interest in ecumenicity across
the board. Unfortunately, this is true for Disciples as well. The Council on
Christian Unity is a shadow of what it was a half century ago (it is down to
one staff member, its President, but no other staff). I’m told that interest in
things ecumenical simply doesn’t have the interest among the people as once it
did. It could be that people have concluded that all the significant issues
have been dealt with, and thus there is little reason to expend energy on
theology and structures, when there are bigger issues confronting us. I
recognize that there are big issues out there, but that needn’t preclude us
from initiating conversations with other denominational bodies or reengaging
with our siblings in the other two branches of the Stone-Campbell Movement.
Perhaps our lack of interest in
this work stems from the fact that it is challenging work. We expended much
energy to the Consultation on Church Union, which ultimately fell apart. It
continues to limp along in the form of Churches Uniting in Christ (CUiC), but it
attracts little attention or interest among our churches. I’m not sure that we
will ever reach that point where we experience church union. While Dr. Jones
did envision a union of churches, as did the founders of COCU, maybe this
simply isn’t possible or necessary. At the same time are we satisfied with the
way things are now, when we join together to offer a VBS program or hold an ecumenical
service? What about moving forward with, at minimum, pursuing relationships
that allow for mutual recognition of ministries and sacraments?
The Disciples
have bi-lateral relationships with the United Church of Christ and the Alliance
of Baptists, and are set to enter into a bi-lateral agreement with the United
Church of Canada, but what about the rest? What about the PC (USA) or the ELCA?
Perhaps none of this matters. Perhaps it is too parochial, when multi-faith
conversations seem much more attractive. Such conversations do seem a bit
easier (and perhaps more fun), because we’re not engaging in union
conversations. I have spent the better part of the past 20 years involved in
interfaith work. I highly value it, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have
ecumenical work left to complete.
As a book written years ago by the founding
editor of the Christian Century (and a Disciple whose influence led Dr. Jones
to Detroit) suggests, we are part of an Unfinished
Reformation. Jones calls out the
Disciples, whom he believed had “been talking on the subject for a century, and
more. The time has come to do something about it. Put the accent on action.” Is there, I wonder, any energy left to pursue
such a dream (beyond merging our dwindling interests so we don’t disappear)?
Comments