Part 10
Some of this dialogue, of course, has already been going on, and out of it certain insights have already appeared about the relation of the clergy and the laity. In the _gathered_ church, with the focus on the worship, pastoral, educational, and organizational life, the ordained member is the chief minister and the lay members are his assistants. This does not mean that the lay people are working for the pastor and that their loyalty is to him. Instead, it means that both are working together for Christ and their loyalty is to Him. Within that relationship the congregation has called a member, usually trained and ordained, to direct it in performing the church's functions. The minister is entrusted, for example, with the educational work of the church. Some of his educational responsibility is delegated to the organization known as the church school. A few laymen are selected and professionally trained to be directors of Christian education; others from the congregation are trained to be the teachers, but, as such, they are serving as assistants to the one who is officially responsible for that activity. Likewise, when laymen are used in church visitation, they do so as assistants to the minister, to whom this official responsibility is delegated.
On the other hand, in the work of the _dispersed_ church, which is active in and serving the world, the chief minister is the layman who, in the home or in the office, on the street or in the shop, in the school or in the university, or wherever the work of the world is going on, _is_ the church in that situation and must be the minister of Christ there. The ordained man, in this aspect of the church's work, is the assistant or resource person.
This concept of the complementary relationship between the ordained and the unordained should inform the church's gathered life. The sermon, the preparation for church membership, all adult education programs, and the general ministry of the church, need to be conditioned by the thought that the purpose of the official teachers and preachers and administrators of the church's program is to prepare and guide the people of God in the performance of their work _in the world_, as representatives of Christ there. Resources need to be created in the church's program whereby people can come back from their ministry in the world, be helped to understand what has happened, and by reflection upon it learn how more effectively to be the church in the world. For this reason, seminars for parents need to be held in order that they may receive assistance in understanding their role as ministers of the church in the home. Seminars for businessmen and professional people also are indicated for the same reason. A point of focus for all church membership courses should be the question: When you become a member of the church, how are you going to exercise your ministry in the world? This orientation could be the source of a new evangelism that would make its witness heard in the depth and detail of human life.
_The Reunion of the Church_
We turn now to consider some of the implications of what we have been thinking for the reunion of the church. If the church is the instrument of God's action in the world, and its members are supposed to be the incarnations of His Spirit by means of which He accomplishes His purpose, the condition, as well as the concept of the church, is important. One of the tragedies of Christendom is the fact that the body of Christ is so divided and its parts live in such competitive relationship that the purposes of God are obscured and blocked. Movements toward reunion have borne fruit, with the result that some denominations have resolved their differences and reunited. But much more progress needs to be made, if the church is to be equal to the demands that modern life is making on it for spiritual leadership.
In each denomination there are clergymen and laymen who have erroneous concepts and understandings and expectations of the other denominations. I direct a training center which is attended by clergy and laymen from many denominations. These people often are surprised to discover, as a result of studying together the church's nature and purpose, how much they have in common. They discover that doctrinal differences are not as great as they had thought, that there are no denominational differences built into human nature or into human problems, and that they have many resources in common, namely, the God-given and redeemed resources of human relationships, the Scriptures, prayer, preaching, pastoral care, and teaching. Many of them have been heard to say, "I am glad to have had it revealed to me that in some ways our differences are more apparent than real." This kind of insight, however, is not possible unless a situation is created in which representatives of different denominations can begin to trust each other, and to think and communicate below the level of their differences. It is possible to do this, however, and more of it should be done. There is no reason why the local congregation should not invite neighboring congregations to come together with it for a study program for the purpose of finding their common brotherhood in Christ and their common responsibility for the community in which they live. A divided church does not make a good organ for the communication of love.
We come now to the distinctive contribution of our discussion thus far in this matter of the unity of the church. The work of reunion, of course, is the work of the Holy Spirit. But our response to Him in approaching reunion should be centered in a study of His purposes for the church _now_ and _in the future_, rather than on a reconciliation of the _differences that occurred in the past_. It is exceedingly difficult to undo the mistakes of the past and to change the rigid images and patterns that have been forged by the misunderstandings of our predecessors. Merely trying to adjust them to each other will not do. It is something else again to be willing to change these by giving ourselves to a responsible consideration of what God wants His church to be and to do _now_, and thus attempt the reunion in response to present and future values.
The images that Presbyterians and Methodists and Episcopalians and Baptists and Lutherans now have of themselves might be changed, thus making possible changes in their images of one another, and this would certainly open the way to deeper levels of communication. Instead of this, we have members of different denominations thinking rather rigidly about themselves and others. Our identities and responsibilities are accepted in terms of differences that were laid down in the past, and may be held independently of what God may be wanting His church to do in this moment. The church is not the Kingdom of God; it is not the end of God's action. It is a means to an end, and, as circumstances of human life change, it is not inconceivable that God would like to have us make changes in that instrument for man's salvation which He created.
Proposals for the reunion of the churches often arouse the fear that our respective denominations, to which we are devoted, will be replaced by what some conceive of as a "superchurch." Such an arbitrary replacement of church organization is not the objective of the unity movement. Instead, we should respond to the Spirit's prompting to keep our denominational loyalties subject to our loyalty to Him, in order that we may be open to whatever form of church life and action the Spirit may indicate for our generation. We are concerned about the church as the body of Christ in our time. As His body, we must find our unity in Him; but this may mean that we shall have to abandon some things that have seemed good. Some words of our Lord are hard to bear: "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me."[23] These words of our Lord are equally applicable to all other relationships, including our denominational ones. It does not follow, however, that our denominational devotion is of itself disloyal to Christ, any more than our devotion to our loved ones is disloyal. We do need, however, to make sure that we love and serve Him, and not something or someone else. Our concepts of ourselves and of others may need to be changed.
The changing of these images of ourselves and of others is not a responsibility that belongs only to our top-level church leaders. Every Christian in every church in every part of the world must share it, because each person has a specific responsibility for his relationship with his Christian brothers, by whatever name they may call themselves. The parent who seeks to exercise his ministry in his relationship with his child needs also to be open to his responsibility as a member of some historic branch of the Christian church for the welfare of that church and the relationship of its separate parts. We cannot accept what we have inherited in the form in which we inherited it. Our inheritance in many ways is precious and wonderful, but our human response can deform it. Our church can be a means of fulfilling our discipleship, but it can also be an obstacle to it. Therefore, our membership and participation in a denomination needs to be kept under the constant judgment of God in order that we as members may serve Him more loyally.
We are Christ's, brought into this relationship by His love, and we can grow in this relationship only as we are guided by His Spirit. Everything else is secondary to this. But all other relationships, if offered to Him and illumined and corrected by His Spirit, can be wonderful also, because then they too become a part of His means of reuniting, by His love, men with one another and with Him.
"In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son.... We love, because he first loved us."[24]
[21] John 4:5 ff. [22] Luke 10:25 ff. [23] Matt. 10:37. [24] 1 John 4:10, 19.
about the author
Reuel Lanphier Howe is recognized as one of the foremost counselors in America in the field of personal relationships. The authoritative conclusions growing out of his research are presented in this book with earnestness and understanding.
He was born in the state of Washington and received his B.A. degree from Whitman College in Walla Walla. From the Divinity School of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Philadelphia, he received the degrees of S.T.B., S.T.M., and S.T.D. He was ordained in the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1929 and 1930. Whitman College and the Chicago Theological Seminary have each honored him with the D.D. degree.
In 1931 he became Vicar of St. Stephen's Church, Elsmere, N.Y. Then, for about twenty years, he was on the faculties of the Divinity School of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Philadelphia, and the Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary in Virginia. In both of these situations he developed a program of clinical pastoral training to prepare the clergy to minister to the needs of people. He has served on many important committees and boards and has lectured extensively, both in America and abroad.
Presently he is the director of the Institute for Advanced Pastoral Studies, in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., a postordination training center for ministers of various denominations who have been in the ministry for at least three years. He takes part in many significant educational programs outside his denomination. One of Dr. Howe's major interests is in the correlation of the insights of theology with those of the social and medical sciences. The enthusiasm with which his lectures and books have been received points to his popularity as a thinker and writer.
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | Transcriber's notes: Obvious spelling/typographical and | | punctuation errors have been corrected after careful | | comparison with other occurrences within the text and | | consultation of external sources. | | | | page 12 line -3: changed "For God so loved the world--" to | | 'For God so loved the world--'" | | page 111: corrected printer's error where lines -14, -13, -12 | | should have appeared as lines -13, -12, -14 | | | +---------------------------------------------------------------+