In our present time of trouble it is very easy to turn these words into stones we throw at each other: “They are violating the purity of the church.” or we toss a brickbat swearing “They are splitting the church.” Or red-faced and angry we shout, “They are disturbing the peace of the church.”
It is always “they” who are the culprits. Never me or us. Thus these important words become missiles we lob into the enemy camp. Nevertheless, these words are essentials in our vocabulary. Without the concepts of peace, unity and purity we would be impoverished. But we get into trouble when we forget these words are not precise. They are visions of how the church may be ideally defined. In their plain sense they do not define the church as it exists. All congregations are flawed whether we look at the congregations where we worship or the congregations described in the New Testament. St. Paul is a witness to churchly imperfection. He rebuked the Corinthian church for its rowdy communion services. The Galatian Christians were so dense he called them foolish and stupid. And the church in Jerusalem took no peace prizes either.
We have to remember that since these words are not precise, we cannot use them to describe ourselves or to castigate our opponents. These words lack what fancy writers call “nuance.” That is, there is a continuum that goes from “peace” to “combat.” We live between those poles. Things could always be better than they are and usually things could be worse than they are. We live in between the best and the worst and those grand words donít help us understand where we are.
These three concepts should not be treated the same. We can tell when we are becoming a church more at peace with itself. We will know peace is breaking out when opposing groups begin talking with each other. Peace will be closer when we use civil language in our debates. We can also know when we are a more united church. We will be more united when there are fewer congregations trying to break away. We will be more united when we donít hear organizations advising congregations to withhold mission money from the denomination. You can see and feel peace and unity.
Purity is a different matter. Scientists can tell when water or milk is pure. Nobody can tell when the church is pure. One personís pure church is another observerís wimpish church. Purity is in the eye of the beholder and is terribly subjective. Since it is hard to grasp, purity should be left as a vision but not treated as a goal.
The task force has wisely decided their first step is not to deal with these words but to try to say what it means to be Reformed in our day. Thatís beginning at the base. There is no better place to start. Given the stature of the task force members, one can be pretty sure they will not simply repeat slogans or dumb down our history. I expect them to give us a coherent sense of how the Reformed tradition relates to our world and to us as Christians living in that world.
I hope when we read about the work of this task force, we will be able to say, “Yes, they know us,” because we hear our concerns and beliefs in what they say. If we can place ourselves within their conversations, we might find ourselves nudged to examine what the church means to us and what we believe. It will be a real sign of peace if we also use the work of the task force to inform conversations in congregations.
The second step they propose is to “study and evaluate the sources of health and promise as well as the causes of dissension and unrest in the church.” Excavating the causes of our unrest will be tough work, but essential. To find causes of our unrest without blaming calls for humility and honesty. It will be easy for us onlookers to find fault and claim innocence. It will therefore be important for all of us to realize this is a corporate endeavor. Every diagnosis will be partial. Thatís a given. But if we can look upon each phase of the examination as a part of a work in progress, then we are into an exciting conversation.
This conversation can happen if their findings become study material for the rest of us. Our study will be most productive if it helps each of us understand the ways we have all contributed to the present distress. We do not need more broadsides on what “they” did to mess up the church. We need help to enter into a time of self-understanding and we need guides to help us begin to talk across our divisions. Members of the task force come from all points of our theological and political compass. If they can enter into each otherís world, they will be a model for the rest of us.
We are asking the task force to become teachers in the church. This implies a dialog with the church, not just reports to the General Assembly. How this conversation will be launched is up to the creativity of the task force. The process will probably flow from the experience the members have in their meetings, conversations back home and the letters and e-mail they will be receiving.
This task force comes at the right time. I am tired of the noise of our solemn assemblies. I think many people are; maybe a majority of us. We are therefore ready to listen. I donít think we will be expecting some brand new way to solve our problems. I will be mighty pleased to come into an era when we experience each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.
While a lot is riding on the work of the task force, they do not have to carry the whole load. Most of the responsibility rests on us pew-sitters and preachers. If we all use these next four years well we might write a new chapter in the life of the church. We might see peace sprouting up. Maybe we will be able to embrace each other more even though we will still be flawed and still sing off key.
Posted March 18, 2002
Carl Smith, a former synod executive, lives in Maine and is a member of Northern New England Presbytery.
Send your comment on this viewpoint to The Outlook. Please give your hometown.
