Thinking Outside the Box, Part 1: Further Reflections on a Third Way for Our Church

Some such process as this has occurred more than once in church history, and in this sense the history of the ecumenical church has been a history of seeking and finding “third ways.” I think in particular of the historic Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. Christological controversies had been raging, with varying degrees of intensity, for well over 100 years. Alexandria and Antioch represented the polarized factions. The great Chalcedonian Definition (which, by the way, I believe ought to be incorporated into our Book of Confessions) was the breakthrough by which the crisis was resolved. With Alexandria the definition affirmed that our Lord Jesus Christ is “fully God,” and with Antioch that he is also “fully human.” With Alexandria it agreed that he is “one person,” and with Antioch that he exists “in two natures.” With Alexandria, finally, it acknowledged that his two natures are united “without separation or division,” while with Antioch that they also are united “without confusion or change.” By thinking outside the box, the bishops who wrote the definition demonstrated for their own time, against all odds, that there was indeed a third way. (Something quite similar, of course, had already occurred for the trinitarian controversies at the great ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., but that is another story.)

When Christians enter into union with Jesus Christ by their baptism, they are also united with one another inseparably, because, as has been recognized at least since the time of Augustine, our Lord does not exist without his church (totus Christus). Our union with one another in Christ is therefore a very high and very precious reality. Its visible manifestation is never to be taken lightly. Only in the most extreme situations — only in situations of clear and demonstrable heresy — is schism even thinkable. In church history such situations have arguably been fairly rare — far more rare, in fact, than the deplorable occurrence of schism itself. Schism without adequate justification (and the bar is very high) is the renewed crucifixion of Christ by the church.

Shrill partisanship, especially at the highest levels of leadership, is the last thing we need at the moment in our church. What we need, rather, is a deeper recognition all around that on important questions Christians can disagree with one another in good faith, and that they can be brought, in spite of everything, to more enlightened views, by the power of the Holy Spirit according to the Word of God, even if it means stretching to accept some things that at first seem unacceptable. Insofar as my proposals for a third way are defective, I pray that others will be raised up to correct them in the spirit of unity, concord and truth.

In three subsequent articles, I will attempt to explain more fully the rationale behind my (very compressed “Theses for the Crisis in Our Church.” First, I will address the authority of Holy Scripture as it pertains to the “plain sense” of passages mentioning homosexuality. In a second article, I will expand upon the need for allowing sessions and presbyteries to engage in “responsible discretion” regarding candidates for ordination. Finally, I will examine the views of “progressive traditionalists” like Helmut Thielicke, the later Karl Barth, Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, Robert Benne, and our own Alexander McKelway, all of whom have taken stances similar to my own.