Today is the 500th anniversary of Martin
Luther’s posting his in/famous 95 theses on the doors of the Wittenberg church
in 1517. Usually, the word ‘anniversary’
carries positive connotations: wedding anniversaries, birthdays count as
anniversaries, Bruins’ Stanley Cup victory anniversaries, etc. Sometimes, however, an anniversary is not so
positive, like when we remember the passing of a loved one or the raid on Pearl
Harbor. ‘Anniversary,’ after all, simply
means an annual memorial, like a commemoration—co-remembering. Depending on your perspective, the reforming
of the Church that Luther intended and hoped for (and other visionaries before
him, by the way), which turned into the
Reformation and then Protestantism (a word that is probably in need of
updating, since we are no longer actively protesting against Rome), beginning
on October 31st, 1517, may either be a positive or negative
anniversary.
On the positive side, the Church did reform in needed
ways, even the Roman Catholic Church.
Years after the Lutheran Church and Calvin’s Church became entrenched in
the West, there was the Council of Trent; and many years after that, as many of
us may remember, came the Vatican Councils, most recently and importantly what
we now call ‘Vatican II.’ Though the
Roman Catholic Church at first dug their heels in opposite Luther, the Church
eventually and over time did see that reforms were necessary. Indulgences, for instance, were not only unbiblical
but also corrupting; priests’ withholding reading and knowledge of Scripture
and, in many ways, personal access to salvation were also unbiblical and
corrupting practices. As a reformer,
Luther did and has had a good influence on the Church in the West, as
Protestants and Catholics alike try to return to the Word of God as expressed
in the Bible and further salvation for all God’s people.
Some would argue that Luther also freed millions from the
tyranny of a spiritual hierarchy. In the
United States, or France, or any country that has had strong democratic
movements grounded in absolute freedom may hold this argument more
fervently. Indeed, throughout American
history, the Pope has been viewed with suspicion as a meddling foreign
influence on our country. The colony of
Maryland, now the state, was founded by Lord Baltimore expressly as a safe
haven for Catholics (in honor of his wife, Mary), and even then the Catholic
colonists of Maryland were outnumbered and often at risk of persecution. Whatever our stance may be on the Pope and
the hierarchy of Rome’s Church, the supposed benefits of Protestant church
structure are, I think, subjective. I
myself am a Protestant and am in agreement with the UMC’s essentially
democratic structure with a Council of Bishops, but I can also see and
understand the advantages of a more defined hierarchy as in Roman
Catholicism. Freedom from the Pope,
then, is a neutral matter of opinion.
Unfortunately, while there are positive and neutral parts
of the story, there is also a sad part of the story of the Reformation. Perhaps the saddest part is the nature of the
Church: it is slow. In recent days I
have heard the Church referred to as a giant tortoise and as an Ent, like in
Tolkien’s Middle Earth (you know, those talking trees that think and talk
slowly). Both are appropriate metaphors,
although slightly incorrect. An angry
tortoise or stubborn Ent may be better.
The story of the Reformation is the story of the Church saying, “No, we’ll
shut our ears, because this is what we believe and practice… and now we’re
going to believe and practice these ways EVEN HARDER!!” Though the Church did reform, on both sides
of the Protestant divide, at first Rome chose to dig in their heels, as I’ve
said; indeed, look at any denomination that has split and you’ll likely see
that the original denomination took a stubborn stance for an elongated period
of time as a response to proposed reforms.
If the Church is not in need of reformation, then
stubbornness in the face of proposed reforms is not a bad position to
take. The Church is God’s Temple here on
earth and we should listen to God for insight, not society or culture. Yet the nature of the Church is inherently,
and unfortunately, linked to the nature of humanity. Our human instinct is to reshape the Church
in our image, or at least an image that is beneficial to us, maybe easier for
us, maybe an image that grants us more power and wealth. When that happens, reforms are required, as
in Luther’s day, and stubbornness does no one any good. A combination of human nature and
stubbornness, also human nature, resulted in division when Luther tried
reforming the Church, and nearly always has resulted in division when later
reforms are attempted in any denomination.
Methodism, my tradition, began as its own denomination unintentionally
as well, because the Church of England was slow to respond to John Wesley’s
movement. It is that history of division
and enmity that most plagues commemoration of the Reformation.
You could say that the ugly history of division and
enmity between the various churches, denominations, amongst God’s Body of
Christ, is more felt and apparent now.
We live in divisive times. Just
this week our country’s news has reported on Spain and Catalonia, disputed
elections in Kenya, and a spat between our President and Congressional members
of his own party. That spat reminds us
of the greater political division present in our country. Indeed, the division in our country is often not
merely division but also hate and mockery.
Members of my own family have insulted others in my family as ‘morons’
simply because of political beliefs, simply because some are worried about the
clear rise of white supremacy and nationalism, and anti-semitism and
racism. These are challenging times when
we all long for unity, we pray for it, we talk about it, but then our actions
separate us even more. Calling for and
talking about unity does not create unity.
As I write I am ever aware of the difficulty working
towards unity presents, because of the national political dialogue, yes, but
also because of developments in my church, the United Methodist Church. Right now a special commission, the Way
Forward Commission, is working on a solution to the questions and issues
surrounding homosexuality in the church, whether “homosexuality is incompatible
with Christian doctrine” or not and whether persons who are homosexual should
be ordained or married, to bring before a special General Conference in
2019. If that special General Conference
does not end ‘the right way,’ many in the church on both sides are subtly or
explicitly threatening to break away, to create a schism in the church, a new
denomination. All this despite the fact
that many in the church are calling for unity, particularly the bishops. Yet those who feel like their side will not ‘win’
also hear the call for unity as a call to suppress and oppress dissenting
beliefs and practices; they hear the call for unity as a disingenuous plea to
not reform, to keep the status quo. Some
may say that’s ridiculous, that we need to believe those who are calling for
and praying for unity at face value, that they really do care for unity. Regardless, we should see in the UMC how
complicated creating unity and being unified is.
One of the unintended consequences of the Reformation is
that splitting a church has become a part of Church life. If the UMC does split, it actually won’t be
all that newsworthy in comparison to recent church history. There are now over ten thousand Protestant
denominations, in case you weren’t counting.
It seems that any time anyone is not perfectly happy with a church, he
or she ups and starts another church, adding yet more division and disunity to
God’s family and society generally.
Having established the downsides of the Reformation,
particularly in our current climate, what can we learn from even the negative history
to help us move forward as God’s people?
First, I do want to repeat that there are good aspects of the
Reformation. Catholics and Protestants
alike are more aware and focused on God’s grace, rather than the power of the
Church, in working miracles and salvation, among many other things. With that said, there are at least three
lessons as I see it: in the form of questions, 1) Are the issues of discord
ever worth the passion invested? 2) What do continued divisions say about
us? 3)
What is it that we as a Church stand for?
1) If you listen to or read NPR, you might have heard or
read a piece on the Reformation five hundred years on. The piece included a good deal of history as
well as an update: Lutherans and Catholics now agree on almost everything,
except church structure. Catholic
leaders now thank Luther for initiating much needed reforms. It seems Pope Francis is going out of his way
to acknowledge Protestant leaders, actually, because he also recently thanked
and recognized John Wesley for the Methodist movement. If Lutherans had not spent five hundred years
apart from Rome, it is possible that the two churches could now merge together,
because many can look back and ask, “Was that worth it, if the difference
between us is now minimal?” If God had
been the centerpiece rather than human nature, and passions were not quite so
high at the time, then perhaps Lutherans and Roman Catholics would indeed now
be one family.
The Methodists themselves have experienced splintering a
number of times. The major split occurred
over slavery. Though the Methodist
Episcopal Church first held a firm anti-slavery stance, in the mold of John
Wesley, over time some came to believe that owning slaves was not a great sin;
others believed that the church should become politically engaged to fight for
abolition; others believed that the church should not own slaves but needn’t go
extreme. Methodism split more than once
on this one issue. Then, after the Civil
War, they all came back together, essentially saying, “You know what, this isn’t
worth our separation any more.” After a
time, Methodists looked back and questioned the split.
I am, of course, significantly downplaying frustration
and disagreement within the Church. But
my point is, will we in the UMC, if we split in 2019 or not, look back in years
to come on the division now within our church and say, “Well, that was silly”? Will we question why we fought over homosexuality,
or anything else? And will we in our
country look back on this time and question why we so fervently fought over the
rights of immigrants, the rights and health of the poor, of blacks or
Hispanics, of women? Will we look back
and question why we didn’t turn to God, turn to God’s Word as written in the
Bible, turn to God’s overwhelming message of love and compassion, and live
accordingly?
My concern (and thanks to Rev. Greg Smith for putting
words to my thoughts) is that we will split, we will continue to live out
bigotry without acknowledging it as such and fuel tension and discord, and
realize too late our mistake. Lutherans
and Catholics will not merge any time soon because they have spent so much time
apart. Methodists were able to merge
because the split lasted less than a century.
Is our disunifying passion worth the risk of formally and forever
solidifying division? Or should we take
a more loving, compassionate, upbuilding and sanctifying all people approach?
At the end of the day, friends, the history of the
Reformation, and the various Christian versus Christian wars—let alone the
Christian crusades against Jews, Muslims, and atheists—arising from the Reformation,
should tell us that fighting one another is not worth it. Anything that contributes to division and not
loving God and loving neighbor should be removed, or at least take secondary or
tertiary position in our personal and corporate faith lives. If indulgences are at issue, let’s review
whether the indulgences are biblical; if the corruption of the priesthood is at
issue, let’s evaluate and review the role of the priesthood; if slavery is at
issue, then perhaps we should remove slavery; if homosexuality is at issue,
then perhaps we should remove our stance on homosexuality altogether, or at
least not make it a matter of church discipline; if the rights and health of
the poor are at issue, then we should turn to the biblical prophets and ask how
we might better serve the poor so that they are no longer; if immigration is at
issue, then perhaps we can turn to the Bible and see that we should care for
the alien, and review how we might better serve those who are fleeing
impoverished and dangerous conditions rather than just selfishly kicking them
out, and so on. God, God’s love and God’s
Word, and loving neighbor must always be our focus. Let’s be passionate about that rather than
ruled by human nature to serve self, even if we disguise self-service as merely
opinion, over non-essential matters.
John Wesley urged the Methodist movement to hold firm only to essential
matters of salvation and God’s grace, and let non-essential matters be
secondary or tertiary. Why can’t we? Nothing that inhibits others from loving God,
life, and neighbor should be practiced.
2) Looking back on
the splits and mergers within the original Methodist Episcopal Church, there
are some denominations that split that have yet to merge back with what we
might call the ‘mother denomination,’ the United Methodist Church. I do not argue that those other denominations
are sowing discord by not merging back.
Rather, I argue that perhaps taking stock of the Methodist denominations
remaining separate might tell us something about who we are as a people, within
the church and in society generally.
The major Methodist denominations still separate from the
UMC are, as you might know, the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) and African
Methodist Episcopal-Zion (AMEZ). I’ve
already written enough in this post to discourage you from reading the whole
piece, so I’ll keep the history recap of these churches short. If you remember well the history of
African-Americans in our country, you can probably guess the history of the
AMEZ.
Both churches, though, beginning with the AME in the
early 19th century, have their origins in the racism of this country. Some church buildings to this day retain
architecture of a checkered past. The
two churches that I currently serve both have two staircases, and one of them has
a bar down the middle pews, the other used to have two entrances as well as two
staircases. These features were meant to
keep men and women separate. My churches
are in northern Vermont, where there has never been much of a population of African-Americans. Yet in places throughout our country where
there has been an African-American population, if your church building was
built prior to the Civil War or during the days of Jim Crow and your building has
a balcony, you may want to research whether that balcony was built for black
persons. In what was then the Methodist
Episcopal Church (MEC), black persons were more and more only allowed to sit in
the balcony as the 19th century rolled along. After awhile, black preachers were being
kicked out of MEC pulpits. This racism—and,
remember, this isn’t even including the splits over slavery as an institution,
this is about racism, pure and simple—led to African-Americans starting
denominations in which they could worship and serve God in peace. Of course, AME and AMEZ churches were
attacked and persecuted, but at least those churches accepted the people who
came to preach and worship and serve our God of grace, mercy, love and compassion. I think this is all you need to know about
the history of these churches to get the picture.
Here's the thing: what does it say about us, Methodists
and Americans generally, that the AME and AMEZ churches still exist? If time plays a role in whether churches are
able to reunify, as I am suggesting and seems obviously to be the case since
time contributes to the development of new practices and traditions, then how
long becomes too long? If the Methodist
churches that split over slavery, an institution, could reunify within a
century, why couldn’t the Methodist churches that split over racism also
reunify? Or was racism too inherent in
our country, in our systems, even our religions? Is racism too entrenched in our country, in
our systems, even our religions two hundred years later, to reunify? Or would we rather blame it on time, two
hundred years later, and not confront issues that are actually pivotal, as
opposed to non-essential, about who we are as individual persons and as a
corporate people? Lutherans and
Calvinists (Presbyterians), at least, have five hundred years of history
buffering them from reunification. We
don’t have that much tradition as an excuse.
Will we ever be able to acknowledge the racism that still
lives in us—yes, you and me—and our institutions and churches? If we are unable to acknowledge that racism,
will we ever be able to conquer racism and unify as a people, whether as a
small community, a church, or a country?
I believe in God’s almighty power to transform us through His grace, to
make us real disciples of the Christ, but honestly, with so many people
unwilling to look inward and to face who they are deep down, choosing instead
to declare, “I’m not racist, I’m not sexist, but…”, I have little hope. God can only renew us in Christ if we rely on
Him rather than ourselves. Right now we
are doing a whole lot of relying on what we think is right, on what is right
for us, based on only our own experience, and we are not listening either to
God or to our brothers and sisters. That
needs to change if hope is to be restored, if the history of the Reformation
can redeem itself from ugly to beautiful—from kicking out to accepting and
loving those who are different.
3) The question, “What
is it that we as a Church stand for?” is a uniquely Reformation-esque
question. I imagine that before the
Reformation church leaders and believers simply said, “Here’s the Church, its
doctrine, and that’s that.” Defining
what a church stands for is usually motivated by delineating it from other
churches. So there was no reason to ask
or answer the question when there was one Church.
Now, it must be said that for a millennium there has been
a break between East and West, Roman and Orthodox. The rift between the Christian East and West
had been brewing theologically for hundreds of years. Rome and Constantinople did divide over
theological matters eventually, not over a reform issue that would rock the
Church as with Luther. Still, it is
somewhat West-centric to highlight the Reformation as when the Church split
rather than five hundred years before.
With that said, I push back against this notion that a
church needs to stand for anything.
Every church should stand for, if we want to use that language, what the
Church should stand for: God’s grace and love, and living a life in which
loving God and neighbor through Christ is paramount. We shouldn’t be asking or answering the
question of what we stand for because, again, that question is intrinsically
divisive, pitting my church against yours, or what I believe against what a
church believes to determine whether or not I can join the church.
You may wonder who is asking, “What does your church
stand for?” The answer to that is, a lot
of people. A few weeks ago someone asked
me that question in response to a Front Porch Forum post about one of my church’s
summer projects. More recently that,
while I was making myself available at what I call Pastor’s Listening Place for
prayer and conversation with folk who do not have a church family, someone
asked me what my church believes and stands for. I knew what both these individuals were
looking for: here are our positions on God, the Trinity, homosexuality, marriage,
the Bible, etc. And for both of them I
avoided the question altogether, which of course disappointed them. What I did reply to both of them was, essentially,
paraphrasing from memory, “Ultimately, Methodism is a movement concerned with
holy living in God’s grace, of living in such a way that God’s means of grace
are utilized to the utmost as we strive to be perfected in God’s love and live
like Christ. It is not a church
concerned with enforcing right belief, or standing for anything, unless what we
stand for and what we are believing in is God’s loving and merciful bent
towards salvation, justice and peace.”
Because of the Reformation, unfortunately, such answers,
while I think true to Methodism at least, always seem like copouts. The response is almost always, “Well, okay,
but I want to know where you stand on this and that.” A few years ago, a local radio station
refused to bring me on to briefly talk about a book I wrote merely because I am Methodist and the
UMC does not share a stance on certain issues with the radio station. No matter what the book was about or how it
might help people live better lives or help end human trafficking. The funniest part is that the UMC does, if
you were it ask the denomination, share the same ideas as the radio station
around the issues the station was concerned; the UMC just doesn’t care (or
shouldn’t care) to stake its life on every single question of theology and
practice. But this is life
post-Reformation: “What does your church stand for? And, by the way, when you answer, make sure
you answer in agreement with what I stand for, or else I’m walking away.”
Ridiculous. Here’s
a unifying thought for you: persons of all churches everywhere should make
evident what it is they stand for in how they live. Ironically, this is an idea straight from the
Reformation and on down to Wesley and the people called Methodist, yet it is an
idea eschewed because of the defensive isolationism propagated by the
Reformation.
What I mean is that we should make evident in our lives,
by our compassion, that we stand for a Savior who associated with the outcasts,
aliens, and sinners; make evident in our lives, by our humility rather than
assertiveness and self-righteousness, that we stand for a Savior who died on
the cross; make evident in our lives, by our dedication to holiness despite
what culture or friends or family may demand or expect of us, that we stand for
a God who is powerful enough to make us new; make evident in our lives, by our
service to all our brothers and sisters, that we stand for a God who has always
heard the cry of the needy, oppressed, alien, and downtrodden; make evident in
our lives, by our attention to prayer and worship, that we stand for a God that
does not care about political boundaries but longs for His Kingdom made
real. There are seven billion people on this
planet, which means there are seven billion people in need of God’s love and
transformative grace, so why the hell do we care what a particular church
stands for? And why the hell does each
church fight within itself about what it stands for? Don’t we all stand for the same thing? To reclaim and paraphrase a Revolutionary War
slogan from my home state, we are doing far too much treading on others, as a
Church and as a country.
My hope and prayer for you, and for all of us, as we
commemorate the 500th anniversary of the start of the Reformation,
is that we rededicate our lives to God and God alone, put our trust and loyalty
in God and God alone, to know in God what is essential and what is secondary,
and seek God’s perfecting grace in our lives by living holy lives, and drop the
weight of all else, so that we can transform the history and legacy of the
Reformation from division to unity.
No comments:
Post a Comment