[+] Pastoral Perspective on the Emerging Church in America, by Rev. Dr. Dale K. Edmondson

Our friend and former Pastor, Dale Edmondson has graciously agreed to let me share this excellent lecture with other ministers and friends, and to post it on the EcumenicalNews Digest website (at http://ecumenicalnews.blogspot.com/). -- Rick Mitchell

 

[Dale included the following comments:]

 

I appreciate knowing that you found my thoughts of interest.  Certainly I'm willing to have it made accessible to any who might like to read it.

 

You inquire concerning the Philippine church's attitude toward homosexuality.  I find it LESS virulent than in the U.S.  It is clearly a matter of controversy there, but the opposition does not seem as extremist.  My lecture, as you will note, attempted an objective reporting on the current state of the institutional church in the U.S. together with some of my views about what may lie ahead.  It was not an advocacy piece.  Homosexuality, as you can see, was an important topic in it.  My lecture (which I was surprised to learn was televised live throughout southern Panay) was respectfully received (the Dean said, appreciatively, received).  There were questions about homosexuality in the Q&A session which followed, including one about my personal viewpoint on the subject.  All response was respectful and reflective--and none of it confrontative.  I've learned, as well, that the lectures are being published by the University.

 

- Dale

       A PASTORAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE EMERGING CHURCH IN AMERICA

By Dale K. Edmondson

A Lecture at Central Philippine University, March 1, 2005

The Philippines and the United States share a common experience of the Christian church: both know a church that has come to it from abroad. In the United States, it has come from Europe and in the Philippines primarily from Spain and then from the United States. We have sought, in our two countries, to make the church our own, helping it find expression that reflects the context of our lives–our geography, our cultures, our economy, the perspectives of our indigenous peoples. At the same time, we have wanted the church to be faithful to the Christian gospel.

Our countries have a unique relationship in history and interaction. Central Philippine University is an example of this. CPU was founded one hundred years ago this year by American Baptist missionaries. At its birth it reflected values and cultural expressions of the sending church. These have left their mark, both positive and negative. Through the years, CPU has increasingly become a Filipino institution, which yet has a continuing interaction with the American church.

The assumption of today’s lecture is that what is happening now in the American church may be of more than passing interest to Filipinos. The church in America is undergoing notable change. Many hold the future shape of the church will be quite different from what it is today, but few are willing to predict what that will be. There are trends, however, which hint at the shape of the emerging church. That’s what I plan to talk about today. I do it, however, not as an historian of religion (which I’m not), but as a pastor who has been shaped by the church in America, is committed to it, and who has ministered in it for more than four decades.

It will be important to provide an historical background of some of the developments in the American church. So I will begin there, with the settling of America by those coming to that continent. I will then describe the ferment in the church today, suggest where we might be headed, and pass on some things to keep in mind as we journey there.

BACKGROUND

The Settling of America

People brought their faith with them as they came to the New World. There were explorers searching out the new land, trappers hunting furs for sale back home, and settlers starting farms, merchants and professional people establishing their businesses, and representatives of governments in Europe under whose sovereignty the people had come to establish their new life. Many came, bringing with them the form of church they were already a part of. In the Carolinas, Virginia, and much of the Mid-Atlantic, the church was the Church of England, with bishops and clergy coming from the homeland. In Florida, where the Spanish settled, and from New Orleans northward up the Mississippi River, where the French came, there was the Roman Catholic Church. New England included some who came looking for greater religious freedom than they had known at home. There were Puritans, who wanted a church purer in faith and practice than they had had and Separatists who believed their faith required a church separate from the established church of their homeland, and there were Baptists whose understanding of the church was soon to call for congregations free from the control of the state.

To greatly-simplify a longer and more complicated history, we might summarize what was to happen by saying that as the colonies evolved and a new and independent country was born, a variety of peoples came to the new land, bringing with them the faith that had nurtured them and which had sprung from a variety of historical settings. There was a marvelous mix: from lands touched by Luther’s Reformation, there were people speaking German and worshiping in the way they had known at home, and from Scandinavia people using Swedish or Norwegian or Finnish in their worship. From Switzerland and the Netherlands and Scotland came the heirs of the Zwinglian Reformation, calling themselves Reformed or Presbyterian and worshiping in their own tongues. People of Mennonite or Anabaptist conviction came from German, Polish, Bohemian lands, and they, too, worshiped in their own languages. Later in the county’s development, immigrants began to come from Central and Eastern Europe and Ireland, all largely Roman Catholic. Although Latin was the language for their worship, they often settled in communities centered around their parish church, continuing their language in their daily life. People from Greece, Russia, and other countries where the Orthodox Church was the established religion followed, worshiping in the language of their tradition. As people continued to come from England where the Methodist movement impacted the population in the 18^th Century, that same movement began to take hold in America. Many people in their new land continued in their own circles, worshiping in their distinctive ways.

The Period of Expansion

North America was a vast continent and the opportunities of moving westward to undeveloped areas seemed limitless. The "Westward Movement," as it’s been called, saw thousands of young and pioneering people heading for the ever-receding frontier, establishing farms, raising cattle, cutting timber, mining ore–some coming to know and profit from the native peoples and their culture and some attacking and driving them from their land. With the discovery of gold in California in the mid-19th Century and the completion of a transcontinental railroad, there was a rush of population to the West. This presented a particular demand on the church–namely, to evangelize and provide churches for the peoples of the West. In one sense, those who "moved west," took the church with them, some establishing churches with their own lay leadership and other welcoming missionaries sent out for that purpose. In the American Southwest Catholic missions had been established generations before by missionaries coming from Spain and moving up from Mexico.

The need for churches to relate to each other and engage in mutual ministries led to the establishment of various associations and dioceses. These took shape according to the principles of their own traditions. Because of the distances involved in spanning the continent, many of these oversight organizations in the early years were isolated from one another and developed their own style and approach. As communication improved and the nation evolved into a country of federal states stretching from ocean to ocean, these embryonic associations took the form of national bodies. Many denominations, each reflecting its own historical tradition and overseeing its own churches, made up the American religious scene in the later 19^th Century.

Developments Bringing Change

The Abolition Movement. I’d like to point now to three developments that brought significant change to the American religious scene–i.e., the abolition movement, the impact of biblical scholarship, and the advent of ecumenism. The movement for the abolition of slavery split much of the church in two. Was the ownership and use of slaves a religious, spiritual issue? The economy of the South, with its expansive agricultural plantations, was dependent on the labor of slaves. The church had become an inextricable part of the life and culture of the south. It argued that its obligation was to teach slaves the Christian Gospel and to treat them fairly. It argued, furthermore, that the scriptures accepted slavery and instructed Christian slaves to give their masters their due. Many in the Northern churches argued that Christ had come to set the captives free and that he regarded human life with such dignity and value that no follower of his should own another human being. It proved to be such an intractable argument that many denominations divided into northern and southern bodies. Even after slavery ended, divisions continued and were factors several generations later in the religious debate over civil rights.

Modern Biblical Scholarship. The second development, that of Biblical scholarship into the authorship and historical context of the scriptures, had a strong impact upon the church and its interpretation of the Bible. Some held that an historical approach to scripture helped one understand its message more clearly, while others saw it as undermining the inspiration and authority of scripture. These differences led to a new set of divisions within the church. In addition, a new challenge was presented by the physical sciences in the theory of evolution over against creationism. These conflicts essentially describe the division in America today between fundamentalism and the mainstream church.

Ecumenism. The third development was the growth of ecumenism, or the ecumenical movement. Interestingly, this movement, which focused on the intended unity of the Christian Church, did not begin in the United States or Europe, but in countries to which western Christian missionaries had gone. Finding that theological distinctions developed in response to certain historical challenges at home had little relevance to the proclamation of the Gospel in the new lands, missionaries abroad began cooperating in their ministry in a way they had not known in their own countries. The formation of the International Missionary Council, the eventual creation of the World Council of Churches, and, in the Roman Catholic Church, the calling of the Second Vatican Council, all had a profound impact on local congregations in the United States. Many found that old prejudices that had kept them apart were unfounded and the common realities of the faith came to have greater importance. In the rapid building of new communities which followed the Second World War and the increased mobility of people moving to new areas to establish homes and begin families, the old denominational identities took on less importance than finding a church near at hand for worship and the Christian education of their children. Interdenominational (and non-denominational) ventures became an accepted part of the scene as well as the merging of various formerly-separate denominational bodies.

Along with the awakening of ecumenical conversations, a new challenge to the Faith came with large numbers of persons arriving from non-Christian countries. For many Americans, it was the first time they had had direct contact with people of Islamic, Buddhist, and Hindu background. And many were having to determine for the first time in a practical sense what their interaction with these faiths should be.

This brief historical sketch sets the scene for viewing the life of the American church today.

THE EMERGING CHURCH

The Current Ferment

What do I see now from the perspective of a pastor as I look at the church in my land? A church in ferment. Ferment, of course, is not in itself a negative thing. Ferment suggests that something is being transformed into something new and that the process is dynamic and perhaps not even predictable. It can, of course, be frightening, precisely because the old and familiar will not be the same. But where there is ferment, there is also the opportunity for the Holy Spirit to work, bringing about what God intends for the people of God. It’s far too early, I think, to say what is of God in this process and what is not. I will simply try to describe some of the main features of the ferment, suggest new shapes that may be emerging for the church, and point to some cautions along the way. I want, then, to close with a picture of a garden.

Three major elements, among others, may be observed as contributing to the current ferment: the decline of denominationalism, the impact of the church-growth movement, and the challenge of homosexuality.

The Decline of Denominationalism. For several decades there has been a progressive decline in the membership and support of what have been called the "mainline churches." This has not necessarily meant a decline in church attendance and participation, because many new congregations have been formed, often in newly-developing communities, without a denominational connection. "Denominations" do not seem to matter much to many younger people, and even among the older churched population, denominations do not command the loyalty they once did. What seems to matter most is the nature and quality of the local congregation, its leadership and ministry, and what mission beyond itself it is engaged in. Some see this as a popular outcome of ecumenism, in which the common mission of the church takes priority in members’ thought over the characteristics of the various traditions. Some new congregations remain independent and others form new alliances and networks of churches according to their interests in order to support one another in mission.

The Impact of the Church Growth Movement. The so-called "church growth movement" gained a foothold in American church life as participation in many of the older congregations began to decline. It involved the introduction of certain principles of sociology derived from experience on the mission field coupled with those from the business world. While these principles were viewed as practical means to furthering the church’s outreach to the unchurched, some were challenged as contrary to the Christian Gospel itself. Primary among these was the "homogeneous principle"–i.e., that people are attracted to folk who are like themselves and that a congregation will grow more if it focuses its outreach on a specific type of person. This concept has unleashed a firestorm of controversy in which opponents argue that that principle contradicts the vision of the kingdom, or realm, of God, in which persons of all races, backgrounds, and classes, without distinction, are one in Christ. The church, they argue, should reflect that Kingdom or Realm in the inclusive diversity of its people and stand against the divisions of society in judgment against its classism and racism. There is evidence of numerical growth among churches that operate on many of these principles, some of which have been modified in response to criticism. The development of "mega-churches," congregations of enormous size numbering many thousands or tens of thousands of members, may be a phenomenon of this movement. Although mega-churches command considerable media attention, they represent only a small part of the churched population, and studies show that much of their numerical growth is derived from people coming to them from other churches, rather than from newcomers to the faith.

The church growth movement has had an effect also on congregations of traditional size. Many have replaced the elements of traditional worship with expressions of worship drawn from popular culture in what are called "seeker services." Some congregations question the adequacy of their "self-image," viewing themselves against larger (and more "successful") churches. Some have come to a renewed appreciation of community and fellowship where one can know others and be known at a deep level, sharing the joy and sorrows of life.

The Challenge of Homosexuality. This brings me to the last component I’ll mention in the religious ferment, and it appears to be the most divisive–the challenge of homosexuality.

- Are homosexuals to be welcomed into the church or excluded from it?

- Is homosexuality a sin which should be overcome through the power of faith or is it one of the ways God has made human beings and is to be celebrated?

- Are gay and lesbian people to be ordained into its ministry?

- Are they to marry?

- What help does the Bible give?

- What did its writers understand?

- How are the scriptures to be interpreted?

- What is the thrust of the Gospel of Jesus?

- What is the understanding of modern science and what place should modern science have in the position of the church?

- How are homosexuals to be treated in civil society?

- Is homosexuality an issue of the suppression of vice or of advocacy of civil rights?

- How is the church to address society in this matter?

To say that there is any agreement on these matters within the church in America would be a gross misstatement. Some scholars see a marked parallel between this controversy and the one that took place over slavery in the 19^th Century. Some hold the controversy over homosexuality may lead to a split in the American church as pervasive as the split over slavery.

There is fervor on both sides in the debate. There are those who see the scriptures and the Christian Gospel driving fully and inescapably toward the full acceptance of gay and lesbian people into the life of the church and its celebration of their life as part of God’s world of marvelous differences. At the same time there are leaders who see homosexuality as a perversion of God’s intention for humanity, as a sin condemned by scripture and to be repented of, and as a force destructive of the basic institution of marriage. Many on both sides claim to base their positions on the serious study of scripture and as an outgrowth of faithful and prayerful struggle. How does one side find common ground with the other when the issue seems so fundamental to them? Most denominations are struggling to find a way out the impasse, but many see these as political endeavors to answer a theological question and believe that time and possibly division will need to take place before the church is at one about this matter. Independent networks of churches are also being structured according to one side or the other of this issue.

I think this review will show that I have not chosen the word "ferment" lightly to describe the current American religious scene.

What Lies Ahead?

What, then, lies ahead for the church in my homeland–a church that I truly love? No one knows with certainty. But some hints are already evident suggesting what might emerge from the current ferment. There is little doubt that the shape of tomorrow’s church it will be different from that of the past. Denominational alignments we have known for over a century are changing. The changes will take different shapes according to the history and organizational structure of the tradition, because the church has different theologies of authority and leadership. (How essential, for example, are bishops and centralized authority, and what to what extent do creeds and liturgical formulations define traditions?)

In the coming period, some denominations undoubtedly will divide as they did during the time of the great slavery debate. There will be denominational realignments and the formation of new alliances. This is already taking place. Some bodies, however, will probably not divide, but will see groups and movements develop within them contending and interacting with each other. Some call this a "big tent" response to diversity. The Roman Catholic Church has been an example of the "big tent," although the extent to which these differences will be free to develop within that church will depend in part on the new leadership in the Vatican and the strength of national leadership in its various countries. There will probably also be new ecumenical mergers, continuing the experience of the last half century or more. Some denominations, holding closely to their particular historical definition, will probably not participate but continue as small, yet perhaps significant, religious minorities.

I’d like to speak personally for a few minutes out of my own convictions about changes that may take place. I am not greatly concerned whether there will be a denomination in the future with the name "Baptist." (Jesus, I must acknowledge, wasn’t a Baptist–or a Methodist or Roman Catholic, for that matter.) There is, at base, one church, and our Lord is its head, and he prayed that we may all be one.

But I offer a strong word of caution. While we are celebrating the oneness of Christ’s church and living and worshiping within it, we must not permit the vital contributions our own tradition to be forgotten. Many in history have struggled–even died–for them. My faithfulness to their sacrifice and to the breadth that the church must embrace demands that I strive to have them upheld within the coming church. Some of my Baptist forebears have contended for the freedom of the exercise of religion according to the dictates of ones own conscience and without the dictates of the state. This is a precious and sacred freedom which must not be lost or eroded. I’m not as concerned that my church be called "Baptist" (with a capital "B") as I am that it include, for its own fullness, the principles that William McClendon, Jr., a late theologian and friend, called "baptist" will a small "b"–principles, some of which may not have sprung only from my specific heritage, but which belong to the stream which gives integrity to it.

I’d like to expand this point: I contend that the church of the future needs to embrace the varied streams from its varied history–i.e.,

- the contemplative tradition which found expression within the monastic life,

- the holiness tradition of the early Methodist movement,

- the charismatic tradition emphasized by the Quakers in their stress on the empowering of the Spirit,

- the social justice tradition of Francis of Assisi and Martin Luther King, Jr.,

- and the evangelical tradition with its emphasis on the scriptures and personal witness to faith.

Some may call the ferment in the American church is a crisis. I’m told that the Chinese language affirms that "crisis" is both a danger and an opportunity. If we take seriously Paul’s affirmation that in all things God works with those who love God to bring about good then we can look forward to the emerging church as a new thing that God is bringing about.

God’s Garden?

I close with the picture of a garden. I once read a description of this garden that bothered me greatly. Christ’s church on earth, the description said, is a garden with many plants, some lovely, some unimpressive, some tall and commanding, some looking much like scrubby weeds. All are held together in an ecology of balance, each needs the other to maintain the balance so that the garden fills every need. At times in the garden, we may move toward one flower or pick a certain herb. On certain occasions, a plant that once seemed unnecessary becomes vital and cherished. This, it said, is the garden of Christ’s church here among us. It is his gift to his people, but to be tended by them.

It was years ago when I read this and thought it was all wrong. I thought I knew what the church should be like. Only proper plants should be in it. As part of the church of God, each should be the most attractive and unadulterated of plants, passing the highest tests of quality. To arrive at the "true" understanding of the church, I thought the weeds and tares–far from being tolerated–should be pulled up and thrown out. Tending the garden demanded that the wisely-chosen plants should be carefully trimmed and manicured. Plants that appeared excessive in some way or strange or that just didn’t "fit" with my informed insight should be taken out. Then the garden would be right.

I’ve come to see now how wrong I was. The garden of Christ’s Church is the garden of God’s wonderful differences. Each plant very different from the other, each calling forth and responding to a different aspect of the human family, all held together in a mystery of ecological balance. The garden, indeed, might be like a human body made up of many members in which "not all the members have the same function," but in which all are "members one of another."

NOTES

1. The new and increased exposure to persons of other faiths is a (perhaps not fully-recognized) part of the church’s present ferment. The dominant religious experience in America has been that of the Christian church. For much of the nation’s life, Protestantism had been the norm in public life, with a small but recognized Jewish component. Although several ethnic groups were predominantly Catholic, widespread recognition of Catholicism as a full component in American public life probably did not come until the mid-20th Century. All-in-all, until the present generation, "religion" in America meant Christianity. Now that reality is being challenged. New residents are coming from Middle-Eastern and Asian countries in increasing numbers. Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism are being encountered for the first time by many whose contact before was only in the academic study of "comparative religions." A new attraction to the Nation of Islam among some African Americans and the political rhetoric linking Muslims with terrorism has added to the complexity of the American religious scene. How are Christians now to relate to persons of other faiths? Are these heathen who are to be viewed primarily as objects for conversion? Should all faiths be viewed as saying essentially the same thing, only using different words? Are there things Christians can learn from people of other faiths? Will listening to one another lead to an amalgam of a new faith or cause people of historic faiths to embrace their own traditions more fervently while respecting the value of other traditions? How broadly or narrowly is the true family of God to be defined? To raise these questions is to acknowledge the existence of an element in the current ferment in American religious life it has not confronted with the same intensity before.

2. James Wm. McClendon, Jr., Systematic Theology (Vol. I): Ethics (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1986), pp.27-35. In this passage he summarizes what he calls "The baptist Vision."

3. This description is patterned after the five streams of Christian thought identified by the Renovaré movement for spiritual renewal (Richard J. Foster and James Bryand Smith, eds., Devotional Classics (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993) and James Bryan Smith, A Spiritual Formation Workbook (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993).

4. Romans 8:28.

5. Romans 12:4.