Essay 99 (12-03-05)

PRACTICAL MARKS OF THE ECUMENICAL CHURCH

I assume that by now the term "ecumenical" will not bother most readers. If it is not actually a biblical term, it is clearly a biblical concept, for it simply means universal or world-wide. It could be used as a synonym for catholic. In using it in reference to the church -- the ecumenical church -- I am referring to the whole of the body of Christ, all believers everywhere. It implies a united church.

An ecumenist, therefore, is one who has a vision for the unity of all God's people, and who works and prays for that unity. And such a one believes in the cooperation of churches to the end that they might fulfill the prayer of Jesus for the oneness of all disciples. He or she believes one can be ecumenical without approving of any error or compromising any truth -- and one can be loyal to his or her own heritage while accepting others as equals in Christ.

In this essay I want to give some description of what the ecumenical church will be like -- the practical aspects more than the theological. And by practical I refer to what one would see and experience in the ongoing life of the united, ecumenical church, which will one day, in God's own time, be a reality.

This is not to overlook the theological marks, which might be summarized as "one, holy, apostolic, and catholic." When Karl Barth, arguably the 20th century's greatest theologian, visited America he was asked by a seminarian "What is the mark of the true church?" He answered theologically, "I suppose the true church is where the spirit of Christ is in the lives of the people."

Theologically, we must see the ecumenical church as a Christ-centered, grace-oriented, biblically-rooted community of believers with a passion for redemption. It will be in the world but not of it, and it will look to Scripture as authoritative, and it will always faithfully preach the gospel. It will assemble regularly to remember its Lord in the breaking of bread and for the fellowship of the saints.

Beyond these theological motifs are three marks that are more practical, albeit they have their theological roots. An acceptance of them would give us a broader ecumenical outlook. They may be named as "three opens" -- open communion, open pulpit, open membership. My thesis is that if the church is truly ecumenical it will have all three of these "opens." Few denominations today practice more than one of these, and some none at all. A sure sign of sectarianism and exclusivism is closed communion (only "our" members), a closed pulpit (only "our" preachers), and closed membership (only those baptized as we see it).

In the Stone-Campbell tradition we have generally practiced but one -- an open Table -- though some, including Alexander Campbell himself, have opted for closed communion. Campbell even suggested that immersed believers be seated apart -- with a gate opening into their section! -- so that they only would be served communion.

But generally all through our history, and among all three churches of the Movement, we have served an open Table. A slogan even emerged to that effect: "We neither invite nor debar." It is the Lord's table, we have insisted, and each one is to examine himself as to whether he should partake. The only exception I know is some British Churches of Christ who serve the Table much like Campbell suggested. If you are a visitor, you may kindly be asked if you are an immersed believer, and you will be seated accordingly.

This is consistent. If a church holds that only the immersed are within the fellowship of Christ, and therefore practices closed membership (only the immersed can be members), then it should not have an open Table. There is no greater expression of Christian fellowship than to break bread together. If a church serves the Lord's supper to an unimmersed believer, it should, to be consistent, accept him as an equal in Christ and as a member of the congregation. This is to say that if a church practices any one of the three "opens," it should practice all three.

Open membership has not only been controversial, but it has been made a litmus test for orthodoxy and an excuse for division among us. Some historians have noted that while it was widely practiced it was seldom admitted. It was argued by its opponents that to accept the unimmersed as members was to compromise our position on baptism, which does not necessarily follow.

Part of the problem is what we have made of "church membership," which is something of our own making rather than biblical. A "church member" may be something different from "members of Christ" (1 Cor. 6:15) or "members of his body" (Eph.5:30) or "members one of another" (Eph.4"25). One may be a member of Christ but not a member of any congregation, as in the case of the Ethiopian eunuch on his return home.

And how can we be so absolute that only the immersed are members of Christ? That would exclude the majority of believers worldwide, including most of the great heroes of the church. Consider someone who was christened as an infant (on the basis of the faith of her parents and the church), confirmed at age 12 (at which time she accepted the faith as her own), and has been devoted to Christ on into adulthood. She marries a member of the Churches of Christ, and is content to make his church her church. She is even willing to join his church, only to discover that she has to be baptized again (as she sees it), by immersion this time. She has no quarrel with immersion, but since she has been a Christian all her life, she sees such a step as a repudiation of both her baptism and her heritage. She is not yet convinced by Scripture that immersion is the only baptism. Maybe eventually, but not yet.

She is treated graciously and lovingly by her Church of Christ sisters and brothers, except she is not sure they accept her as a sister in Christ. And she knows she is not accepted as "a member of the church" until she is immersed. This may go on for years, all of which time she beautifully bears the likeness of Christ. She sits beside her husband and among the saints as a visitor, always a visitor, and not as an equal in Christ. She is an "outsider" in the assembly of saints, when in fact she may be the saintliest of them all! They do include her in the Lord's supper, which might be confusing to her.

There is something seriously wrong with this. We badly need to restudy our notion of "membership." To treat a devout follower of Christ as if she were an unbeliever and as unequal to us is intolerable. I suggest a better way, one that is eminently biblical.

Let's forget about "church membership" since it is our own idea and not biblical, and it is based on our idea of who is a "Christian." I suggest instead "disciple fellowship," which is biblical, for Christ has called us to be his disciples. We are all disciples of Christ, even when we do not see baptism alike.

Besides, the name "Christian," which we have institutionalized. was given (almost certainly) as a nickname by outsiders, and was not a divinely appointed name. And did not our Lord say, "If anyone would be my disciple . . ." Even in Acts 11:26 when Luke introduces the name Christian, he says, "The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch." He calls them "disciples," and continues to do so all through his history. It is an interesting fact, given what we make of that name, that no disciple in the New Testament ever calls himself

a Christian, nor does a believer ever call any other believer a Christian. It was accepted in the context of persecution, as l Peter 4:16 indicates. but never used by the church to identify itself -- never anything like "to the Christians in Rome."

Dogmatizing that name -- by precisely defining who is a Christian -- may be at the root of or "membership" hangup. It is far more difficult to do that to disciple, which is the most used biblical name for believers. Luke uses it 30 times in writing the story of the early church in Acts, and it appears scores of times in the gospels, where Christ calls us to discipleship. "Christian" is not used even once in these sources to identify the followers of Christ, except twice by outsiders (Acts 11:26; 26:28).

Let's prepare for the ecumenical church by receiving into the fellowship all disciples of Christ -- all who are faithful to Christ according to their understanding. Disciple fellowship! We will learn and grow together, become more and more like Christ together, With "longsuffering and teaching" we will bear witness to how we understand baptism to be by immersion. As fellow disciples come to accept this they will be immersed. But this will make them no more disciples than they were already. Once we heed Christ's call, we are always disciples -- always learning, always growing, and always accepting new light as it breaks into our lives.

Once we cross this Rubicon of "open membership" the other "opens" fall in line. An open pulpit means that any sincere disciple will be welcomed to the pulpit. If he or she is a Presbyterian, an Episcopalian, or a Roman Catholic, that person is first of all a disciple of Christ. We will listen -- and may sometimes lovingly disagree (just as we do with our own!) -- as followers of Christ together. We are fellow disciples in spite of denominational preferences.

I repeat, we can enjoy disciple fellowship without compromising any truth we hold, and without endorsing any error held by others. Any more than they will have to approve of our errors!

How liberating and rewarding this will be! We will draw upon the wisdom and the experience of the whole church. We will truly be "members one of another," and we will exult in the creative diversity. And we will be obeying Christ in accepting others on the same basis that he accepted us (Rom. 15:7).

This is the church of God's tomorrow -- the united, ecumenical church. Reconciled diversity! People will not be accepted because they are "of us," but because they are "of him." We will be disciples together, having never "arrived," but always learning, always growing. The only test will be loyalty to Christ, the only agenda Christlikeness.

I have found a box of old copies of Restoration Review that I did not know I had. I will give these away to the readers of these essays who request them. I ask only that you pay the postage. Send us your mailing address and $1.42, and we will send you 10 different issues, some of which date back to the 1960s. First call basis, of course, while they last.