This week, instead of a video, I have some text to share with you: three pages from my next book. I’ve been working on this chapter for several weeks, but I think I need your input. I’m using an extended metaphor for institutions — including churches. Please read:
There’s a lot more, of course, but that’s the church metaphor I start with:
Now, here’s the wider context.
I am an ordained minister of the United Church of Christ, and the church I now serve as pastor is a part of that denomination. The motto of my denomination is, “That they may all be one.” This is a quotation from the Gospel of John, from a passage known as the Farewell Prayer (John 17:1-26). The UCC got its start back in 1957, when two previous denominations united: the Evangelical and Reformed Church, and the Congregational Christian Churches. And each of those two parent denominations was itself formed from the unions of two grandparent denominations, twenty some years before that. So we’re not just the United Church of Christ — we’re the Uniting Church of Christ, we’re all about uniting, and Jesus’ prayer, that they may all be one, has long been part of our dream.
But personally, I’ve always been a bit conflicted about that motto.
It can be a great thing, unity; it can be a great thing when people can transcend their differences and work together. There’s a feeling of unity, sometimes, in corporate worship. It’s a great feeling to be part of a team, in sports or in business, when that team is really working together and firing on all cylinders. It gives you motivation, and a sense of purpose, to be part of something bigger than yourself.
But on the other hand, people in Nazi Germany had that same sense of motivation, that same sense of being part of something bigger than themselves; and there is a drive for unity behind white power movements like the Klan; and there was a drive for unity behind some of the most evil and intolerant parts of Christian history, like the great inquisitions. Those things are not just historical oddities; they’re so common that I would say they’re typical of the way humankind has expressed the drive for unity. Typically, we seek unity by enforcing conformity, by policing dissidents, and by turning against outsiders. The drive for unity can be totalizing and destructive; it can be just a tool of the basic institutional drive to survive, eat, and grow.
So here’s a problem: unity can be a great good, or a great evil. It can be one of the most uplifting human experiences, or one of the most degrading. And so I’m conflicted about the motto, that they may all be one. It needs careful thought. We need to be very careful about the kind of unity we seek.
In this chapter of the book I am trying to cast a vision — two visions, really. First, I want to cast a cautionary vision about the siphonophoric nature of institutions; second, I want to cast a hopeful vision about a different way to understand Jesus’ prayer, that they may all be one. Not one in race or caste or language; not one in national or political affiliation; not one in church or creed. I don’t think that God desires that any part of our beautiful diversity should be erased. I’ve written a hymn about this, and I’ll share it with you another time.
But now, leave a comment, and tell me something: what kind of unity should we be seeking?
I believe we have gotten off focus – I think the unity we should seek is the unity of love – love of self, love of the other, love of God – that’s it. I’m Wesleyan by training, creed, and denominational tradition…and I believe we’ve become what he was working to overcome – denominations full of bureaucracy, power concerns, and number crunching. …and what we need is bible study, accountability in love with each other, and unity in all with love of God…… just sayin…….
Thanks, Courtney! I’m thinking about your comments.
Could you elaborate a little, and tell me how you see Bible study as part of a way of unity? I cherish the Bible, but reading it hasn’t exactly led to widespread agreement among Christians so far! But it clearly works for you — can you say more about that?
I had thought that the UCC’s adoption of “that they may all be one” as it’s slogan might have been partially inspired by the ecumenical movement, which was very big in the 1950s. That movement seems to have mostly faded away.
The 1957 merger that formed the UCC may have sprung from a simple desire to “become larger,” and help each denomination survive successfully. The Congregational Church explored merging with the Disciples of Christ but instead would up merging with the Evangelical & Reformed.
I think there are ways for various denominations and religions to come together, short of merging, to seek justice, peace, and a better understanding of God.
Interesting point, Doug. The World Council of Churches (of which the UCC is a member) was founded in that same ecumenical movement; WWII postponed their formal start, but the ecumenical movement was strong in the 1920s and before. I think the “Life and Work” stream of that movement was very influential in the formation of the UCC, and also in the earlier mergers of its four grandparent denominations, and, more impressively, in the formation of the United Church of Canada in 1925. Reading some of those early documents, you get the feeling that people were very optimistic about the future of ecumenical mergers of that kind. But it seems like the popularity of such mergers peaked decades ago.
I think one problem is visible in the World Council of Church’s beginnings. There were two streams of ecumenism coming together: the “Life and Work” movement and the “Faith and Order” movement. The “Life and Work” folks concentrated on ethics and action, coming together to work together to heal the world in the name of Christ, regardless of doctrinal differences. The “Faith and Order” folks concentrated on, well, doctrinal differences: the meaning of the Gospel, the nature and purpose of the church, ministry and the sacraments, and so on. But of course the two aren’t independent, orthogonal concerns. For example, in the UCC we feel that healing the world requires working for LGBT equality. But some of our fellow WCC members believe that the healing of the world requires the reverse. Our shared desire to heal the world doesn’t really bring us completely together.
Still, there is progress in some quarters, especially if we set our sights a little lower: not on complete unification, but on harmonious cooperation. The UCC didn’t merge with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), but we’re about as close as two distinct denominations can be. And, more recently, the United Church of Christ (USA) and the United Church of Canada have signed full communion agreements, recognizing each others ordinations and so forth.
Of course, part of the reason for that may be that the two denominations are getting desperate: they’re both half the size they used to be!
Adam, thanks for your scholarly info. I was but a mere lad when the UCC was formed, so my recollection is limited. I do, however, recall some of the ecumenical discussions back in that era. It seems like the discussions primarily involved protestant denominations, but there seemed to be a feeling that once all the protestants came together, Catholics would come too. It all seems rather preposterous viewed from today.
We, as you said, live in several groups, with several institutions, with different people. This is advice for me, because I am still seeking: I think about such a way: first – find a unity with your heart and act according to the golden rule (Matthew 7,12). Then the unity finds you.
I love that thought: “the unity finds you.” Thanks!
Hi Adam – Well you know me. Being interested in both science and faith, I particularly resonate with organic images of community – whether Paul’s image of “the body” or yours of the siphonophore. Last year I wrote a whole pamphlet about these metaphors – “Body, Mind, Vine, and Fruit” – and I’ve been working on the topic of unity in diversity (vs uniformity in alikeness) ever since. If you want I’ll send you the pamphlet to post here, that would be fine..
Here is a short quote from the section on “Mind”:
“For Paul, the community embodies this ‘mind of Christ.’ And that mind is love. As a result, like the image of the vine, love flows through the organism unifying and animating the body. Love expresses itself as fruits – actions, words, and ways of being. Love knits the diversity of people and their gifts into a unity that is both dynamic and far from uniform.”
Thanks, brother. I was hoping you’d respond, and I knew that if you did you would both encourage and challenge me. You persuasively cast a more positive vision of community — not as a self-serving institutional organism, but as a relational expression of the mind of Christ. I’ll post your pamphlet at the top level, so more people will get a chance to read it.
As usual, though, I’m conflicted about Paul — about what thoughts he thought, and about which ones I agree with! Sometimes he characterized the church as the Body of Christ — to quote Ann Riggs, “fundamentally a theandric entity, an organism indwelt by the Holy Spirit, a living continuation of the Incarnation in the world.” In so doing, he sort of invented “the church,” the church universal, not meaning a group with any necessary functional relationship as a community, but a group defined by common membership in Christ. As in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”
That makes it sound as if the unity Paul is talking about isn’t so much about love, as about “partaking of the one bread.” But then again, 1 Corinthians 13. What’s a merry mystic to think?
Have not commented to date but have given the question some thought. Most examples of “becoming one” fall apart after expanding or trying to apply the concept to a situation, or group. I have however found a recent case that may have some merit. As I have been volunteering at the Clare Hospital ER, I have seen “becoming one” perhaps working. Individuals seeking help as it relates to their health (sometimes pain and suffering) are treated regardless of any outside issues or circumstances. The focus of the group is on relieving the individuals immediate condition and the only judgement made is the course of action to accomplish this task. So the key these issues seems to be JUDGEMENT! Who am I to judge? And what is any judgement based on? There must be a sermon in this somewhere?
Thanks, Dennis. There’s something about emergency situations in general that helps people overcome their differences, and come together to work as a team. It’s too bad we can’t seem to work as well together in peacetime as in wartime; in preventive medicine as in emergency medicine; in spontaneous acts of kindness as in disaster relief. Maybe, as you suggest, there’s something about urgent situations that temporarily overrides our habit of judging each other.
You wanna give the sermon?
We live in a dualistic world part of which is varying stages of maturity. Maturity deals not just with what we do but why. Oneness is the what. The why relates to purpose which reflects the levels of maturity of those involved. Spiritual oneness is a very high level of maturity inconceivable by most students on earth school’s playground.
I agree, Frank. And I like your characterization of “earth school’s playground” — sort of a Richard Bach idea. And yet …
I’ve also spoken with people — some of them children — who have had spiritual experiences they describe with words like “oneness” and “unity.” So it appears that spiritual oneness can be experienced by people of different levels of maturity. Maybe it’s one of those things most of us knew, but forgot shortly after birth.