By G. D. Gehr 10/05/2016
There is a growing distrust of
authority these days. It is most evident
in the political realm, where an outsider like Donald Trump is able to mount a
most formidable challenge to a career insider like Hillary Clinton. Part of Trump’s appeal is his repeated claims
that the establishment cannot be trusted and that he offers the only true
alternative to what one might call “The
Washington Way”.
This contempt for the
establishment runs deep. Trump surely
has not created it. He is merely
exploiting it for his own advantage. The
same thing that fuels the Trump campaign has also fueled the Arab Spring and
countless movements before that. It can
be found in politics, in music, in art, and even in religion.
Since the day Martin Luther
nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenburg Church in Germany in 1517 to
challenge the authority of Pope Leo X and the Roman Catholic Church, through
the ensuing Protestant Reformation and right up to our present day Christians
have rightfully asked themselves if they could trust the traditions and the
teachings of their church. Many have
concluded they could. Some have
determined that they mostly agreed but questioned certain teachings or practices. Still, these were not enough to divide
themselves and attempt to form a new church.
Still others have decided that their differences were beyond
reconciling. These choose to leave
either to join another church group or to form a new one.
The Protestant Reformation
ushered in the age of denominations.
Prior to Luther Western Europe only really knew of one Christian
Church: The Roman Catholic Church. There were a few small fringe groups that
rose up from time to time but they never gained much of a following and were
quickly denounced by Rome as heretics.
Luther himself was declared a heretic but by then times had
changed. A greater number of people were
feeling resentment against Rome and Luther effectively gained a wider audience
through the newly invented printing press that enabled him to get his ideas out
to the masses like no one before him could do.
He also translated the Bible into German and again with the printing
press, made copies of scriptures available for the masses. This was the first time many people were able
to actually read the Bible for themselves. As is usually the case, when believers immerse
themselves in scripture they are awakened to the Will of God. The result was a following strong enough to
break with the Pope and form a new Church, the Lutheran Church. Almost immediately others were emboldened to
do the same, and within a mere two years Europe found itself home to three
major Christian groups: The Catholic,
the Lutheran, and the Reformed. As time
marched forward each of these “Big Three” birthed numerous other groups until
today there are so many denominations that I would not begin to name them here.
For myself I am a member of a
small denomination known as the Church of the Brethren. I will not bore you with too much of our
history except to say we began in 1708 in Germany, migrated to North America
beginning in 1719, and today boast of about 1.1 million worshipers worldwide,
including 100,000 in the United States.
The Church of the Brethren is
rooted in a movement known as Pietism.
Some of the early proponents of Pietism include, Jan Hus, Philipp Jakob
Spener, August Hermann Franke, Gottfried Arnold and Earnest Christoph Hochman
Von Hochenau. At its core Pietism sought
to encourage a holy and upright life devoted to faithful obedience to Christ
and the New Testament. There is a strong
emphasis on scripture, prayer and the Holy Spirit’s presence and ministry in the
life of the believer. In large part
Pietism teaches that each believer receives inspiration from the Holy Spirit
and thus has a portion of Truth to share with the Church. While this was intended to bring spiritual
renewal and awakening to existing churches, some, like Hochman von Hochenau, were
not satisfied with that and found themselves discouraged by a hesitant
reception on the part of the established leaders. This, coupled with the urgency they felt from
their own experience, led a few to separate themselves and form a new church or
to simply seek to live faithfully without the structure of a church.
In 1708 a young man named Alexander
Mack, Sr. entered into a period of intense Bible study and prayer with seven
other believers from the Reformed Church in Germany. Mack was introduced some years earlier to the
Pietistic teachings of Spener, Franke, Arnold and Von Hochenau. Mack, constantly seeking spiritual Truth,
also was introduced to another movement that preceded Pietism called
Anabaptism. Rooted in the 16th
Century reformation as an extension of Ulrich Zingli’s Reformed movement,
Anabaptism was perhaps the most radical theology of that day. With an emphasis on believer’s baptism and a
literal interpretation of the New Testament this group taught such doctrines as
non-oath swearing, nonviolence, nonconformity to the world, and no creed but
Christ. The Anabaptists held a high view
of Jesus and felt that his words and teachings held precedent over all
others. In particular the Sermon on the
Mount (Matthew 5-7) became the bedrock of their beliefs. They also saw the Church as a distinct,
separate body consisting of those who surrendered themselves fully to
Christ. Within the Church it was felt
that all believers were equal and God’s Truth was revealed through the body,
that is, through the collective understanding of the members of the Church who
prayerfully sought God’s Will.
Mack was convinced that the teachings of Pietism and
the teachings of Anabaptism were compatible and in fact together represented a
deeper understanding of God and His Will than either could do alone. Eventually
these eight persons reached the decision that they could not remain in their
local church. So, they held a service of
baptism and broke ties with the Reformed movement. This eventually became what we know today as
the Brethren movement, of which the Church of the Brethren is a part.
Since its beginnings in 1708 Mack’s little
following has had its share of divisions.
From the original eight we now have today at least five distinct groups
including the Church of the Brethren, Brethren Church, Dunkard Brethren, Old
German Baptist Brethren and the Grace Brethren.
While all this history is interesting (to me, at
least) I really want to focus on the Church of the Brethren today, for that is
what I am most familiar with. The Church
of the Brethren, or COB for short, is experiencing some tension within its
membership. Many are wrestling with such
issues as biblical authority and inspiration, abortion, peacemaking, and the
LGBTQ debate. In this sense we are no
different than nearly all American Christians.
These are hot topics throughout our country.
There was a time when the Brethren cherished their
unity. Perhaps because of our Pietistic
roots we managed to hold one another in fellowship while respecting views and
interpretations that at times caused disagreement. Following the Anabaptist vision of the Church
we Brethren have always believed that no one person should be elevated over the
rest and the Body of Christ, the Church, must be a model of unity and fellowship
for the world to see. We have strenuously
driven ourselves to place Christian fellowship and love at the core of who we
are. Differences have arisen, to be
sure. And on occasion we have divided
into two or more separate groups. Yet
even in our division we strive to maintain a sense of cooperation, respect, and
common identity.
In the past twenty years or so, however, there is
an increasing sense of restlessness and division within the ranks of the
COB. Like much of the nation we are
experiencing a growing distrust of authority and a questioning of our
theological interpretations. It is
difficult to pinpoint the beginning of this trend. It may have been our Annual Conference of
1979. Annual Conference is the highest
authority in our Church structure. It
consists of delegates representing each congregation, proportionate to the size
of its membership. In 1979 Annual
Conference dealt with a paper called Biblical
Inspiration And Authority. It
revealed how deeply we were divided in our understanding of scripture, with
some people holding to a very literal, inerrant view, while others considered
the Bible to be more inspired but not inerrant.
The latter understood that scripture needed to be interpreted and is
more of a guide rather than a rulebook.
In the end the paper was drawn up with three columns,
one representing the more conservative position and the other representing a
more liberal view. In the middle were
those areas where there was full agreement.
It was a compromise solution that did manage to maintain unity within
the Church.
By 1983 another hot issue arose. Human
Sexuality From A Christian Perspective was a groundbreaking document that
was ahead of its time. It too
acknowledge that we are not of one accord in our understanding of such concerns
as homosexuality. Though in the end the
paper does state that we consider homosexuality to be an unacceptable lifestyle
for believers yet there is a strong emphasis on encouraging dialogue and
remaining open to a continued sense of revealed Truth.
Other issues followed a similar pattern. Abortion, nonviolence, Church and State, and
much more. In a sense we embrace our
differences while seeking as much common ground as can be found and attempting
to focus on that. Holding on to our rich
heritage of Anabaptist community and Pietist individual interpretation we have
carefully steered our way through many obstacles.
All of that appears to be threatened,
however. Perhaps mirroring the political
polarization that is defining our country these days we see more and more signs
of intolerance within our denomination and many congregations. A number of local congregations have left the
denomination. Several others are
discussing doing so. Still others have
not really brought it up but have so changed their system of governance that they no longer follow the Pietistic
influence nor the Anabaptist heritage that has been at the very heart of the
term “Brethren”. Instead they are
embracing a totally different model.
These churches are adopting a more “apostolic” structure where all
decisions and authority rests with a very small group of self-appointed leaders. Under this system a great emphasis is placed
on expectations of membership, but those expectations are defined and enforced
by the leaders. These leaders are
empowered to unilaterally discipline members as they see fit even to the point
of excommunication – a practice that was abandoned in the COB over 100 years
ago.
There is much more I could say in opposition to
such trends but I suspect there are many, many variations embodied within the
COB and as I am not familiar with all of them I will take another
approach. I would like instead to offer
specific reasons why I support remaining actively involved with the
denominational entity that we call the Church of the Brethren.
1. ACCOUNTABILITY.
There is a tremendous danger when too much power
is placed in the hands of a very small group of people without a reasonable
system of checks and balances. This is
what makes the United States Constitution such a valuable and successful
document. Government is divided into the
Legislative Branch (which itself is divided into two chambers), Executive
Branch, and Judicial Branch. Each one
holds the other accountable. And all
three are subject to the approval of the citizens of the nation through the
process of elections.
For the Church, a denominational structure
provides a sense of accountability. If a
pastor or congregational leaders begin to slip into errant ways there is a
process by which members can appeal for justice and damage control. In the COB we have an Ethics In Ministry Relations polity that details what is expected
of an ordained minister and how discipline will be conducted through the local
district. We also have a document called
Congregational Ethics Polity which
does a similar thing for relationships within congregations.
How many times have we seen once legitimate church
fellowships morph into a cult behind the charismatic, egotistic leadership of a
person who refused to be held accountable to anyone and who denounced
denominational structure as counter-productive?
Examples abound, including David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, Jim
Jones and the Peoples Temple (Jones began as a Methodist minister), The
Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon (who once was a Presbyterian minister),
The Children of God and David Berg (a former Disciples of Christ pastor),
Herbert Armstrong (World Wide Church of God).
These are just some of the more famous ones from the 20th
Century.
For every one who became famous there are no doubt
hundreds you never heard of. Most of
these follow a similar pattern. They
despise denominations primarily because they know that Church officials will
try to control their excesses. In many
cases they were disciplined by their denomination or simply defrocked, that is,
their ministerial credentials were revoked due to unethical behavior and/or
false teachings. Many never joined with
a denomination. They saw from the
beginning that they would be limited in what they could get away with if they
joined a larger group. As a general rule
of thumb such persons demand full control over their organization and loyal
obedience from their followers. A
denomination is no guarantee against such practices but it is an extra layer of
protection.
2.
AUTHENTICITY.
“authenticity”:
1) real or genuine; not
copied 2) true and accurate (Merriam-Webster dictionary)
In 1983 I did my pastoral internship at the Sun
Valley Church of the Brethren in Birmingham, Alabama. It was a tiny congregation with perhaps 30
people give or take. It was one of only
four congregations of our denomination in the entire state. Combined these four had at the most about 200
members. The District stretches through
5 states, from Alabama to North Carolina.
Consequently the Brethren were
not known. People were therefore
suspicious of us. On several occasions I
was asked if we were a cult. It was a
natural question simply because we had not established a sense of
authenticity. People never heard of us
and they knew nothing about it. I cannot
blame them for wondering if we were “real
or genuine”; if our teachings were “true
and accurate”.
By contrast in Pennsylvania, the Brethren have
four districts with a total of 35,600+ members.
Just in Lancaster County, where I live, we have approximately 27
congregations. The Brethren are well
known around here and consequently we have established a sense of
authenticity. Authenticity builds
trust. To some degree it creates what is
known in the business world as a “brand”. Granted, there is some variance from one
congregation of Brethren to another. But
generally the public, at least the larger Christian community, know and respect
the name Church of the Brethren.
This kind of reputation, if you will, is not
always present in a non-denominational church.
Not that it can’t be present. By
all means a non-denominational church can and usually does build credibility
over time. But I feel the challenge is a
bit greater, especially at the beginning of the church’s life.
3. MINISTRY
& SERVICE OPPORTUNITY.
It is undisputable that we are stronger in numbers
than we are alone. By pooling together
the resources of a denomination we can increase the scope and magnitude of our
overall mission and be better equipped to fulfill the Great Commission (Matthew
28:16-20).
For example, without the Church of the Brethren
denomination there would be no Heifer International, On Earth Peace, Brethren
Service Ministries, New Windsor (MD) Service Center, SERRV (Fair Trade retail),
or Brethren Volunteer Service. I realize
many outside the COB may not recognize most of these agencies but they are all
part of the Church of the Brethren or they began through the Church of the
Brethren. One could argue that there
would be no Church World Service or the Peace Corps either, as the Brethren
were instrumental in their formation. The
Peace Corp was formed when President John F. Kennedy invited members of the
Church of the Brethren and the Mennonite Church to come to the White House and
explain the success each of them had with their respective volunteer service
agencies. Using that as a model the
Kennedy Administration developed the Peace Corps as a volunteer
service-centered government agency designed to meet human need across the globe
while building goodwill with foreign nations.
Clearly one of the most unique contributions of
the COB is our Child Disaster Services.
In times of natural disaster, such as tornadoes or hurricanes where
communities are virtually wiped out, the immediate reaction is to assess the
physical damage and provide emergency shelter.
Often lost in the hectic confusion is the emotional health of the
children whose lives have been uprooted and thrown into chaos. All have suffered loss: for some it is the
security of a home; for others it is the comfort of special toys or objects;
and of course there are those who have lost a loved one, a pet, or some other
object of love. The Brethren have
recognized the distinct needs represented by such crises and have responded
with a special program designed specifically to provide healing and comfort
from the emotional scars of disasters.
Child Disaster Services also give parents the assurance that their child
is taken care of while they can go about the prolonged process of recovery form
their loss. We were on the breaking edge
of this kind of service and remain the leading provider for it.
It is arguable that no single congregation could
have done these things alone. One might
counter that there are para-church organizations that do similar work like
these and a congregation could support that.
While such a point has some validity I would suggest that it is far from
the same thing. Congregations have no
say in the values, management or mission of para-church groups. Also it is a proven fact that the Church of
the Brethren agencies, like many denominational programs, are far more
efficient in their use of funds in part because of a much lower overhead and
drastically reduced administrative costs.
Therefore it makes sense to me to work within the Church structure both
as stewards of financial resources and because we are the owners and thus have
more control over how the agency is run.
4. BRANDING
I mentioned earlier that there is an element of
branding, a set of characteristics that are recognizable and represent a sense
of who we are. This deserves a deeper
look.
In general denominations can each focus on an
emphasis or two that is helpful for the entire Christian community. Lutherans, for example, help us to remember
that it is by grace we are saved, through faith. Methodists and Wesleyans express their faith as
a life inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Pentecostals remind us that the Holy Spirit gives each believer one or
more gifts to be used within the context of the Church’s ministry. The Reformed branch of the Church points us
to our doctrines and the Truth of God revealed through the preached Word. All of these are true and valuable. Together they help to make the Christian
witness whole. There need not be
competition as much as supplementation as we embrace our differences while
focusing on the common confession that Jesus is Lord and Savior of the World.
I believe the Brethren have a contribution to make
to this conversation as well. Our
emphasis on peace and social justice rank high on the list. As one of the three historic peace churches,
along with the Mennonites and the Quakers, we have consistently and distinctly
called the world community to examine their thinking, including their politics,
in light of the words of Jesus. He who
devoted his life to unconditional love for all clearly calls us to do the same.
In a similar way the Brethren have actively and
consistently spoken out against social injustice, oppression, and poverty even
before such issues became popular within Christian circles.
Because of our denominational emphasis on these
topics we have greatly influenced countless Church and government programs with
an approach that otherwise would have been overlooked. This kind of living heritage is worthy of
continuance. Dissolving the
denominational model would greatly increase the risk of losing much of these as
the tendency for independent churches is to focus instead on inward, local
ministries and bigger, fancier, high-tech worship auditoriums.
CONCLUSION
Please do not misunderstand me. The Brethren are by no means without
fault. We have indeed fallen short of
the Call of Christ in many ways. I
readily admit that we have much growth yet to take place. However, I am convinced that such growth is
likely to be realized more readily if we work at it together as a group through
Annual Conference and our districts than by each going our separate ways. And I suspect the same is true for other
denominations as well.
In the Gospel of John, chapter 17, Jesus offered
what we often call the High Priestly Prayer near the end of the Last Supper. In
it he prayed for the unity of his followers, not just the disciples but all who
would believe.
20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,
21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:
23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (John 17:20-23 (NIV)” [bold type added for emphasis by me]
It is this unity that
I seek as we strive to grow together in love and understanding and thereby
strengthen our witness to the World.
Clearly we live in a
divided world. Polarization appears to
be as extreme as ever ideologically and economically. I believe the Christian Church can be a
powerful model to our culture of how people can live and function together
while not only acknowledging our differences, but embracing them in a never
ending search for Truth.
G. D. Gehr
October 5, 2016
Comments are encouraged.