Shalom!

David wrote: Over recent years I have found that some who tend not to engage in dialogue with more liberal churches are happy to relate to some Pentecostals and Evangelicals that more liberal Baptists may shy away from. In other words, there is a willingness to be grafted onto fruitful branches rather than being tied to dead wood.

Nathan responded:

I think that this observation about where the dividing lines are is really important, but I’m not sure that the explanation has gotten to the bottom of it.

I think that David is correct to note that the problem is not so much about whether some groups are closed to cross-denominational conversation, but about who they see as worth conversing with and who they don’t. The big divides are no longer on denominational lines, and that is why the old ecumenical movement has run out of steam – its battle has been won. But I don’t think David is right in thinking that the divide is now simply over whether or not the churches are growing. There are small dying churches who are trying to follow the mega-church patterns and who will regularly engage in conferences such as the one at Crossway, or the frequent ones at Hillsong. They are not succeeding in becoming successful like Crossway or Hillsong, but they talk the same language, and both they and the big churches recognise each other as being in the same tribe. On the other hand there are also plenty of rapidly growing Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, but their success would not immediately make them natural conversation partners with Crossway and Hillsong. There must be other factors involved.

I’m not sure whether I’ve got this worked out, so this attempt at an explanation is a work in progress seeking feedback.

On the surface, the most obvious clue seems to be worship structure. On one side are those whose worship is based on the traditional four-fold order (Gathering-Word-Table-Sending), and on the other side are those whose worship is based on the frontier revivalist three-fold order (Praise-Preaching-Response). There are variants in both camps, with the hymn sandwich being a variant on the traditional four-fold order, and the Hillsong two-fold order (Act of Worship – Act of Commitment) being a growing variant on the revivalist three-fold order. Both sides of this divide tend to be arrogantly dismissive of the other side. On the traditional side, it is common to hear talk of a “Christian consensus” on the shape of worship. While for most of Christian history there was such a consensus, it has clearly broken down in the last two hundred years, and to continue to speak of it as a present reality is to dismiss those on the other side of the divide as schismatics. The example David mentioned of people viewing the traditional churches as “dead wood” is as good an example as any of the dismissive attitude that runs the other way.

So, on the surface, I think that worship style is the clearest indicator of the dividing lines. Beneath the surface though, there are always underlying beliefs which result in our differing approaches to worship, and I think the real answers probably lie there.

One of the key beliefs over which the two sides differ here is about whether or not there is a “right” way for Christians to worship. On the traditional side there is a view that the four-fold order is part of “what we have received from the apostles and passed on to you”. It is believed to be the way in which God desires to be worshipped, and/or that participation in this pattern of worship is an integral part of our identity as Christians. Like the doctrine of the Trinity, they will say that although it is deduced from scripture rather than taught in scripture, it is now a given and its acceptance is part of what defines us as Christian. It may even be described as being a matter of revelation and authoritative tradition. This concept of authoritative tradition is not as foreign to us evangelicals as we often think. The question of what books we receive as scripture and what ones we don’t is, for us, a matter of authoritative tradition. The answer comes not from scripture itself, but from a process of canonical authorisation in the first few centuries of the church. On this side, the shape of worship would be seen as somewhat similar, something which was worked out in the early church and has been passed on ever since as an authoritative tradition. Continued participation in it is a matter of faithfulness, not a missional strategy.

On the side that grew from the revivalist traditions, the shape and style of worship are not givens. They are strategic means to a gospel end, and they are therefore changeable as the needs and tastes of the target demographic changes. On this side, it is believed that God calls us to be sensitive to our context and to glorify him by creating models of worship that will achieve the desired results – usually understood in terms of a growing number of people from the surrounding culture orienting their hearts and lives to God. This is not seen as wilful abandonment of the Christian heritage, but as an ongoing translation of that heritage into culturally accessible language and forms.

There is a relationship between this and the question Roland Croucher raised when he asked: Am I right in thinking that as churches move from left to right (shades of Troeltsch) they move to a more individualistic ethos anyway?

On the traditionalist side there is a belief that the form of worship is determined by and for the whole Christian Church, while on the other side the belief is that each individual congregation is free work it out for themselves and that each individual person is free to choose a provider that offers what suits their individual tastes and needs.

However, I’ve got a hunch that this gets more confused if one looks beyond the beliefs about worship and on to what is probably the next biggest badge of the divide – morality. It seems that the two sides have different underlying beliefs about the basis for morality – on one side the basic concept is justice, while on the other it is faithfulness. And what we find here is that, our values about “faithfulness to the revelation” v’s “means to an end” seem to reverse positions. So as a rough generalisation, those who are more conservative and traditionalist about worship are often more liberal and progressive about morality, while those who hold to the liberal progressive views of worship often hold to more conservative and traditionalist positions on morality. Those who approach worship in terms of faithfulness to the received tradition, approach morality in terms of finding the means by which the given culture can most fully express love and justice. Those who approach worship as finding the means by which the given culture can most readily be turned to God, approach morality in terms of faithfulness to the received tradition.

But even this is over simplified, and at this point I’m really running out of explanation and looking for help. Perhaps there is another collectivist-individualist distinction to be made. On the side where there is a conservative approach to morality, and therefore an expectation that the revelation and/or tradition will therefore define the moral answers for us, this seems to be most true of private morality and less and less true as you move towards issues of social morality. So, for example, Christians who practice a revivalist worship style are likely to expect a strong and unified stance against homosexuality, but tolerate a diversity of positions on the moral acceptability of conspicuous wealth or the closing of borders to refugees. Many churches who disagree with Hillsong’s beliefs on prosperity will still attend their conferences on worship, but if Hillsong advocated a change of tune on homosexuality, there would be a big drop in attendances.

I think I’ve ended up confusing myself, so I hate to think what I’ve done to anyone else who was foolhardy enough to read this far! In summary, I am saying that the real ecumenical divide is not between denominations, nor between growing and declining churches. The real divide seems to be between churches who line up differently on worship forms and on morality. And the paradox is that the labels “conservative” and “liberal (or progressive)” don’t help, because churches are generally conservative on worship and liberal on morality, or vice versa. Perhaps someone else can offer a deeper level of analysis that will both unravel this paradox and shed light on the fact that different types of moral questions also seem to be approached differently.

Peace and hope,

Nathan

_____________________________________ Nathan Nettleton Pastor, South Yarra Community Baptist Church Melbourne, Australia