I will never forget sitting in my office as two factions in my church collided like two opposite-bound freight trains on the same track. As the founding pastor, I had begun this work a few months earlier with a firm commitment to inclusiveness. Now I was swept up in a showdown.
The organist was from a Presbyterian background. The pianist’s roots were Pentecostal. Each Sunday morning service began with the organist playing Bach preludes … la Virgil Fox at the Notre Dame Cathedral and the pianist primed to play her praise songs … la Dino at the Shrine Auditorium. While I thought the mixture was wonderful, both women were appalled and hostile.
Armed with their followers, they had come to my office for a worship committee meeting. The atmosphere was anything but conducive to thoughts of worship. The scene looked more like arms negotiations with the Soviets. Both sides were convinced there was no room in this new church for what the other offered.
At that point I had to make a fundamental decision. I could take the easy way out by declaring one side the winner, which would put the tension to rest (and most likely cause the other side to leave). On the other hand, if I were willing to take the heat and stay in the role of negotiator, we might just be able to transcend diversity and become a truly exciting expression of the love of Christ.
With some reluctance and lots of trepidation, I decided to step between the trains to try to prevent the wreck and avoid the casualties.
I wish I had a Superman story for you, but I don’t. I proved to be hopelessly mortal, getting mangled and losing both women as members of the church. However, something important arose out of the smoldering wreckage of the collision. A principle was established: If people were going to be members of this congregation, they would have to lovingly embrace each other. They didn’t have to agree on everything, but they did have to be tolerant and, more important, open to other people’s practices.
It also established my role. Rather than presiding over midnight massacres, the pastor’s role would be one of reconciler-even if that occasionally cost the church some people.
That controversy, while painful at the time, proved to be a fortuitous beginning for our church. But even if our young congregation had been in existence for decades, I believe the result could have been the same. Once the principle of unity is set and the pastor has the willingness, tenacity, and stature to stand behind it, a new day can begin. From that point on, our congregation consciously set out to respect, cultivate, and encourage many varied forms of church life. As a result, the ministry has benefited. The quality of worship has been enhanced, attendance and giving have increased, and evangelism has flourished.
Periodically, every church faces some issue that threatens to divide. The problem is as old as the Jerusalem believers’ argument over how to administer the “needy fund.” These days it may revolve around the purchase of a church van-or the construction of a new building. It may pit Scripture memory buffs against those who want to focus attention on an inner-city tutoring program. The issue may be which musical instruments (if any) are appropriate in worship-or the role of women. It may be apartheid-or flowers on the altar. How are we going to respond?
The Pastor’s Attitude
Whatever the issue, there are some important principles to know if we are to reach the tough but noble goal of unity.
I am convinced from our experience that harmony could not have been achieved if I had not committed myself to the goal of unity without uniformity.
This demands that the pastor be secure enough to tolerate a diversity of opinion. I had to allow people to hold ideas different from my own! For some leaders, I realize, this requires significant soul searching Does personal integrity demand that I run the church my way? Is the goal of unity more important than the goal of doing things that make me comfortable? Can we allow parishioners latitude in their musical taste, worship style, and even their theological basis?
I realized my leadership was crucial. Far more divisions in Christendom have resulted from a pastor’s entrenched position than from genuinely irreconcilable theological differences between lay people.
After wrestling with those questions, I felt in this clash over musical tastes it was more important to demonstrate the fullness of the body of Christ than to establish one particular style.
How did I begin to work with the two camps in our church?
First, I had to develop insight and appreciation for how the two groups were both alike and different. Through these years of dialogue and exchange, I have learned how critical it is to recognize the differences between each group’s world view. Generally the strain between differing camps is assumed to be purely theological. While theological differences do exist, I have discovered the problem is often more one of diversity-the different ways each side experiences what is real.
For example, take the deeper differences in our church between the charismatics and noncharismatics. I prefer to label these two camps the Pneumatics and the Pragmatics. Setting aside, for a moment, the age-old theological debate about charismatic gifts, I have discovered the major difference between these groups is the way they encounter what they profess.
Pragmatics put a high value on reason. This group gives allegiance to the “outer” manifestations of faith. They are children of the Enlightenment, who don’t put much credence in unusual experiences that originate from realms that can’t be tested, analyzed, evaluated. Like the rationalists, Pragmatics see hunches, intuition, and inspirations as suspect. Prayer certainly has a place, but they don’t want to make outlandish, “unrealistic” requests. Healing stories are nice, but they don’t want to make them the norm for every Christian. They often look for inconsistencies and incongruencies in such accounts.
On the other hand, Pneumatics have found another dimension of reality within the folds of everyday life. They seek the “inner” encounter. They believe the Spirit of the Creator is so much at work that, to use Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s metaphor, every common blackberry bush has the potential to become aflame with God’s presence. Pneumatics expect interventions. When they dream at night, God speaks, and even in their waking moments they may experience visions. They have an inner ear that hears the inaudible. Their vision goes beyond the optic nerve. They sense an inner reality that can’t be calculated on a computer. For them, prayer is an encounter; they expect not only to speak to the Creator but to hear him respond. Pneumatics become ecstatic over stories of personal healing.
At the risk of oversimplification, and not intending a value judgment, I describe Pragmatics as rational and Pneumatics as mystical. Pragmatics generally deal with the faith’s outworking, Pneumatics with the faith’s inner movement. Their differing orientations set the stage for conflict.
After analyzing these differences, I went to work trying to use that knowledge.
I sought to point out that both groups truly need each other. Rationalists need the “feelers” while the mystics need help in keeping their feet on the ground. By embracing the other rather than squaring off, each group could maintain its balance. My attitude was: Each orientation has its place. We need to help each group get in touch with how the other functions. No adequate discussion of theology, philosophy, evangelism, spiritual gifts, or healing ministry can occur until both sides are willing to hear the other.
Often the pastor is the only person who can help each camp see these differences and appreciate their meaning. As leaders, we must also have sensitivity to the places where these differences are likely to come into conflict.
Identify the Flashpoints
Having determined my own attitude, and recognizing the differences in orientation, I found it important to clarify publicly the places where collisions were likely to occur. As the whole church reflected on why these points of tension arose, many a bomb was defused.
In our situation, worship was always one of the prime areas of tension. Holding up hands or singing praise choruses tended to run counter to stately liturgy and classical hymns. As one group searched for experience, the other sought order and continuity. The Pragmatics were suspicious of emotion, while the Pneumatics were wary of structure.
During congregational study times, we explored the heritage of each group to discover what was both useful and superfluous. For one month I merged all the adult classes into one “Pastor’s Class.” During this hour we investigated the ramifications of worship practices. We considered strengths and weaknesses of both the liturgical and nonliturgical traditions and how each experienced the reality of God’s presence. Because each position was treated fairly, we were able to help both sides see the best points of the other.
Now we offer the worship class once a year so that as new people join the church, they will be able to participate in the unique blend that has emerged. Occasionally we study various worship forms such as the frontier evangelistic service or the second-century Communion service. Then in the following hour, we worship in that manner. More than just instructional, the result has been exciting and invigorating to the congregation.
By setting out to find the best of the various worlds, we were able to evolve a form of worship that was both liturgical and spontaneous, structured and open. For example, we always begin with one of the great hymns of the past that is addressed to God and expresses stately praise. However, we discovered that just before the pastoral prayer, simple praise songs turned our attention toward the spiritual in a way that nothing else did.
We took a second look at the practice of holding up hands in praise. The Pragmatics resented this expression, feeling it was a Pentecostal style not appropriate for our Reformed denomination. When this perspective was interpreted to the Pneumatics, they could appreciate the tension. They pointed out, however, that the origins of this practice were actually in the Old Testament. The Book of Psalms suggests these Jewish gestures of prayer are expressions honoring God.
Because no one was forced either to adopt or reject the practice, in a short time it was unimportant whether people lifted their hands in worship.
Another hot spot was the question of the use of the gifts of the Spirit. This is a touchy theological issue in many groups. In our church, however, even those who questioned the validity of gifts for the present age were aware of the apparent reality of their fellow Christians’ gifts. It’s difficult to tell another person his experience is an illusion without suggesting he’s a little crazy. When people could see these gifts exercised in love, theological opinions took on the texture of sister relating to sister and brother to brother. Stiff dogmatism yielded to Christian sensitivity, which saved many a painful confrontation.
Even our congregation, however, which generally recognizes the biblical validity of the full range of spiritual gifts, still had tension over the more controversial ones: tongues and miracles. Our congregation found that if we avoided the extremes of declaring that people were entirely wrong or completely right, we could hold the two groups in creative tension.
We made it clear we wanted to be open to everything God is doing. We would be willing to hear and try to understand everyone’s experience while remaining faithful to God’s Word. One group might feel memorizing Scripture is the best means of spiritual growth while another group seeks the more esoteric prayer experience as the means to the same end. As all discovered what it means to believe that the Holy Spirit really does work in the fullness of time, we had less need to “strap it on each other.” The result has been a peaceful, natural process of personal growth.
We found this approach was equally helpful in considering the diverse issues that are vital and personal to both groups. Our Pragmatics tend to be concerned about issues like nuclear disarmament and South Africa while Pneumatics want to skip politics and talk about areas like healing and the deeper prayer life.
Rather than drawing up battle lines against each other, we eventually agreed any subject with a demonstrable biblical base would be examined. Exploration would not necessarily mean endorsement. However if we were to be truly the body of Christ, we needed to be able to discuss differences of opinion while holding each other in esteem. The more we searched for biblical direction the clearer it became that the whole range of issues from social concerns to evangelism was important. The question was one of balance not exclusion. Consequently, it was important for each camp to “have its day.” Our goal became equilibrium rather than conformity.
Gains and Losses
During these nine years, we have had both gains and losses. While we have learned a considerable amount about maintaining harmony, I can identify three problems we have not solved.
First, we have found we cannot satisfy the extremist in any group. Those who maintain an absolute position on either end of the spectrum are not going to stay in the boat with the others. I now suspect it may be unrealistic to expect to keep in our church people with little flexibility.
Second, there is always a tendency to shortchange one group or the other. Regardless of what is said, the pastor’s personal preferences tend to surface. None of us can stand on a perfect center.
I’ve tried to be candid about my own biases and open to correction. This seems to cover a multitude of prejudices. Rather than seeking a perfectly balanced system, we aim for creativity and allow one another a considerable margin for error.
Compromise for compromise’s sake is a poor basis for decision making. That stance can turn a pastor into an ecclesiastical wimp and create the very conflicts it is trying to avoid. An ultimate allegiance to becoming the Body of Christ is a more significant goal than is just settling for harmony.
Third, many times the staff may be placed in a bind. When philosophies of ministry tug from both sides, it is not always easy to know which way to jump. Staff members may have very different views among themselves! The result is that the staff is forced to communicate regularly or end up in public confrontations. Of course, if this situation forces us to communicate better, this “problem” is not all bad.
In summary, the danger of seeking unity is the tendency to become all things to all people in such a way that we become bland and undefined. If a church is too willing to compromise its theological ideals, it gains the world and loses its own soul.
On the other hand, important gains have come out of the melting pot. I believe these positive aspects far outweigh the negative.
First, our worship is more powerful and dynamic than it ever would have been had we allowed either group sole control. Not only have the emphases blended, but the worshipers have come together in genuine community. The result is a powerful release of the Holy Spirit. New forms and expressions have arisen that are meaningful to both groups and transcend their differences.
For example, by alternating liturgical forms on subsequent Sundays, various groups often see what is meaningful to others without feeling that their interests are being slighted. Periodically we develop “sermon dramas” to convey the message. As the sermon unfolds, actors come out of the congregation to act out the message. Or the choir may sing hymns in a cantata style to further develop the sermon. Because we have cultivated a practice of using forms of music from nearly every period of history, we can express themes in an appropriate style that will embody the message.
Second, many people have had their horizons expanded. The dialogue has made them not only more aware of the others but more perceptive about themselves. Most have come to see the security of an attitude of possessing the total truth is simply false. The “feelers” have had to recognize the value of becoming more cerebral and the “thinkers” have discovered the importance of personal encounter. Each camp has become more balanced through this atmosphere.
Third, the entire body of believers has been made more alive and productive. We benefit from the organizational stability the Pragmatics provide with their planning. Our more spontaneous Pneumatics bear a powerful witness to the importance of trusting God for the results. Our congregation tends to have a vigor that is the result of the pulsating life both groups bring.
Several years ago, a large local congregation got into one of those church fights that damages the whole Christian community. The fallout scattered the church’s flock forever. Although we certainly did not want to profit from a sister church’s catastrophe, we did become a haven for some of the refugees.
Later I asked one of the families why they had come to our church.
“Robert,” the woman said, “a church fight is almost worse than divorce. We didn’t think our faith could stand another church disaster. As we observed this body of believers, however, we sensed that such a fight won’t happen here. I can’t tell you how important that is to us.”
I realized she was also telling me we had fulfilled a responsibility I had not considered. Preserving the unity of the body of Christ affects both evangelism and nurture. A reputation for unity is a crucial aspect of John 13:35-“all will know that you are my disciples if you love one another.”
We have learned that unity can be achieved on a more lofty basis than homogeneous social class, race, or common religious background. Unity is more than a noble ideal. It can be achieved, but it does require effort and, at times, courage.
By stepping between the onrushing trains and people with their “loco-motives,” we risk being run over, but we may also be able to prevent the catastrophic collisions, with all the resulting casualties, and keep the precious cargo moving on down the line.
Robert L. Wise is pastor of Our Lord’s Community Church in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
IMPEDIMENTS TO UNITY
Richard Baxter, English Puritan clergyman and writer (1615-1691), learned the hard way how elusive unity can be. A moderate dissenter in the Church of England, he was forced out by the Act of Uniformity and was later imprisoned for eighteen months on the charge that he had libeled the church. His numerous writings include The Reformed Pastor, from which this excerpt is taken.
Too often we find men who are averse to the unity of the church and who are jealous of it. If Roman Catholics tend to idolize the church, shall Protestants go to the opposite extreme, to deny it, to disregard it, and to be divisive? For it is a great and common sin to be a part of religion as a faction, and to confine one’s love and respect to a denomination instead of the church universal.
Men do not have a universal concern and respect for the whole church. Rather, they look to their own denomination as if that were the whole. Lutherans, Calvinists, and their subordinate divisions will pray for the prosperity of their own party and rejoice and give thanks when things go well with their own denomination. But if others suffer, they have little regard for it, as if it were not any loss at all to the church.
How rare then it is to meet a man who suffers and bleeds for the wounds of the church universal, and who takes them to his heart as his own sufferings. Likewise, how few there are who have understood the true state of the sectarian controversies between various church groups, or discerned how many of them have been verbal, and have seen how many real causes there are for division!
What divides us?
Most of the matters that keep us divided relate to church government: its right form and order. If men’s hearts were really sensible of the church’s case and sought to love each other unfeignedly and seek unity earnestly, the creation of peace would be an easy task.
Instead, the story too often is of learned and godly ministers of the church who first of all disagreed among themselves, and then led on their people in those disagreements! We will read and preach on those texts that command men to follow peace with all men and to live peaceably with them, and yet we are so far from its practice that we snarl at, malign, and censure one another. It is as if zeal of holiness were the antithesis of zeal for peace, so that holiness and peace were irreconcilable.
This we have seen to our sorrow. Instead of living with one another as one heart, one soul, and one mouthpiece (to promote each other’s faith and holiness, and to admonish and help each other against sin), we have lived on the contrary in mutual jealousies, and drowned holy love in bitter contentions. We have studied how to disgrace and undermine one another to promote our party’s cause. We have also drawn our people into these struggles, dividing and slandering one another.
The effects of division
The public takes notice of all this and not only derides us, but becomes hardened against all religion. When we try to persuade them, they see so many factions that they do not know which to join-and think it is better not to join any of them. Thus thousands grow in contempt of all religion by our divisions.
If you are offended by my harsh language, I can tell you I have learned it of God. You should be much more offended by such satanic practices. The Holy Ghost would teach us, “Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? Let him show out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace” (James 3:13-18). I pray that you read these words again and again, and study them.
I know that matters of truth are not to be received upon our credit alone. Yet our credible examples may do much to remove prejudice and remove the blockages at the entrance of men’s minds. They may thus procure a more equal hearing to the truth, and thus be to the good of our people.
Copyright © 1986 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
