What's New about the Big Tent?

I've been participating in the Big Tent Christianity synchroblog effort that leads into the September conference in Raleigh.  I've been reflecting on what this movement might mean for the church.  I've touched upon this issue in two previous posts, but I'd like to be a bit blunter here:  What's new about Big Tent Christianity?  That is, how does this differ from the National Council of Churches, Churches Uniting in Christ, Christian Churches Together?  (These are just a few of the ecumenical movements that exist).  So, why should we start another one?  Is it because this one is less institutionalized -- that is the folks forming this don't have posts in denominations?   As a pastor of a Disciple of Christ congregation, I'm part of a movement that has from its origins seen itself as a movement for unity among Christians.  I've noted earlier Thomas Campbell's Declaration and Address of 1809, in which Campbell declared that the Church of Christ on earth is:

PROP. 1. That the Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else; as none else can be truly and properly called Christians.

Campbell believed that this oneness was inherent in the church -- it is not something we achieve, but something we live into.

With this as a preface, I turn to a posting by Tony Jones, who with Doug Pagitt will serve as co-hosts of the September event.  Tony suggests that this event has the potential to do some real good, but also to really suck -- he's hoping that it doesn't do the latter.  Tony makes three points:

1.  Endless talk about who’s not there. Progressives rightly desire robust diversity in their ranks. Flip through Christianity Today, and you’ll see ad after ad for pastors’ conferences in which the speaking roster is unashamedly full of white men. This is not acceptable among progressives. Good. Yes. I agree. However, one does what one can and then one lives with the consequences. So Philip, Brian, and Tripp cast the net and the invitations far and wide, and got as many acceptances as they could, and the line-up of speakers is still too male and too white. Having said that, there’s nothing more we can do about that now. If we all sit around an bemoan our failures at diversity, we won’t advance the ball down the field.

2.  A Mutual Admiration Society. I don’t think this is unique to progressive Christian leaders, but there’s a tendency for the conversation to devolve into a bunch of back-slapping and high-fiving. The fact is, whenever a group like this convenes, there are politics: Person A used to work for Person B; Person C once served on a foundation board with Person D; Person E is hoping to be hired at the university where Person F is the dean. Those personal connections can stymie robust conversation if everyone is trying to be on their best behavior.

3.  Unwillingness to talk about something far afield. Evangelical leaders, it seems to me, are wont to spew their opinions far and wide, regardless of their expertise in a particular subject. Progressives, on the other hand, tend to stick to their category of expertise and defer to those in other fields. But in order to advance the conversation, we’ll all need to become polymaths. We’ll all need to talk about the Bible and politics and sexuality and justice…and everything.

I think Tony makes some good points here, but ultimately the question comes down to this -- how is this different, and where will it take us? 

Coming Under the Big Tent!

From the earliest days of the Christian faith there has been more than one way of understanding the faith.  Peter and Paul had their differences, as did Paul and James.  As time went on, and the faith spread beyond its earliest borders, even more differences emerged.  There have been any number of attempts to create unity, but today the different understandings of the faith continue to expand in number and variety.  Sometimes we speak as if there are three major branches -- Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox, but as any Protestant can tell you Protestants are hardly a unified bunch.  The Orthodox have their varieties as well -- some are theological and others are ethnic.  As for the Roman Catholic Church -- it may have a Pope, but it has simply institutionalized its differences, often in the form of monastic orders.

And yet, we have in the scriptures strong calls for unity.  In the Gospel of John, Jesus prays in the garden that his disciples would be one, even as he is one with the Father (John 17).  Paul speaks in strong terms about unity, including his emphasis on the unity of the body of Christ as it is symbolized in the elements of the Lord's Supper.  He writes:  "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17).  And in Ephesians, which many if not all scholars believe comes from the pen of a disciple of Paul, there is this powerful refrain emphasizing our oneness as the body of Christ:

  

I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.  (Ephesians 4:1-6).

Throughout history there have been movements that have sought to bring the body of Christ together so that it might reflect the unity that is envisioned by this text.  Sometimes these efforts have been imposed by governments who stand to benefit from such a unified religious body.  Constantine sought this, as did Charlemagne, and many other rulers.  The ecumenical movement that emerged in full force in the 20th century sought to overcome the theological and ecclesial differences that separate the various ecclesial bodies, but these efforts have never been totally successful because human beings seem to want their autonomy -- besides there are vested interests that make it difficult for even the best intentioned leaders to let go.

My own tradition, the Disciples of Christ, was born on the frontier as a movement to bring unity to the body of Christ.  It resisted the creation of institutional structures, finally becoming a "denomination" at the very time being a "denomination" was going out of style!   Thomas Campbell's Declaration and Address, which was issued in 1809, sought to offer a pathway to Christian unity that called for the adoption of simple Christianity.   Things didn't prove as simple as our movement hoped, but we remain committed to the goal.

Because of my own commitment to ecumenism, I am always interested in efforts that seek to build bridges across theological, ideological, and institutional lines.  Therefore, I'm looking forward to seeing what comes out of a conference that begins today in Raleigh, North Carolina.  The conference takes the name "Big Tent Christianity."  It's being led by Philip Clayton, who also developed the Theology after Google conference that I participated in last March.   It has a good roster of speakers, and at least one Disciple appears to be in the mix. 

The premise underlying this conference is articulated by Philip in this way:

“[It is] urgent … to reclaim a Big Tent Christianity, a centrist return to ‘just Christian’ in word and action. The two poles are driving each other ever further apart, spawning ever deeper hostilities. The solution — in American society as in the church — certainly is not to let the other’s anger fuel my own. As leaders it’s our task to help break the cycle of anger, of rejection leading to rejection, and to foster a radically different understanding of the heart of Christian faith.”

I'm not at the conference, but I look forward to hearing what comes forth from it.  I am hopeful that there is a way for us to come together and have conversations that are fruitful and lead to empowered action, even if we don't all agree on the particulars at every point.  The issue we'll have to continue wrestling with concerns how we define what is essential.  The premise that has often guided conversations like this is reputed to have been stated by a 16th century reformer named Rupert Meldinius.  It goes like this:  "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity (love)."  The struggle we've had all these years is determining what is essential and non-essential.  Of course we've also struggled with the question of charity as well (on all sides of the debates).

The Lord's Table -- Who Shall Preside?

By far, most Christian traditions assume that the Lord's Supper/Eucharist/Holy Communion will be celebrated by ordained clergy.  The Disciples of Christ stand apart from this tradition, for historically it has been Elders who have served at the table.  Now this tradition dates from a period in which Disciples anti-clericalism sought to separate out the table from the preaching.  Additionally there was the matter of the scarcity of preachers.  Since every congregation had elders, at the very least they could come to the Table.  Thus, the tradition of elders presiding at the table began.  More recently -- in the last 40 years as the Disciples became more involved both in the ecumenical movement and in liturgical renewal, ordained clergy began to move to the table.  The normal pattern today is for the ordained minister to offer the Words of Institution while the Elder(s) offers a prayer or prayers for the elements.  However, most Disciple churches have no qualms about having an Elder offer the Words of Institution.  It is argued that this represents our belief in the priesthood of all believers.

By and large I affirm this principle, but I wonder if we've thought this out very well.  If all of our ecumenical partners have ordained clergy celebrating the Eucharist, why are we so different?  What is the theological rationale for this?  Rather than offer an answer to the question, I'll raise it for discussion.