9-12 October 2014

In the previous post containing my reflections on the worship at Kisha Reformuar Durrës (henceforth KRD), I brought up the issue of denominations. I used the term ‘traditions’ more often than denominations, simply because the word ‘denomination’ now carries with it too much negative baggage. We are very concerned about the “orthodoxy” of our beliefs and this is often why we end up multiplying the number of denominations.

Since I mentioned the word “orthodoxy”, I should mention something that happened at the Orthodox church. Communion was served as is often the case in an orthodox setting. I knew that the official orthodox position is that non-orthodox are excluded from communion at orthodox churches,  something some you may have encountered this before. Due to this, I did not want to take communion. But the old lady I mentioned in the reflection on the service there invited me to go ahead. I knew that she did not know I was actually out of communion with the orthodox church – at least from their perspective. But I decided to go ahead. I figured that I was a stranger. Hence, before serving me, the priest should and would ask me if I were orthodox or not.

I joined the line and went forward, duly genuflecting and crossing myself before reaching the priest. To my surprise, he gave me communion. In proper Eastern Orthodox style, the piece of bread was already soaking in the wine. And the wine was quite heady, I must say. Right after he served me, I think he remembered that he had to ask me a question. So he asked me, “You are orthodox?”

Here I was, in a quandary. Should I confess and say, “No”? Or should I lie and say, “Yes”? If I said, “No”, the priest would have to be disciplined by the bishop for allowing a non-communicant to commune. At least that is what would happen in a proper orthodox church. And this one seemed quite proper. [You can find a lively interaction on the issue of communion within the orthodox churches here.] I did not want that to happen. He had  served me out of habit, realizing too late that he had to ask me a question. I had placed him in this position. But I had no desire to see him disciplined on my account. And so I said, “Yes”. Yes, I lied. I figured it was better I fail than cause him to be disciplined.

All of this came back to me while I was talking with Berti. There are so many traditions of Christianity, so many denominations. But each one draws a hedge around itself under the belief that it is the only true representation (or, at the very least, the most faithful representation) of faith in Jesus. Berti’s line was between “conservatives” and “liberals”. The priest’s was between “orthodox” and “non-orthodox”. When I tell people here I am a Christian, they ask, “Orthodox or Catholic?” In India it was, “Catholic or Protestant?”

Why these lines? Why is the bride of Christ so divided? Pick a doctrine or an aspect of Christian life or a practice and you will find a dividing line. I am not exaggerating. Trinity? Church is split over “and the Son” (filioque in Latin) for ten centuries now. Two natures of Christ? Most recent split is between the “conservatives” (who stress his divinity) and the “liberals” (who stress his humanity). Holy Spirit? Divided between Pentecostals/Charismatics and those who aren’t. Baptism? Split between pedobaptists and baptists. Communion? Split between the Roman Catholic “transubstantiation”, the Lutheran “consubstantiation”, the Presbyterian “real presence” and the Baptist “symbol” to name only four!

But looking back, I have been able to worship in a variety of traditions – Mar Thoma, Greek Orthodox, Albanian Orthodox, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Southern Baptist, Assemblies of God, Seventh Day Adventist, and Pentecostal. And I am not alone in this. I know many of you have had similar multi-denominational experiences.

I think we have reached a similar state to the Jews of Jesus’ time. We have an overly defensive mindset, trying to protect our beliefs and our practices. But from what? We have not fully grasped the historicity of our faith. There were times in the early centuries when the church was threatened on various fronts. The Roman Empire had, at various times, declared (what would become) Christianity a form of atheism and therefore illegal. At the same time our finest thinkers (including those we now remember as heretics) were grappling with the new knowledge given through Jesus and the Spirit. We need only look at the title of a major work of the fourth century church father Gregory of Nyssa to enter their world. He called it “On Not Three Gods”! They were striving to remain true to the monotheism of our Jewish heritage while still accounting for the revelation through Jesus and the Spirit. In other words, politically and theologically, the church was under attack. And it was important then not to make any compromises.

But today we are not threatened like that. Most of us are free to worship at the church of our choice. And while we may prefer the worship in some particular denomination, how many Christians alive today can even articulate the actual reasons for which their denomination parted from another? Forget about that! How many church leaders even know?

More to the point, how many churches today actually proclaim orthodox theology as it was defined when orthodoxy came into being? I know for a fact that many pastors I have encountered actually have a view of the Trinity that would have caused them to be labeled as heretics in the early centuries. And I am convinced that most Christians also hold such views. I am sure if 3 of us got together to discuss the nuances of some doctrine we would discover more than 4 formulations!

The Eastern and Western churches split over the small word filioque mentioned earlier. But which of us, including the greatest theologians alive, can really explain what it means for the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father? And what imbalance or balance would be introduced by saying that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son?

Today, we maintain our separations, often in an exclusivist manner, perhaps without even knowing the reasons for the separation. And most of those reasons are not even relevant today!

But I view this in a different light, especially considering my worship experiences in various traditions. We are small creatures with limited ability to understand and appreciate God and his ways. Inevitably, we will have an us-them mentality. We will find fault with another group over something that at some time was important but that lost its importance over time. And rather than reconciling, we will remain estranged. But each of these groups expresses its adoration for God in a unique way. The denominations, in other words, are God’s solution to the human problem of saying we are each different but of insisting that, in worship, we all must be same. The denominations are God’s way of saying, “None of you can encompass my greatness. None of you can fathom how wondrous I am. And if you remain one group, you will only grasp a small aspect of who I am. And so I will allow you to separate, for in doing so you will automatically give expression of worship in more ways.”