Did God answer Jesus' prayer for Unity among his followers? - John 17

 

A memento for the once dominant multi-clergy trivia team created
by my wife Nicole (our one non-clergy member on the team,
 but representing yet another faith tradition).

John 17:20-23     New International Version

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—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Recently a wise Christian brother from my parents' generation wrote this to me: "I have always been puzzled that the Father never answered Christ’s prayer for Christian unity in John 17".  After reading the email I came back to that statement.  If Christian unity was a debate topic, it seems you would have plenty of people willing to argue that the Church is not now, nor rarely has been, unified.  But that sentence stuck with me, and I wrote him back that I just might want to argue the opposite in a blog post, so here we are.

One of the community wide ecumenical planning meetings
that would soon lead to the founding of Emmaus Haven
(Note: Clara Powell ready to share her input)

Is the Church 'one' and does that level of unity encourage others to believe that the Father sent the Son?

To begin to answer such a wide ranging question we must first ponder its basis.  What would unity look like among followers of Jesus Christ, and how would that differ from disunity?  Peaceful co-existence vs. violent antagonism is one measure, and we can consider how much of that those claiming to be Christians have shown to each other.  But what other measures should we consider?  What about commonality of Authority?  Creeds?  What about leadership structure, is unity defined by having one ecclesiastical flow chart, or by having a variety of entities that all more/less follow Paul's writings on how a church ought to be governed?  Is unity of worship style part of the discussion, or is that a cultural manifestation instead? {I would argue that cultural unity of style was never Jesus' intention}  In the end, how much unity or disunity one finds in the Church today or in various points in its history, will depend to an extent upon how many factors are being considered and which ones receive the most emphasis.  In brief, then, let me offer the following marks of unity for consideration:

1. The functional unity of the Early Church

While our evidence is somewhat scanty, the period from the founding of the Church by the generation that witnessed Jesus' life, death, and resurrection firsthand, until the years of great persecution by the Roman Emperor Trajan (AD 250-260) saw the Church functionally as one unit with a loose and developing ecclesiastical structure that began with virtual local church autonomy in the first few generations, and then in succeeding generations saw the bishops of the great Christian communities like Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome gain authority in their areas, all without significant schism or heretical movements.  As the Church's leadership structure and connectivity was developing (organically, not by the will of any one person of group), the Church was also able to informally develop a common canon of authoritative scripture with remarkable levels of agreement regarding its contents.

Following Trajan's persecutions there some cracks in the unity of the Church began to develop.  That these developments became more acute following the embrace of Christianity by Constantine and the Church's quick turn from being a persecuted minority to having the world's most powerful man as a benefactor is noteworthy.  How much of a factor acquiring power in this world was on straining Church unity is open for debate, that it had a negative impact is not.  Following Trajan's persecutions Christians in North Africa who had refused to denounce their faith in the face of persecution, refused to allow 'lapsed' Christians who had done so to save their lives to return to fellowship without the express forgiveness of a bishop.  This led to what is called the Donatist Controversy involving rival claimants to be the rightful bishop, an argument that Saint Augustine joined on the side of those advocating amnesty for those who had renounced out of fear.  After Constantine's embrace of Christianity, Augustine approved of using Imperial troops to force the Donatists to rejoin the 'rightful' Church.  The effort failed, and the Church in North Africa remained divided until the region was conquered by Islamic armies nearly four centuries later.  Localized rifts like that of the Donatists aside, the Church remained a remarkably unified organization, and despite a growing East/West divergence (cultural more than theological) it remains one unit until the Great Schism's dual excommunications by the Roman Pope and Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054.  Thus for the first thousand years of its existence, for the vast majority of its adherents, the Church was functionally and technically one.  Remember that this period saw not only the break-up of Rome which led to generations of chaos, but also the rise of a massive external threat from Islam which threatened both East and West alike.  Given how far and wide the Church spread in its first 1,000 years, and the massive disruptions it faced, that unity lasted as long as it did, and functioned as well as it did, seems rather evidence of divine guidance and mercy than of human failing for the schism that eventually occurred.

2. The acceptance of the Nicene Creed (the triumph of the trinitarian viewpoint)

The development of trinitarian orthodoxy, and with it the complex questions of the dual nature of Jesus as both God and Man, certainly seems like an area where a disunited Church would have faltered and fractured.  The discussions among theologians were both deep and technical, opinions were deeply held, and there was the added confusion of translations of theological terms between Greek and Latin to contend with.  In the end, however, the vast majority of the Church, both ancient and modern, has been and continues to be in full agreement with the decisions of the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) which led to the nearly universally accepted and acclaimed Nicene Creed, which with the exception of three words added later in the West, holds to this day for Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christians.  Thus even in that great three-way divide, there remains unity of belief about the most essential questions of the nature of God.  Were there some who refused to accept Nicaea's dictates?  Yes, but statistically a small minority that grew smaller over time.  There remain some who reprise the heresy of Arius, notably the Jehovah's Witnesses fit this bill, but they, like the Mormons who also askew trinitarian belief, are not properly a part of the Church and thus fall outside the scope of Jesus prayer for unity among his followers (they also constitute less than 1% of those claiming to be Christians in our world today).

3. The triumph of the Gospel's emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus

This may seem to be a given, but when Jesus prayed for unity among his future followers he had not yet gone to the Cross.  That his future followers would universally proclaim that the foundation of their belief was the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, a death he entered into willingly on their behalf, is a remarkable level of consistency.  Down through the centuries, when other issues drove a wedge between Catholic and Orthodox, and later between Protestant and Catholic, no significant portion of anything that could be called the universal Church has embraced any other aspect of the life of Jesus as the cornerstone of their faith, nor has any significant portion of the Church attempted to replace Jesus with any other Savior.  It may seem like a stretch to consider adherence to Jesus and his work on the Cross as a mark of unity, for we take that belief as a given among anyone who follows Jesus, but who is to say that this outcome had to be?  As the Gospel spread throughout the world, and new peoples, cultures, and languages were added to the great diversity of the Church, the focus on Jesus Christ and his sacrifice remained front and center.  While Christians across time and cultures would have difficulty understanding each other, they would have common ground on the one thing that brings that matters most: Jesus Christ died to save sinners who have faith in him.

4. The healing of schism's animosity has begun

While it is unlikely (and unnecessary) that the Church will again be one ecclesiastical unit with all roads leading to a common human leadership, it has been remarkable how much healing has taken place in recent history of both the Great Schism (now 1,000 years old) and the Protestant/Catholic divide (now 500 years old).  It would have seemed unlikely, even 100 years ago, but in 1965 Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I formally withdrew their predecessors' excommunications.  In the decades that followed, ongoing outreach between Orthodox and Catholic Christians have continued.  Likewise, the Second Vatican Council (known as Vatican II, 1962-65) saw the formal adoption by the Vatican of recognition that God is working with his Church beyond Catholicism, that true followers of Jesus are to be found in the Protestant and Orthodox churches.  

In the end, my answer to the question of whether or not God answered Jesus' prayer for unity is as personal as it is historical.  I serve an American Baptist Church as an ordained Baptist minister.  Baptists are famous for being separatists, for being willing to disfellowship each other over things as minor as the use of a guitar in worship (how dare they!!), but here in Franklin, PA where I serve that history seems to matter very little.  We have a ecumenical county-wide ministerium that organizes joint worship each year on Palm Sunday and the Sunday before Thanksgiving.  Those services are attended by Christians representing, on average, thirty churches from nearly a dozen denominations.  Our differences and peculiarities are nowhere near anyone's minds as we worship, pray, and fellowship together.  Similarly, I am the President of Mustard Seed Missions, a para-church ministry supported by volunteers and donations from dozens of area churches, and throughout our ten years of existence helping for than 5,000 clients we have never encountered an issue that was a stumbling block because of the differences between Methodist and Lutherans, or Catholics and Brethren.  The mission of helping others in the name of Christ overshadows the things we do and believe that are different.  The more recent Emmaus Haven, whose building renovations Mustard Seed Missions had a large hand in making happen, also has the same ecumenical history and support.

Did the Father answer Jesus' prayer for unity?  Yes he did.  It may not always look like what we would expect unity to look like, and it hasn't always been supported by people claiming to be Christians (some genuine, some not), but it has endured, and in our world today it is once more gaining momentum. 

Is it my job to police the communion line?

 

The meme above has been bouncing around social media as a response to a recent vote (168 to 55, Abortion rights: US Catholic bishops face clash with Biden - BBC news) by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).  The USCCB is attempting to provoke a showdown with Catholic politicians with whom they disagree, in this case on the issue of the legality of abortion, by potentially denying them the Eucharist (i.e. Communion).  This move is opposed by the Vatican, and unlikely to ever be enacted and/or enforced, but it raises an important question that reverberates outside of the Catholic Church as well (as evidenced, in part, by the above response from a gay Anglican priest in Toronto, of course on social media everyone seems to have a 'dog in the fight').  As an ordained American Baptist pastor, is it my job to watch the communion line?  {prior to COVID we passed the elements down each aisle with ushers, since then we've been coming up front one family at a time to take them from the altar, a practice we will likely continue post-pandemic; so technically there is a 'line' now}

Some background for those of you unfamiliar with how communion works in your typical baptist church (whether or not they belong to a denomination).  For us, the ordinance (the fancy word we use when we need to use a fancy word) of communnion  is not a question of transubstantiation or consubstantiation.  In other words, it isn't a question of whether or not the bread and wine are tranformed into the body and blood of Christ, however one chooses to describe it (that was the heart of the argument that led to the Reformation, and eventually people killed and were killed over the issue during the Thirty Years War.  {See: What Every Christian Should Know About: Church History, part 3 at the bottom of the page}  For a quick primer on the various Christian views of communion: Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, or Something Else? Roman Catholic vs. Protestant Views of the Lord’s Supper - Zondervan Academic blog.  

Most baptists would agree with Huldrych Zwingli that communion is a memorial, with some leaning toward the view of John Calvin that the ordinance does invoke the spiritual presence of Jesus, albiet in a way significantly short of that embraced by the Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans.  That being said, as an American Baptist minister, when I preside over communion (which we do once a month, typically on the 1st Sunday unless I'm not here, then it gets bumped to the 2nd) I normally say, "We here at 1st Baptist celebrate open communion, by that we mean that if you are a follower of Jesus Christ, you are free to join us if you choose."  Those words don't come from a book, or denominational HQ (that's not how things work when you're a 'low liturgy' baptist, each church/pastor decides many such for him/herself), they simply reflect what we believe, and when I remember to say them, they're an invitation to any visitors or relatively new people.  Morever, after I say the prayer (again, extemporaneously given) it has been my habit (learned from the independent baptist pastor, James Frank, who led my family church for 40 years) to simply close my eyes, bow my head, and spend the time until everyone is ready receiving the element(s) to pray.  The end result?  I don't know who is participating in any given week.  I don't know if a particular individual in my church skips communion on occasion, or regularly.  My thoughts on this matter mirror my thoughts about the offering.  When the plate is being passed (in the COVID era we just left it in the back, and that seems likely to continue) I don't look to see if anyone is putting something in or not.  The point with both is that the decision to participate (or give) is between that person and God.

As baptists we believe in the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers.  Long story short, my role as pastor doesn't set me apart from the congregation, we all partake of the same Holy Spirit, we all are held to the same standards of conduct and service.  Using Paul's analogy of the body of Christ, we are all a necessary part.  This has numerous implications, one of which is the elevation of one's own responsibility before God (not to the level that it negates collective church discipline when necessary), particularly in matters of conscience.

Which brings us back around to communion.  Paul, writing to the church at Corinth about the Lord's Supper said this, 

1 Corinthians 11:26-32 New International Version

26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.

The key phrases here are: "in an unworthy manner" (vs. 27), and "Everyone ought to examine themselves" (vs. 28).  Given these instructions, it seems to us (as baptists) that it isn't up to a church officer (be he/she a deacon, pastor, bishop, or any other title) to decide who is, or is not, worthy of participating in the Lord's Supper.  Those who do so 'in an unworthy manner', perhaps by doing so with irreverance or with unconfessed sin between him/her and God, will be judged by God himself, not by me.

Lastly, Rev. Daniel and I probably disagree about a lot of things theologically speaking, but I certainly echo his final statement above, "What if somebody 'unworthy' receives it?"  "Uh, that would be everybody."  Our approach to the table is always an act of grace for known but Christ is worthy, our acceptance of the bread (body) and cup (blood) is always an act of grace for our sins doom us otherwise, no matter what we undertand the bread and wine to be.  At any given church service, at any kind of church, there are those who ought to abstain from participation until they confess their sins and repent, and there are those who are just going through the motions due to either unbelief or complacency.  In the end, seperating the 'sheep from goats' isn't my job, thanks be to God for that.

Timeless truths in Karl Barth's Barmen Declaration, written against the Nazi dominated Evangelical Church in Germany

Written in 1934, the Theological Declaration of Barmen was the response of the Confessional Church, those Christians who had left the official Church in Germany because of Nazi influence.  While they represented Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches, they held in common a revulsion at Nazi ideology, and an unwillingness to ignore its corrupting influence upon both the German Church and German people.  The primary author of the declaration was the Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968), mentor to German leaders of the Confessing Church like Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
While it is typically folly to compare any situation to that of Nazi Germany, for the German Church certainly faced challenges with few parallels in the rise of Hitler's political party, there remains within the Barmen Declaration a number of truths which transcend the historical moment which inspired its writing. (The words of the Declaration appear below in bold, my commentary in normal font.)

8.04 Try the spirits whether they are of God! Prove also the words of the Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church to see whether they agree with Holy Scripture and with the Confessions of the Fathers. If you find that we are speaking contrary to Scripture, then do not listen to us! But if you find that we are taking our stand upon Scripture, then let no fear or temptation keep you from treading with us the path of faith and obedience to the Word of God, in order that God's people be of one mind upon earth and that we in faith experience what he himself has said: "I will never leave you, nor forsake you." Therefore, "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."

No matter what circumstances an individual Christian, a local church, denomination, or the Church as a whole, may find itself in; whether that circumstance be one of abundance or scarcity, of peace or persecution, the response of God's people to that circumstance can only be validated or denounced based upon the teachings of Holy Scripture.  Let the people of God clamor for leaders who will build their ministry upon God's Word, and may they ignore those who would teach anything contrary to it.  I have told my own congregation, on a number of occasions, that as an American Baptist Church with a congregational polity, that they are the ones responsible for testing my sermons, bible studies, classes, blog posts, etc. by the standard of God's Word; and that should I fail to adhere to that Word, that I would expect them to call me on it, to challenge me, and if necessary to remove me from this position of authority in Christ's Church should I refuse to bend my will to that of God's Word.  This should be the standard for those who serve the Church in every denomination, whether it be on the authority of a bishop from above, or a local congregation's members, we must demand that God's Word remain the standard.  As Barth urged, if we are convinced that the path we tread is the path of faithful obedience to God's Word, let no fear or temptation keep us from following, for we can be assured that God goes with us.

8.08 As members of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches we may and must speak with one voice in this matter today. Precisely because we want to be and to remain faithful to our various Confessions, we may not keep silent, since we believe that we have been given a common message to utter in a time of common need and temptation. We commend to God what this may mean for the interrelations of the Confessional Churches.

How does the Church speak with one voice when there are so many competing opinions being offered by its leaders?  For Karl Barth and the Confessing Church, it was necessary to set aside their denominational distinctions, to come together and hammer out a statement of common belief, and share that message with the world.  What will it mean for the barriers that exist between churches when they can find common ground in God's Word in the midst of extraordinary challenges?  The answer can hardly be detrimental, and holds promise of great benefit for the Kingdom of God.  What are the challenges today that the Church can come together and speak about from God's Word with one voice?  Sadly, the growing trend is for 'liberal' churches of various denominations, and 'conservative' churches of various denominations to find common ground with each other against the positions of their liberal or conservative brethren, thus resulting in a Church that speaks with two voices, one corresponding to each of the major political parties in the United States.  The long-term effects of this alignment are far from clear. {In other words, it is not so much Catholic vs. Protestant or Baptist vs. Methodist anymore, but rather conservative Catholic and conservative Baptist vs. liberal Catholic and liberal Baptist}.

8.15 We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords--areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.

The Nazis demanded total allegiance, and would not share it with Jesus Christ.  Like the Early Church's refusal to worship the Roman Emperor, this led to persecution and martyrdom.  Barth was absolutely right in declaring that no segment of our lives, as Christian disciples, are outside of the control of the lordship of Jesus Christ, and that no other authority can supersede our allegiance to God, for any purpose.  This idea was front and center at the start of the 20th century, as Nationalism grew steadily throughout Europe, resulting in millions of people viewing themselves as British Christians or German Christians rather than as Christian Brits or Germans.  Whatever other allegiances we may have in life, they cannot come first, they cannot be allowed to demand of us things contrary to the Word of God.  {And if they attempt to do so, we must resist, as Barth and Confessing Church were doing}.

8.17 The Christian Church is the congregation of the brethren in which Jesus Christ acts presently as the Lord in Word and sacrament through the Holy Spirit. As the Church of pardoned sinners, it has to testify in the midst of a sinful world, with its faith as with its obedience, with its message as with its order, that it is solely his property, and that it lives and wants to live solely from his comfort and from his direction in the expectation of his appearance.

This is simply an eloquent answer to the question: What is the Church?  Notice the radical commitment, a bold departure from what Dietrich Bonhoeffer diagnosed as the ill of the practice of faith exercised by German Christians: Cheap Grace.  A discipleship which costs nothing, which asks little of us, is no discipleship at all.


8.18 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.

The Church has a divinely appointed purpose and mission.  This is not open for negotiation.  It cannot allow itself to abandon this calling, nor can it allow itself to be bullied into silence.  We are in the business of making disciples.  We do this by sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Good News that Jesus died for our sins and was raised to new life for our justification.  This message is for everyone, period.  This message is to be accompanied by acts of love and charity, by grace and truth.  Whatever self-interest, whether power, money, or fame, whatever ideology or political cause would seek to turn the Church from its God-given task, must be rejected.  {I may have written a few times about the Church's need to protect the Gospel from politics.}

8.21 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, apart from this ministry, could and were permitted to give itself, or allow to be given to it, special leaders vested with ruling powers.

The Nazis claimed the authority to appoint the leaders of the German Church, as if the Church were subservient to the state {An arrangement that existed for centuries in the Byzantine Empire with the Eastern Orthodox Church, and one that caused the Investiture Controversy in the 11th century as Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV squared off against Pope Gregory VII.  This episode is one of the portions of Church History highlighted in my class: What Every Christian Should Know About: Church History}.  This same dilemma exists for Christians in China, with the Communist Party insisting upon the right to appoint its leaders, thus driving into unofficial 'underground' churches, those who would not be subject to that illegitimate authority. 

8.23 We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church's vocation as well.


8.24 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus itself becoming an organ of the State.

Why do Baptists traditionally espouse the Separation of Church and State?  For the very reasons cited here: The temptation for the State to try to do the Church's job, and for the Church to try to function as an arm of the State (or control it outright).  The State does not function well as an arbiter of our relationship with God {examples of which are plentiful, from the Salem Witch Trials to John Calvin's Geneva burning a non-Trinitarian heretic at the stake: The dark side of the Reformation: John Calvin and the burning of heretics - by Joseph Hartropp }, nor can the Church function properly as a witness to the Kingdom of God when it becomes enmeshed in the business of temporal kingdoms.  How the line is to be drawn between Civil and Church responsibility is a tough one, as is the question of cooperation in areas of mutual interest {For example: the mutually beneficial work of Mustard Seed Missions of Venango County in cooperation with the Human Services Department of Venango County}.

8.27 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans.

This is the Truth at the core of Barth's statement: The Church serves the will of God, it honors and obeys the Word of God, and it seeks to build up the Kingdom of God.  How could any diversion of that effort, and compromise of that cause be tolerated, and how could the Church allow itself to become the tool of any other vision?  It seems obvious that the Nazis were not the right ones to hand over control of the Church to, they had the mark of villains from the very beginning.  Nor would people within the Church be rushing to be under the authority of the Chinese Communist government, for their stated purpose is hostile to religion.  But temptation typically comes in subtler guise.  What about using the Church to help 'our side' win an election?  What about utilizing the worship service of our Lord to promote a politician or political party?  To think that Barth's warnings only apply when dealing with fascists or communists is naive.  The Church has a singular mission, the Church has a singular authority, and the Church bows its knee to only one Lord; those truths are timeless.

Sermon Video: Women should be silent? 1 Corinthians 14:29-35

As the Apostle Paul continues to explain the need for peace, not disorder, in the Church, he emphasizes that when the Word of God is shared, the audience ought to weigh carefully what is said.  In addition, Paul makes it clear that only one should speak at a time, emphasizing that the Church is not intended to be led by one voice only, and that those who prophecy need to exercise self-control.
At this point, the controversial portion of Paul's teaching occurs, the phrase, "as in all the congregations of the Lord's people" either ends the sentence, "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace" or starts the sentence that ends, "women should remain silent in the churches."  As the original Greek contains no punctuation (including paragraph divisions), it is an interpreters choice whether that added emphasis belongs to the need for order or the call for women to be silent.  In addition, it is an open question whether or not Paul's instructions here regarding women are timeless or time-bound.  In other words, are they intended to be instructions for all churches, at all times, in all places, or are they instructions for the 1st century Greco-Roman churches.  Is it necessary for order for women always to be silent or simply in the cultural setting of the Early Church?  The majority of the disagreement about this passage (and similar instructions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12) can be seen through the timeless vs. time-bound debate, one that God-honoring people end up on both sides of.
Whatever one concludes about Paul's words here (for them and us, or them and not us) it is crucial that we keep central the Bible's (and thus God's) high view of the purpose and role of women.  Their absolute equality in relation to the Gospel, and crucial contribution to the health and vitality of every church, regardless of how that role is exactly defined.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sexist Gospels? Another reminder that Inspiration and Inerrancy matter

In a recent essay entitled, Toward non-gendered language for God, that was published in The Christian Citizen, which is a publication of the American Baptist Home Missions Societies (I am an ABC pastor, serving an ABC church), Dr. Molly T. Marshall who is the president of Central Baptist Seminary, argued that the Church's historic emphasis upon male language (pronouns, imagery) when speaking of God is exclusionary and thus harmful to women.  This particular point is controversial, and is of course wrapped in all manner of cultural and political debates beyond this specific point that Dr. Marshall is advocating.  That being said, a Bible-based conversation about gender equality can certainly be both helpful and necessary; for example, a discussion based upon Paul's words in Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Or perhaps a discussion pondering God's intentions for gender roles that examines texts like Genesis 2:18 18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”  There is room within the Church for various understanding of the role of women in ministry, the way in which husbands and wives complement each other and work together, as well as what a Biblical view of gender within society as a whole ought to be.  That Dr. Marshall is advocating a particular view on these things bothers me not at all.  That others might see things rather differently is also not unexpected nor particularly worrisome provided that we can appreciate our diversity of viewpoints within the Church and still both love each other and work together for the sake of the Gospel.
So, that being said, why am I mentioning the article by Dr. Marshall at all?  The essay contains one paragraph that strays from the issue at hand and instead becomes her commentary upon the creation of the Gospel accounts about Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and in particular a critique of the authors.  In this paragraph (below), it becomes clear that Dr. Marshall's viewpoint of Inspiration and thus Innerancy {A definition: "The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms." - Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctine} does not seem to be within the bounds of the traditional/apostolic Church.
{Dr. Marshall readily admits to not accepting the doctrine of inerrancy in this essay: The peril of selective inerrancy , While I eschew the proposition of inerrancy,  believing that it claims for Scripture something it does not claim for itself}

In addition, the language Jesus used for God is warrant for many to speak of God only as Father.  Jesus’ language is much more about filial intimacy than ascribing literal gender. It is easy to see the growth of a tradition from Mark to John. In Mark, Jesus names God Abba 11 times; by the time John is written, this naming for God occurs 120 times. In the midst of great strides to include women begun by Jesus, the writers and editors of the Gospels wanted to ensure that a masculine vision of God safeguarded men’s prerogative and that women would remain secondary. We can see this effect by comparing the treatment of Peter and Mary Magdalene. Recent scholarship suggests that there was a concerted effort to subordinate her leadership to her male counterpart. - Dr. Molly T. Marhsall

Dr. Marshall is operating under the presupposition that the Gospel accounts are not the product of the authors that tradition ascribes to them, but rather an ongoing process of writing and editing that was affected by tradition, resulting in the earlier Gospel, Mark only using Abba 11 times, but the Gospel which was written last, John, using it 120 times {while there are various theories about the dates of the writing of each of the Gospels, John is generally understood to be last}.  Rather than wondering why the term 'Abba' might have more significance for John than Mark, as all 4 Gospel account are only snapshots of Jesus' life and hardly exhaustive {thus all 4 had their own moments and ideas to emphasize drawn from the larger tapestry of Jesus' life, ministry, and teaching}, Dr. Marshall instead chooses to see this 'growth' as the result of an Early Church tradition that was hostile to women, even ascribing nefarious (and sinful) motives to these unknown editors as sexist men who decided to warp Jesus' message in order to keep women in their place.  In other words, the writers/editors of the Gospels were unrepentant sexists opposed to the message of Jesus, working against his efforts, NOT honest and sincere chroniclers.  In addition to the 'evidence' of the use of Abba, Dr. Marshall also offers and argument from silence (a logical fallacy) in which the role of Mary Magdalene is alleged to have suppressed by these same wicked Early Church leaders in favor of elevating Peter {Set aside for a moment the actual portrayal of Peter in the Gospels, it is more often embarrassing than flattering}.
Where do these ideas for analyzing the text come from and what do they tell us about Inspiration and Innerancy?  Treating the text of the Bible like this is not new, it began to pick up steam in the 19th century and has since become the hallmark of liberal (not the political use of the term, think Bart Ehrman or John Shelby Spong as current examples) interpretation of Scripture.  What was once a 'high' view of Scripture, has become an extremely 'low' view.  What was once considered the sacred Word of God, as Paul declares it, 'God-breathed' (theopneustos in Greek, 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,) and created when its authors were 'carried along' by the Holy Spirit in Peter's description of it (2 Peter 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.), has now become the work of various writers and editors according to their own agendas and steeped in their own sinful attitudes which must, presumably, then be purged from the text.  The Word of God, has become the flawed words of men.
The traditional view of Scripture, emphasized by the Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, is by contrast a 'high' view, one in which the Scriptures are suitable to be the sole source of faith and practice (Sola Scriptura) precisely because they are God-breathed and thus not subject to the same errors and biases as the writings/utterances/ideas of sinful men and women.  God used the human authors, purposefully choosing to work through their viewpoints and vocabulary, but NOT allowing their flaws (for all of the authors of Scripture were sinners needing to be saved by grace) to be transmitted into what they wrote.  It thus remains a divine document, one central to our faith, and one worthy of our trust.
Once the Scriptures have been downgraded from a product of the human/divine partnership described within Scripture itself, all bets are off regarding which can be called into question and thus targeted for removal/dismissal.  Let me emphasize this: These are not questions of interpretation, places where Christians who hold equally high views of Scripture can strongly disagree {a famous example in our generation has been the debate about the intended meaning of the Creation account in Genesis: Was it supposed to be a 'literal' account of events that occurred over a 6 day period 6,000 years ago, or a symbolic/allegorical account emphasizing God's role as Creator without answering questions of how or when?  Both interpretations come from a high view of inspiration and inerrancy, neither is treating the text like a myth or fairy tale}, but rather more fundamental questions of the nature of Scripture itself.  Using the methodology that influences Dr. Marshall's conclusions about Abba and Mary Magdalene, how could one defend against Bart Ehrman's contention that Jesus never claimed to be God, didn't believe himself to be God, and didn't rise from the dead?  Ehrman believes these elements were added to the Gospels centuries after Jesus lived by a militant Church hierarchy intent upon squashing disent (contentions based upon Ehrman's conjecture and anti-supernatural presuppositions, but lacking in actual historic evidence) and thus we should view Jesus as a good ethical teacher, but nothing more.  If Scripture represents the flawed views of its authors, what in it can be taken at face value?  On what basis do we declare any portion of Scripture to be Truth and not simply the opinion of one man?
We can, and should, have conversations within the Church about our failure to treat everyone equally, failures regarding both race and gender.  We can, and should, seek to be more Biblical in our understanding of how we ought to treat each other.  These things are necessary.  What we cannot do, what we must not do, is jettison the bedrock belief in the Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture simply because flawed human beings have failed to properly interpret and apply what God has written.  The Word of God was here before us, and it will be here after us, we cannot tear it down to compensate for our own mistakes or to make it conform to our opinions.

Why the American Baptist Churches won't split apart over homosexuality or abortion

As the Culture War rages on in America with no end in sight, resulting in animosity and deep divisions in the political sphere, as well as schism within various Christian denominations, the question on many minds within the Christian community is: Who is next?  The Presbyterian Church in America splintered in the 1970's and 1980's over homosexuality and abortion, forming the PCA and PCUSA {How to tell the difference between PCA and PCUSA}, and many observers both inside and outside of the United Methodist Church either fear or hope that they will soon follow suit after years of contentious votes and behavior in that is in rebellion against their Book of Discipline.  Given this volatile climate, and the real differences of theological interpretation that exist geographically in the United States {primarily urban vs. rural and East/West vs. Middle}, can we expect the 5,000 congregations and 1.1 million members of the American Baptist Churches to follow the Presbyterians and Methodists (evidently) along the path of schism?

While the future is not ours to know, the short answer to this question is: no.  The reasons are not based upon greater unity withing ABCUSA over the issues at hand or upon a greater desire for unity despite disagreements, both of which would be transitory even if they were apparent, but instead are rooted in the denomination's structure.  In other words, it is not a quality of the people involved {i.e. we're not better than our brothers and sisters in the UMC, for example} that carries the most weight here, but a lack of top-down authority that prevents any one "faction" {if such a term were applicable, it really isn't} within the ABCUSA from imposing its will upon the rest of the denomination, whether that "faction" be conservative or liberal, traditional or progressive.

For those who are not familiar with it, what then is this structure which precludes our own version of the UMC's raucous 2019 General Conference?

The 1.3-million members and over about 5,000 congregations of American Baptist Churches USA share with more than 42 million Baptists around the world a common tradition begun in the early 17th century. That tradition has emphasized the Lordship and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, believers’ baptism, the competency of all believers to be in direct relationship with God and to interpret Scripture, the importance of the local church, the assurance of freedom in worship and opinion, and the need to be Christ’s witnesses within society. 

For American Baptists the local church is the fundamental unit of mission in denominational life. 

Baptist roots date back four centuries to a people seeking the opportunity to worship God as individual members of freely organized and freely functioning local churches. Baptists always have maintained the need for autonomous congregations, responsible for articulating their own doctrine, style of worship and mission.  {From: ABCUSA's website: 10 Facts You Should Know About American Baptists}

This may seem like a foreign concept to those from a Christian (or even non-Christian) denomination with a top-down structure, where uniformity and obedience to directives exist at least in theory, but for Baptists and other like-minded congregational churches, the sanctity of the autonomy of the local church is foundational.  There are no denomination-wide committees, boards, or assemblies with the power to make decisions that member churches or clergy must obey, there is also no fiscal means of compelling financial contributions from local congregations, nor is the local property of the church owned by anyone other than the congregation itself.

Perhaps you're thinking that this is all a smoke screen, that in reality power must reside at some regional or national level capable of determining what is required of a American Baptist churches, clergy, and congregations.  Not so, consider the self-limiting nature of the Policy Statements and Resolutions from ABCUSA:

American Baptists over the years developed Policy Statements and Resolutions on a range of issues. Those documents were authorized by votes of what at one time was called the ABC General Board. In January 2012, the governance structure of the denomination was changed. Presently the work of the ABCUSA Office of the General Secretary is administered by the Board of General Ministries.In the current structure, it is understood that while the work of the Board of General Ministries continues to be guided by established and future Policy Statements, Resolutions and other declarations, they “in no way obligate American Baptist congregations or regions to any position or course of action.” Under the present structure only the Office of the General Secretary is specifically guided by those documents. {From: ABCUSA's website: policy statements and resolutions}

ABCUSA: Resolution on Abortion

ABCUSA: Responses/Actions pertaining to homosexuality

Can local congregations defy without real repercussions these and any other decisions from the Office of the General Secretary?  Yep.  Can local congregations vote to leave the denomination if they are upset about any particular issue, or simply because they want to go their own way?  Yep.  The largest example of such a "walking away" came in 2006 when the 300 churches of the Pacific Southwest region voted under their region's leadership to leave as a group.  The issue at hand?  They were upset that ABCUSA wasn't taking a more active role in disciplining local churches, primarily in the NW and New York, that were accepting unrepentant homosexuals as members.  Might other groups of churches, or even a whole region, follow suit and leave because they're upset about this issue or some future issue?  They might, but that's about as far as it can go.  Our denomination might crumble, losing bits and pieces here and there, but it won't splinter down the middle into large chunks.

Whether the leadership of ABCUSA wanted to act, or not to act, and in which direction, regarding the acceptance or rejection of practicing homosexuals by local congregations {or regarding any other issue} within ABC is irrelevant.  By its nature {and by design, this is on purpose}, ABCUSA is not a denomination which can make a local congregation "toe the line" on any issue, and would have trouble doing so even if it tried on issues even more fundamental than human sexuality to the orthodoxy of our faith.  Why is that again?

1. The local church owns its property.
2. The local church can give, or not give, to regional or national ministries at its own discretion.
    {Together these two facts eliminate the $ leverage angle that so complicates divisive issues}
3. The local church calls its own pastor, is entirely responsible for how long he/she retains the role.  While the region may assist in the search process by providing a list of potential names, local churches are free to find their own candidates and need no approval from any denominational staff or board when choosing their next minister.  If a regional or national executive wanted to remove a local pastor from his/her congregation (for example: for obvious heresy like denying the Resurrection) there is no way to make this outcome a reality beyond putting non-financial pressure on the local congregation to vote to remove him/her.  {ABCOPAD does have "An Ecclesiastical Process For Review Of Ministerial Standing" which could remove the recognition of the ordination of a minister for financial or moral misconduct.}
4. While the denomination recognizes ordinations {that meet its parameters}, it does not act as a gate-keeper to prevent those  who are not ordained, nor those ordained by an outside source, from being called to serve a local ABC congregation.  Thus ABC's recognition of one's ordination, while helpful in the job search process {where pastors are essentially free agents, finding their own work}, is not mandatory, nor does the withdrawal of that recognition bear anything like the stigma of being defrocked as a Catholic priest or a UMC minister.
5. Any resolutions or policies adopted by ABCUSA are by their very nature non-binding on local congregations.  {Even if they were, contrary to tradition and our belief system, designated as somehow "binding", there are no enforcement mechanisms, and precious few carrots/sticks available to compel those unwilling to obey.}

Does this "loose" denominational structure have its own pitfalls and dangers?  Absolutely, there is no way to organize human beings, even groups of them primarily composed of those transformed by God's grace, into structures that do not have flaws that will then be exploited by fallen human nature.

What lies in the future for the American Baptist Churches?  Only the Lord knows, but it won't be angry dramatic votes followed by legal wrangling over property, and for that at least we can be thankful.

The downside of being a part of an "independently minded" church/denomination

If you haven't noticed already, I consider myself to be a student of history.  I would like to think that through incessant reading, on often esoteric subjects, I have a decent understanding of not only where I am in the world today (and along with me, my church, and our denomination), as well as where I/we stand in the flow of history.  That being said, I could write at length about the positive aspects of being a part of a congregation-governed local church and of a loosely affiliated denomination that is not run from the top-down.  However, few things in life come without a cost or trade-off.  The local nature of our church, and the looseness of our affiliation as American Baptists does come with a negative aspect as well.  One of the primary negatives is that a local church can sink on its own without the denomination noticing right away, or if they do, without them having the resources/directive to step in and save it.  {Note: The American Baptist Churches of Pennsylvania and Delaware, ABCOPAD, our region within the American Baptist Churches of the United States, has only 5 full time staff covering that large geographic region and 301 churches; a very small number compared to other denominations}  In addition to a lower level of direction/support from above, which is not an indictment of our regional staff, they're amazing, local American Baptist (and various other independent churches, baptist or otherwise) also have difficulty when it comes to supporting future ministers and missionaries in regards to their education, training, and placement.

I won't bother to go through the details of my own decade-long journey from college graduate to part-time youth pastor, to part-time teacher, to part-time pastor and part-time teacher, to full-time pastor; that sentence alone should convey that it wasn't a smooth journey.  As a baptist pastor raised in an independent church (Galilee Baptist in Saranac, MI does not belong to a denomination), I was entirely on my own regarding my call to the ministry, and having received a top-notch education at Cornerstone University, I was on my own trying to find work as a minister.  My experience may be worse than most, but only I would imagine in a difference of degree, not a difference of kind.  Being independent meant that I could take any job that appealed to me, which is great, but it also meant that I had to find and land that job on my own (not so great).  The path I've walked, and my wife Nicole along with me, has taught us powerful lessons in patience and humility, but it has not been an easy one, and hardly seems like the ideal scenario for someone called by God to minister to his people.

Going through a similar experience to my own, in some ways, are the newest missionaries supported by First Baptist of Franklin, Brian and Lynette Smith, of International Ministries (aka American Baptist Foreign Missions Society), who are currently crisscrossing the country raising support by visiting dozens of churches for their upcoming work in Haiti partnering with Haitian Baptist Convention.  In a less independent denomination, the Smiths would not be nearly as "on their own" regarding finding the financial support they need to go to Haiti as missionaries, nor would they be trying in the future to communicate with supporters from dozens of churches spread across the country in order to maintain that support.

Are there blessings associated with a great amount of freedom/independence as a minister/missionary/local church?  There are, but they like so much else in life, come at a cost.  I don't know who I would be as a man, a husband, and a minister had I not spent so much time "in the wilderness" awaiting the chance to put my call to the ministry more fully into action.  I know that part of my usefulness now stems from my experiences then, but I also know that it isn't wise for the Church to make things harder on those who are willing to serve, a difficult road to serving God full-time is a pressure that may usefully mold some, but crack others.

So, what is my response to all this?  I have no intention of leading my church away from ABCUSA, it is our heritage and our home, and our personality as a church has been shaped by our place within ABCOPAD.  Overall, I do believe that the positives of being a locally governed church outweigh the negatives, but it is necessary that we recognize the negatives (for all church/denominational structures have them) and do what we can to minimize their impact.  That being said, when someone from my congregation expresses an interest in the ministry, as a pastor or a missionary, you can be sure that I will be taking an active role in helping him/her find the path that the Lord is calling them to follow, they will have, at the least, my help in finding the way forward.

If you just finished reading this post, and are now thinking to yourself, "I'm glad my church/denomination doesn't have any negative trade-offs from its leadership structure", you missed the boat; time to step back and look objectively.