Among many earnest churchmen there is a growing despair with the institutional church. Multitudes of articles and books rolling off presses every day suggest that the present institutional structures are not renewable. One minister boldly states, “The Church is hopeless.” These persons feel that the hull of the “old ship of Zion” is too laden with barnacles to be restored and made sea-worthy for carrying pilgrims to the Eternal City.
That stagnation and ineffectiveness are prevalent in vast segments of the modern Church can hardly be disputed. A cumbersome bureaucracy makes the forward movement slow. Forms of government become sacrosanct even when they quite evidently miss the mark of the New Testament concept of the Church.
The decadence of the Church is further evidenced in its two-fold problem of gross failure in the inner city and superficial popularity among suburbanites. Only rarely does the Church make an impact on the inner city. And Paul would think it ironic that this Gospel that was counted as foolishness by the Greeks is so popular in the suburbs.
Without a new dynamic and authority it is hardly likely that the Church will be able to meet the deep and demonic needs of the world’s lonely crowd. Issues are complex and perplexing. T. S. Eliot, in “The Rock,” has stated a primary Protestant tenet that we had better heed: “The Church must be forever building, for it is forever decaying within and attacked from without.” The Church’s hour of judgment has always been now. The necessity of living in the present has always been laid upon us. Thus we dare suggest that the Church of this century desperately needs renewal and restoration.
Yet the question that keeps occurring to me is, Why all the despair about the Church? Hasn’t the Church always been required to undergo renovation and renewal? I am as insistent as anyone that the Church must relinquish the forms of the past and encounter man with a relevant message. Yet I cannot forget that this “old wineskin” that is under so much criticism has through the years been its own severest critic. This discipline of self-criticism has been the built-in reformation that time and again has saved the Church from total error and decay. Bishop Gerald Kennedy in the Episcopal Address at the 1964 Methodist General Conference reaffirmed our faith in the Church when he stated, “Let The Methodist Church proclaim that so far as it is concerned, we are not post-anything, and the best is yet to be.”
There is ample evidence from history that the Church, as the Body of Christ, has been pliable enough in its institutional structures to adjust to the reshaping that comes with awakening and renewal. This should not only encourage those who despair with the Church but also support those who feel threatened by the radical changes demanded by this age.
While vested-interest groups in the Church have resisted change, there has still been an amazing elasticity to the “old wineskin” that has held the new wine of each new age. There have always been the “Young Turks” who have demanded changes and who have thereby created unrest within the ecclesiastical organization.
Now, it is one thing to shout that renewal is needed and another thing to suggest some ways to effect it. What I propose here is not a new program with a volume of brochures and a series of meetings in which important executives tell in a graphic way how to order the materials for the program. These are areas of thought and ministry that allow individual delineation of the “how” to develop.
One point at which hope exists for the Church is in a biblical-theological emphasis. Now, I know you suspected from the beginning that this is the sort of thought that would come from the Bible Belt. Nevertheless, that there is an alarming ignorance of the Scriptures and a paucity of theological understanding cannot be denied. Little wonder that the modern man’s concept of the Church reflects the cultural forms of a middle-class society. His ethics arise from the mores and social pressures exerted by secularism and materialism, rather than from the message of the Gospel of Incarnation and Resurrection. Having pitched its program and ministry on a shallow biblical-theological basis, the twentieth-century Church expects the impossible when it expects people to give up traditions and patterns of life. We have fed the people the “pablum” of nature studies and have led them in sociological discussion—but we have expected them to display the faith of the apostles and martyrs.
The Scriptures Are The Key
As the Church reads, reflects on, and obeys the Word of God, there is a regaining of power and a purging out of corruption. Thus, the Scriptures are the key to the continuing reformation that is basic to Protestant faith. It is in the written record of the revelation of God that we discover the reason for our existence and catch the vision of our mission. In fact, it is the written Word of God that issues the call for us and forms us into the people of God, the community of faith. The tragedy is that there are too few to perform this ministry of the Word. The parish priest, whose real calling it is, is too busy with programs and promotions for which he is ill equipped.
Laymen are not the only ones who apologize for any mention of theology. Even ministers skirt around it, trying to use the “language of the common man” so that everyone will understand the message. And yet the average man has not understood what the Church has been saying about faith and practice. Surely this accounts in part for the unfaithfulness of much of the Church to its true nature and task. Perhaps our concept of communication has been false.
The need is not for new concepts in theology but for a new willingness to study theology with no apology! Nor is the problem simply the corruption of the old symbols. People have lost the symbols as the means of understanding the “faith once delivered to the saints.” If we develop new thought-forms but do not disseminate meanings through the sheepfold, the effects will be no greater than those we presently have. Theological instruction involves the application of the Word of God to each person’s life and the life of the world.
Another factor that offers hope of new life to the dead bones of the Church is a new understanding of the laity. Much of what has paraded as a revival of the laity has merely been a regrouping of forces for program purposes, to give strength and support to the institution. It is significant that a chief doctrine of the Reformation was the priesthood of the believer. Time and circumstance seem to have obscured this calling. In recent years so much emphasis has been placed on the task of the minister that we have ignored the nature and task of the laity. Perhaps when our despair with the Church gets serious enough we will begin to encourage the laymen to think of themselves as ministers of Christ, not simply as sheep to be fed, led, and driven.
Laymen must begin to understand that there is no organic difference between them and the minister. There is a difference of function. This will bring us to a deeper consideration of the matter of gifts of the Spirit. And this presupposes biblical-theological concepts, not the techniques of vocational guidance counselors!
Consider also the hope of renewal for the Church in a new spirit of unity. The ecumenical movement has been receiving considerable attention in church circles. I would not disparage this movement in the least. My concern, though, is that there seems to be a false hope for revitalization of the Church in the union of denominations. There is ample reason to doubt that this in itself will bring the awakening. It is not necessarily true that “the more we get together” the greater we will be.
By a “new spirit of unity” I mean that which comes when churches conceive of themselves as the Body of Christ, the people of God, and thus develop organic unity that goes deeper than structural ties or institutional loyalties. This ecumenicity in spirit will bring about institutional unity also. An understanding of the bond of believers develops deep ties that lessen the importance of denominational allegiance. Even the simplest believer can sense the meaning of being the Body of Christ, one community of faith; whereas only the sophisticated can begin to comprehend the intricate designs of organization and participation in the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches. Again, do not think this is simply the disparagement of a misguided fundamentalist from the Deep South! Remember also that to place the World Council and the National Council above critical evaluation is no more respectable than to make cumbersome bureaucracy sacrosanct, or to canonize our “Southern way of life.”
A Time For Basic Changes
To accomplish renewal of the old structures through the avenues here suggested, radical changes may be necessary. Even enlightened liberal minds always find these hard to accept. Personal ambition readily displaces dissatisfaction with outdated forms and methods—for obviously, criticism of the present men and methods is not the way to gain position and prestige!
I wonder if we will not have to junk the church school idea. This once met the need of a particular age. Today it is so stereotyped and sterile that earnest minds are bored to tears. Most pastors and all general board people will be horrified to think of doing away with the church school. To lessen the shock of such a thought, maybe it would be better just to ignore it and to spend energy developing study groups that are really vital and in which there is a genuine quest for meaning.
I doubt if renewal will occur before we become willing to give greater authority to local churches. Of course, this means that the local church must exercise initiative and responsible leadership. Today in even the most autonomous-minded congregation there is a deplorable condition of headquarters control. Programs and mission must be born of the Holy Spirit from within the local congregation if there is to be an awakening of the old structure.
These are just two suggestions for effecting renewal through the avenues mentioned previously. Others that may be equally good will no doubt be just as radical. Whatever means we use, they must produce a faith that is understood and meaningful, a fellowship that is inclusive and healing, and a concept of vocation that issues in servanthood. Then, perhaps, renewal will have begun.
T. Leo Brannon is pastor of the First Methodist Church of Samson, Alabama. He received the B.S. degree from Troy State College and the B.D. from Emory University.
