Unity and Diversity

The Pope approving the statutes of the Order of the Franciscans,
by Giotto, 1295–1300,
from Wikipedia page on Francis of Assisi.

This comment on a previous post got me thinking:

I agree that there is a diversity of doctrine among the members of congregations, I wish you had addressed the limitations of such diversity, instead of just blessing it. It seems that, if the diversity becomes too great, the church becomes paralyzed and is never able to speak or act as one--Frank Ruff

***

It is impossible to explore the topic of Christian unity before diving headlong into a discussion of unity and diversity.  That’s the crux of the matter, no pun intended.  How do we congregate together into some kind of a unity while also acknowledging and respecting all the differences among people and in their beliefs and actions?

You might even say the history of Christian denominations is a history of this very question. Denominations have broken off either because people perceived there wasn't enough breathing room for diversity or because people thought there was too much and wanted a stricter observance along certain lines. Has there been any split that didn't occur along these fault lines?

Too much unity and we can end up with uniformity--everyone looking, acting and speaking identically. It can be suffocating and brittle. People have to dampen or hide part of who they are in order to belong. It doesn't respect the full, unique dignity of every person who was created by God with a myriad assortment of attributes and temperaments.

On the flip side, too many differences and we can end up with chaos. People may simply dissipate from each other, not in a cataclysmic fight but more of a gradual drifting away. There has to be some underlying principle of unity that bonds people together, otherwise there's no reason to have anything to do with each other.

Even when people disagree over doctrine they often can still be united enough in their practice of the faith.  Too often, Christianity has focused on having the right beliefs but Jesus is the Way as well as the Truth.  Many longstanding Christian denominations have a detailed list of doctrinal beliefs that the tradition has handed down. But even with that, the actual members of any congregation may be divided in what they actually believe and practice. Churches like to pretend everyone is on board, but that is simply not reality.  In those cases, the people are still united enough to congregate together, do service together, worship together and work out their spiritual walk together.

It's not a question of unity or diversity. It's not simply about unity and diversity, either. as if those attributes could sit side by side somehow. We are looking for something much more intricate and woven together. We are all looking for that unity within our diversity.  They are not opposing concepts, even though their dynamics can appear that way. We can't harmonize our differences to the point of wiping out differences. Some groups have tried, but the differences did not actually go away--they were just painfully swept under the rug, only to reemerge later.  And we shouldn't accentuate our differences to where we forget what we mean to each other and how we are related.

So then where is the balance between?  Well, that's the million dollar question. I think our churches, and the whole human race, struggles with this question every day. I've experienced (near) perfect unity in diversity only momentarily in this life, but it's amazing to get a glimpse of it.

I’ve always been impressed studying Catholic Church history and looking at Pope Innocent III.  When St. Francis and St. Dominic came onto the scene and started their orders of mendicant friars, the Church could very easily have splintered into different factions.  The Franciscans and Dominicans were different enough in so many ways--from each other and the larger Church--to warrant breaking off.  Instead, the pope was able to hold it all together. Likewise, the friars were willing to do their share to stay part of the universal Church.  A couple hundred years later when Martin Luther proposed reforms, there was no room for diversity--or even room for discussion and debate--and the Church splintered.  That splintering continues today. 

That same inability to tolerate diversity—or stay in communion during times of disagreement—is a sin that stains all of western Christianity.  To this day, the theological beliefs of Franciscans can be tremendously different than those of Dominicans, yet they stay together. I think most people would be absolutely shocked to find out exactly how different those different schools of thought actually are. For example, they have monumental differences in how they understand Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. Dominicans lean much more toward atonement theology while Franciscans affirm something more incarnational.  Catholic theologian Hans Küng even said once that the differences between Catholic schools like these are often greater than the differences between Catholics and some Protestants.  Yet, in the genius of the 13th century, the decision was made to stick together while the decision made since the Reformation is to split in response to disagreement. 

Who's at fault for the Protestant Reformation? That's a 500-year old debate and one I'm not likely to solve here! That's like asking who is at fault in the case of a divorce. Usually, it's a safe bet that both sides are equally responsible. It's almost always best to start with this assumption unless circumstances strongly prove otherwise. It's always possible that one party was just too unwilling to cooperate or that one party was able to reach out and create an opportunity for reconciliation when none seemed possible. In the 13th century,  both sides were willing to pull together and make compromises. Both sides were stubborn and willing to split in the 16th.

Too much rigidity and you break. The people who love strict rules should realize that rigidity also precedes schism. Yet, too much compromise and you can end up compromised. I don't know what the right formula is, but I think there is something in the example of Francis, Dominic and Innocent III that we should take seriously.

Don't Be a Cool Church Leader, Just Be Real

Go church!

The research has come in:  Young people want substantive leaders. They don't (necessarily) want hip, stylish, trendy ones.

The study originally published in Christianity Today and then reported in Baptist News Global brings hard numbers to the conversation.

All I can say to this is: 

AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!

I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to bang my head against the table on this subject. I have talked to campus ministry group numerous times as a colleague or visitor. I'm told they want ministers who can "relate to the students." 

When I ask follow-up questions to gauge what they mean, I discover this: 

They want the cheerleader model of ministry.

They want someone fluent in current student-ese--someone who knows all the latest dances, songs, TV shows and secret handshakes. They want someone with the personality of a walking pep rally. Their goal is to portray the church not as some stodgy, dusty artifact but as cool, modern and relatable. They believe this kind of person accomplishes that.

That's fine . . . up to a point. I guess the litany of old, white men in leadership over the centuries has taken its toll.

But I would challenge them: 

Do you realize that many students are introverts?

Do you realize that many students are gloomy, moody and depressed?

Do you realize that students want true connection with someone more than just about anything else? They are hungry for something and someone real. 

Ask a student to name their favorite professor or campus leader--it is probably an elderly nun or a reclusive, quirky professor. It might be the dormitory janitor who they chat with as he's outside smoking while they are brooding over a heartbreak.

All that we can ever really give anyone is ourselves.

***

You might think Catholics would understand this better than most.  Millions of young people around the world have lined the streets or have attended a World Youth Day hoping for a glimpse of a world traveling pope.  Whether it's Francis, Benedict XVI or John Paul II, it's not age or cool, hipster style that brings them out in droves--it's leadership, presence, wisdom and the prospect of connecting to someone or something meaningful.

In fact, if you roll out a photo album of some of the most beloved Catholics in recent years, you would see bald monks and grey-haired activist nuns. However, we often throw this wisdom out the window when it comes to lay ministry. The shortage in vocations to the priesthood and religious life has created at least a couple generations where young people have mostly had only older role models in the clergy. Young, hipster priests are pretty rare. Whether by choice or necessity, we have given our elderly priests and sisters a chance that they wouldn't have gotten interviewing as a lay person for a campus ministry position.

Mother Teresa was a Catholic sister from Albania who ministered to the people of India, among other places. She looked different from most Indians. She had a wildly different religion. She spoke with an accent. It didn't matter. All that mattered was that she was sincere in ministering to the people and making a true connection. When her heart was set on that, all other boundaries were in play to be transcended.

***

I've worked a lot in urban, rural and multi-ethnic ministries over the course of my career. It is wise to bring in local people to assist in this work because they have local knowledge and local sensitivities. However, this can be problematic if we lean on it too much.

Bear with me here, because I'm going to make a very nuanced point: 

Let's say you work with a predominantly Caucasian-American group. You want to do ministry with African-Americans or Hispanic Americas. It would be completely unwise to attempt to minister to these groups without consulting with them directly. The Catholic Church has gotten into loads of trouble over the years making pronouncements on people or ministering to them without actually asking for their involvement in the process at all. You would ideally want some African-Americans or Hispanics as part of the leadership, direct ministry, or at the very least, in a consultant role.

However--and this is where I could risk getting into trouble, but stay with me a minute--you don't have to. 

No, I'm not against diversity, and I certainly don't want to bring back anything that resembles colonial tone deafness.

Here's the reason:

It would be a sad day indeed if we discovered that the only people who can serve African-Americans are other African-Americans. It would be a sad day if the only people who could relate to rural people are other rural people. It would be a sad day indeed if the only people who could minister to young students are leaders who look and act like what we think students look and act like.

The whole Gospel message gets blown to bits if we end up thinking this. It's a gloomy prescription for endless isolation, misunderstandings and miscommunication. It offers no hope of ever transcending our boundaries. It gives us the message: I can only understand you if I've had exactly the same life and experiences that you have had. That's just plain horrible and it runs counter to Gospel hope of inclusion and ultimate reconciliation of all people through Christ. It runs against centuries of Christian tradition where unusual, unlikely outsiders often become the heroes.

Jesus was male, but he reached out to women. He was Jewish but he reached out to Samaritans. The British St. Patrick went to Ireland. St. Francis visited the Sultan. Dorothy Day, once a frequenter in trendy literary circles, went to the slums of New York City. These are not exceptions but rather the general rule of Christian discipleship.

Yes, if a group of elderly, Caucasian nuns want to minister to the urban poor on the streets of Kolkata, India, they ought to consult with local people. There ought to be some local people as consultants or as members of their team. It would be enormously disrespectful and unwise not to do so, and I would bet any money that Mother Teresa did exactly that.  However, that should not stop them from making the effort on their own. In fact, it should enable them to reach out rather than disable their efforts to do so.

All that we can ever really give anyone is ourselves.

***

The cheerleader prescription for campus ministry usually fails on two levels:

1. It makes wrong assumptions about what students are like in the first place.
2. It incorrectly assumes that in order to minister to students one must look and act like students.

That's not ministry, and that's not leadership, and I don't believe that's where the Gospels are calling us.

I would also caution campus ministry teams: Young people can see through any charade in a heartbeat. The cheerleader model caters to only certain students and it truncates the global, diverse church into a little club with a very specific, approved approach. It's also like the "popular kid" trying to witness to a world full of outcasts.

There are some people who actually are like a walking pep rally. That's who they are and they are fully sincere in that. Kudos to them. I would argue that their ministry would only be successful--any ministry is only successful--if it is based on sincerity.

To church leaders, I say this:  Be brave enough to be yourself.  Trust in the dignity in which God has created you. Be whatever you are--nerdy, goofy, quirky, young or old, plain or complex.  Don't be trendy. You don't have to know the latest catch phrases or technology.

Just be you.

That's all that you can ever give, and honestly, that's all that anyone ever really wants.

***

See 2 Corinthians 5:16-21: In Christ, we are all called to the ministry of reconciliation.