Some comments here from Stanley Hauerwas on “ecclesial homelessness,” an increasingly familiar situation for many people today. What he means by describing himself as “ecclesially homeless” is that he isn’t clearly rooted in one particular Christian tradition. As he says here, he considers himself to be a Methodist. But, as he accounts in his memoir, he has attended a variety of churches over the years, including a Catholic church while he taught at Notre Dame, and the Anglican church where he worships today (and where his wife, a Methodist pastor, serves on the pastoral staff). Here are his thoughts, from a Christianity Today interview last Fall:
I call myself an ecclesial whore. I don’t know why God made some of us ecclesially homeless. I would like to think it has some ecumenical promise. Let me be clear: I am a Methodist. By that, I mean I think John Wesley was a recovery of Catholic Christianity through disciplined congregational life. Therefore, now that I am a communicant in the Church of the Holy Family [Episcopal Church], I understand myself still to be Methodist because I think the Episcopal Church is the embodiment of much that Wesley cared about. I think that’s true in much of Roman Catholicism. I don’t think any of us should look to Christian unity by thinking we can heal divisions of the past by some kind of artificial agreement. But by going forward, trying to live faithful to the charisms [gifts] within our ecclesial identifications, God hopefully will bring us into unity.
Hauerwas seems to suggest here that being Methodist doesn’t necessarily mean worshiping in a Methodist Church. He can, as he says, live faithful to the charisms of his Methodist identity while being a communicant at Holy Family.
There are many today who find themselves in similar situations. I personally know of Methodists worshiping at Presbyterian churches, Mennonites at Anglican churches, and Lutherans at Reformed churches. I myself continue to identify as a Salvationist, though I presently worship at a Free Methodist church.
The lines of denominational demarcation are getting blurrier, but what does it all mean? Are we entering a post-denominational landscape? Do people even care about traditional differences of doctrine, worship, and polity, which were so divisive in the past?
With Hauerwas, I think this new situation has some ecumenical promise, although I also worry that it is due, at least in part, to cynical apathy regarding any kind of formal institutions. The promising thing is that walls are coming down, and people are willing to worship, fellowship, and serve with people from another denominational background without thinking much about it. In this sense, people on the ground are actually way ahead of their denominational institutions, which often remain relatively isolated.
The danger, of course, is that there are some real historical disagreements which should be aired out and discussed, rather than ignored through an easy ecumenism which treats differences as unimportant.
There’s something more to Hauerwas’ comment here, though, as it relates to the whole idea of ecclesial charisms. He presumes that a Christian person can live out the charisms of one historic tradition while being part of a community that is based in another tradition (hence his status as a Methodist communicant in an Anglican parish). I’m not sure how much he has thought about this, but it seems he presumes (as I am arguing in my dissertation) that charisms are personal, even when they are identified with a community like Methodism.
That is, properly speaking, the Methodist charisms are not borne by the Methodist community as a whole, but by the persons who call themselves Methodist. The communal aspects of Methodism might encourage and cultivate those charisms, but at the end of the day, persons are the bearers of the diverse vocational charismata.
In that sense, it should be quite possible for a person to exercise one ecclesial charism in a context which is not normally identified with that charism. Actually, I would say that this would make more sense than isolating large numbers of people with a particular charism from other parts of the church!
This is also why Methodism was intended in Wesley’s day to exist as a leaven in the Church of England, not as an independent church. Though the Methodists were to have their own gatherings, which came in various forms, they were to remain within the church, worshiping alongside others in the C of E on Sundays, where the gifts that they brought could excite a renewal among the established structures.
This all might seem pretty far removed from the contemporary issue of “ecclesial homelessness,” but I think there could be a connection, and the changing denominational landscape of the twenty-first century just might make such a vision of the church more plausible than it was in the previous century.