PDF Version

Pope warns of Free Churches? Really??

3rd October, 2011 - Posted by Wolf Paul - No Comments

Currently an e-mail with the subject, “Pope warns of Free Churches” is circulating among Austrian Christians which quotes part of an Austria Press Agency (APA) report on the Pope’s speech to Protestant dignitaries in the Augustinian monastery in Erfurt, on the occasion of his visit to Germany a few weeks ago:

At the same time Benedict XVI warned of the spread of so-called free churches. “A new form of Christianity, which is spreading through an incredible missionary dynamic, which in its forms can somtimes be frightening, sometimes renders the classic confessional churches speechless,” he said. This is “a Christianity with minimal institutional density, with very little rational and even less theological baggage.”

The comments and reactions to this e-mail tend to suggest that these remarks by the Pope constitute a blow to the reconciliation efforts between Evangelical, Pentecostal and Charismatic free churches on the one hand and the Roman-Catholic Church on the other.

I think that we need to be far more relaxed when it comes to dealing with each other in the various Christian traditions, if we are really interested in reconciliation. To always be on the lookout for an unkind word from “the others” indicates a lack of true reconciliation in ourselves.

These reactions remind me of the shocked reactions to the publication of the papal document “Dominus Iesus”, at a time when Benedict was still Cardinal Ratzinger and the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith. My initial reaction was very positive, since this document underlines the uniqueness of Jesus among all the founders of the world’s religions. Many of my friends in reconciliation and ecumenical circles were horrified about the paragraph which emphasizes that only such communities which have preserved apostolic succession and share a certain sacramental understanding of the Eucharist with the Roman Catholic Church are “churches in the proper sense of the term” in Rome’s eyes, with all other relegated to the status of “ecclesial communities.”

I did not really understand these horrified reactions. After all, we knew all along that the Roman Catholic Church has a different ecclesiology and eucharistic understanding from the Protestant churches (which, btw, are not agreed among themselves about these things). And after all, we are all Protestants of varying shades because we do not recognize the authority of the Pope as “Vicar of Christ” and supreme representative of the church’s magisterium. So why all this anger, when the differences are, once again, epressed in a document?

But let’s look at the report we’re concerned with, and at the actual papal speech, which has provoked similar reactions:

If we forget the sensationalist subject line: the quote given in the report does not actually have the Pope mention free churches, and that what he did say about whoever was the subject of his remarks was not really negative, either. That something is “frightening”, after all, says at least as much about those who are frightened … and an “incredible missionary dynamic” is something that we all would like to have.

Of course one can interpret these remarks of the Pope as being aimed at the free churches, and I am inclined to say, “If the shoe fits, wear it.” I know plenty of free churches which could rightly be characterized as having “minimal institutional density, (with) very little rational and even less theological baggage” — and many of them would agree with this characterization and be proud to identify with it.

But whatever one thinks about that, it is clear that “minimal institutional density, (with) very little rational and even less theological baggage” does not reflect the ecclesiology of the Roman Catholic Church or of this Pope. We have known this all along and it isn’t really clear to me why people get so upset about it being stated once again.

And if one continues reading in the Erfurt speech, beyond what the report actually quotes, it becomes clear that the Pope is not so much warning of this phenomenon, but rather that he presents the proliferation of this form of “incredibly dynamic Christianity” as an occasion for the “classic confessional churches” to pose critical questions to themselves. It is also remarkable, that he seems to include his own church in this term, “classic confessional churches.”

Here is the relevant paragraph in full:

The geography of Christianity has changed drastically in recent times and is still changing. A new form of Christianity, which is spreading through an incredible missionary dynamic, which in its forms can somtimes be frightening, sometimes renders the classic confessional churches speechless. This is a Christianity with minimal institutional density, with very little rational and even less theological baggage, also with little stability. This worldwide phenomenon — which is reported to me time and time again by bishops from all over the world — confronts all of us with the questions: what does this new form of Christianity have to say to us, both positive and negative? In any case it confronts us with the question of what constitutes the permanently valid, and what can or must change — the question of our basic decision of faith.

So, I note that the Pope is not speaking of “cults” or “sects”, nor of “proselytism” — those would be negative terms –, no, he speaks of Christianity with a missionary dynamic.

And he says that the spread of this form of Christianity confronts the “classic confessional churches”, i.e. “all of us”, with the question of what this has to tell us, both positive and negative.

Indeed, and I find this remarkable, it confronts us “with the question of our basic decision of faith”. That sounds very much like the question of conversion — the presence of this missionary form of Christianity might frighten some, but ultimately it confronts both Protestants and Catholics alike, all of the denominational mainline, with the question of personal conversion. This is a statement which to me is extremely positive.

More he doesn’t say about us, if indeed he is speaking about us, free churches — and if he is, as I said already it is incredibly positive in my view that he considers our existence the occasion that those whom we criticize so often are examining their conscience.

As I said: it’s time to be much more relaxed about these things.

Share on Facebook