The exchange of meaningless words...

Now let me put it up front that I am not antagonistic toward diplomacy.  I do believe in the value of conversation between those of differing viewpoints.  But in order for real diplomacy to take place, the words in that conversation must have meaning and power.  They must be honest words.

In the beginning, the ecumenical task was to begin a conversation with people who had not been doing much talking.  I can well recall reading the first volumes of the Lutheran and Roman Catholic conversation and marveling at what was the substance of that conversation.  These were deep words, words that both described and communicated well what was believed, taught, and confessed.  Maybe it was the caliber of the participants or the fresh air of these initial dialogs, but whatever the reason they produced substantial documents that I still refer to from time to time.

Somewhere along the way, this ecumenical conversation changed.  Instead of summoning up the courage to confront what different communions believed, taught, and confessed, it became an exchange of meaningless words.  Yes, there may have been something learned in the exchange but this became secondary to the agreement that agreement was so important, differences should not be allowed to prevent it.  So we went from those early conversations with the likes of Piepkorn, Gartner, McSorely and Tavard (among the many names on the list) to the kinds of conversations that ended up saying Methodists and Presbyterians could commune with Lutherans (the ELCA variety, at least).


I for one welcome the pull back of Rome with respect to the Joint Declaration on Justification -- it is not because I do not want or seek or pray for such unanimity of confession, no, it is because I know that such unanimity can only occur when we speak honestly our convictions and not when we tailor the words to fit the audience.  In this I credit both John Paul II and Benedict XVI for reiterating what Rome believes and teaches.  It is not an ecumenical set back when we confront these differences but it is a betrayal of honest ecumenism when we paper over them for the sake of appearance.


In many respects, the final effect of this shift has been felt internally as much as externally, within the church bodies as much as between them.  There is no shortage of words.  There is a shortage of words with meaning.  Read through the essays and papers that once marked the Free Conferences among Lutherans or those presented in Synod Conventions and you see solid and substantial positions expressed.  Now, we often find ourselves speaking less about substance and more about style, having neatly divided faith, worship, and piety so neatly.

It occurs to me that we will spend $2+ million on the next Synodical Convention and who much of the time and words will be the meaningful words of a solid theological debate and how much the exchange of meaningless words?  The same could be said of many other gatherings of Missouri churches -- from youth gatherings to women's auxiliaries to men's groups...

If we cannot speak meaningful words, then the only words left for our conversation are those that do not carry much meaning.  When that happens the very power of the Church and her witness is compromised.  We are here because God spoke and things came to be.  We are here in faith because the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.  We are here together because someone spoke this Word to us so that the Spirit might work faith in our hearts (the spoken Word or the Visible Word of the Sacraments).  We are here to speak the Word the cleaves the darkness, the two edged sword that kills and gives life.  We are Word people (written, oral, with water, spoke in absolution, and in bread and wine).  When we begin living contentedly with meaningless words, there is nothing left to call us, gather us, enlighten us and sanctify us from assembly to congregation, from people to Church.  When the character of our conversation moves from "this we believe" to merely an exchange of ideas, it really matters little what we say within our communion or between communions.

I spend way too much time reading words that are essentially meaningless.  Whether the techno speak that continues to through new words out (missional, paradigm, transformational, etc.) or the old vocabulary of the Church minus our conviction, such words waste our time.  It is better to read the wrong but believed words of those with whom you disagree than to read the meaningless words that puff the moment but leave us nothing to grasp hold of before they are gone...

When preaching, it is a good thing to use the full toolbox of the communicator but in service to the meaningful Word of the cross.  When writing in newsletters and church bulletins, it is a good thing to promote and chronicle the parish agenda but understanding that this is the most serious of business for the Gospel is to be proclaimed not only among us but through us to the world.  When programing and planning it is a good thing to consider how best to accomplish the goal but the goal must be nothing less than to proclaim the full counsel of God's Word so that hearts may be convicted by the Spirit with respect to sin and reborn in faith by the Spirit by the power of the Gospel.

Let us resolve to be people of substance, whose words have meaning and power and speak truth and life in Christ.  Let us resolve to speak them passionately and compassionately both within the communions in which we live out our faith and between communions as we seek the honest unity of doctrine and truth.  Let the Church not be accused either falsely or truthfully of exchanging meaningless words anymore...