TW» ChorcJi "incide ancl 
OU+. 

A:£>t S 0 7 6 
U t - O « u i - y 

UNIVERSITY OF NfiX၎ME LIBRARY 

B A P T I S T - C A T H O L I C 
R E G I O N A L C O N F E R E N C E 

THE CHURCH 
INSIDE AND OUT 

MARRIOTTSVILLE, M A R Y L A N D 
FEBRUARY 4-6, 1974 

S P O N S O R E D BY 
HOME MISSION B O A R D 

D E P A R T M E N T O F INTERFAITH W I T N E S S 
A N D 

BISHOPS' C O M M I T T E E FOR E C U M E N I C A L 
A N D INTERRELIGIOUS A F F A I R S 

FOR 
NATIONAL C O N F E R E N C E O F CATHOLIC BISHOPS 





THE CHURCH 
INSIDE AND OUT 

BAPTIST-CATHOLIC 
REGIONAL CONFERENCE 

MARRIOTTSVILLE, MARYLAND 
FEBRUARY 4-6, 1974 

SPONSORED BY 
HOME MISSION BOARD 

DEPARTMENT OF INTERFAITH WITNESS 
AND 

BISHOPS' COMMITTEE FOR ECUMENICAL 
AND INTERRELIGIOUS AFFAIRS 

FOR 
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS 

1974 

Publications Office 
UNITED S T A T E S CATHDLIC CONFERENCE 

1 3 1 2 M a s s a c h u s e t t s Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 2 D 0 0 5 





Foreword 

Over ninety Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics met for a 
Regional Conference in the serenity of the Bon Secours Sisters' Spiritual 
Center, Marriottsville, Maryland from February 4-6, 1974. This was the 
third in a series of sectional gatherings which afford an opportunity to 
exchange views between the two Christian groups. For three days dele-
gates from northeastern states dialogued, prayed and conversed over the 
theme "The Church Always In Need of Reform." 

As a result of this conference another forward step has been taken 
in Southern Baptist/Roman Catholic mutual understanding and recon-
ciliation. 

We are indebted to all who attended, but, particularly, to those who 
labored to plan and present the conference, especially, Dr. M. Thomas 
Starkes, Dr. C. Brownlow Hastings, Most Rev. Joseph Durick, Rev. Robert 
C. Berson, Rev. John F. Hotchkin, Rev. John Peter Sheehan and the Sisters 
of Bon Secours. 

iii 





Contents 

Foreword ¡¡i 

I. OPENING REMARKS: 3 
For the Catholics: Most Rev. Joseph A. Durick, D.D. 3 
For the Baptists: Dr. M. Thomas Starkes 7 

II. ADDRESSES: 11 
"The Dialogical Process" Rev. Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J. 11 
"The Ecumenical Experience at the Grassroots" 

Dr. C. Brownlow Hastings 23 
Panel: 

Dr. M. Thomas Starkes, Bishop Joseph A. Durick, Dr. C. 
Brownlow Hastings and Rev. Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., Rev. 
John F. Hotchkin, Moderator. 

III. PRESENTATIONS: 33 
"The Role of the Minister and the Church in Reference to 
the Unchurched" Dr. Paul G. Gillespie 33 

"Introduction to a Discussion of the Role of the Minister 
and the Church in Reference to the Unchurched" 

Rev. Robert Berson 35 
Major Address: 

"The Church Always in Need of Reform" 
Rev. Avery Dulles, S.J. 37 

Presentation of Discussion: 
"Social Issues of Common Concern to Christians" 

Dr. William J. Cumbie 51 

IV. GROUP DISCUSSION REPORTS - 57 

V. CONCLUSION 77 
Rev. Ernest Gibson and choir, First Rising Mount Zion 
Baptist Church, Washington, D.C. 

VI. PARTICIPANTS 81 
Baptists 81 
Catholics 85 

v 









Opening Remarks 

BISHOP JOSEPH A. DURICK 

My dearly beloved brothers and sisters of our Southern Baptist-
Ro man Catholic Conference traditions—Clergy and Lay—Friends all in 
God: 

It affords me genuine pleasure and privilege to bring cordial greet-
ings to you this evening as we open the third Baptist-Catholic Regional 
Conference. To do that, may I relate in my remarks this evening an 
answer given me by a young girl in Tuscaloosa, Ala., when we were dis-
cussing at a Confirmation the Baptism of Jesus. The usual answer given 
was the translation from the old Douay Version and concluded with the 
voice from heaven saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
pleased." But this young lady was different. She said: Bishop—when 
Jesus was baptized, a voice from heaven said: "This is my beloved Son, 
in whom I am mighty proud." (Matt. 3:17). 

Thus—in the language of the Southland, I am "mighty proud," as 
Episcopal Liaison of the American Bishops, to greet you, to thank you for 
coming, to make new acquaintances and renew valued friendship of 
many from the Home Mission Board, Department of Interfaith Witness— 
especially Dr. Thomas Starkes and Dr. C. B. Hastings. 

As you know, this is the third in our series of conferences. Like 
Jesus' word in Luke 4, critics of our first interchange in Daytona Beach, 
viewed us as less than "prophets gaining acceptance." But we worked 
through that first pioneering effort—really humbled at the marvel of the 
Spirit of Jesus manifesting Himself through each group. Like the Church 
bulletin which expressed the pastor's improvement in health: Cod is 
good—Fr. O'Toole is better—so we thought Daytona Beach was good— 
and in the open—we thought Houston was better and in greater open-
ness. 

Thus we are assembled this evening for sacred purpose, resolved as 
Paul says in Colossians: to "do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving 
thanks to God the Father through Him" (Col. 3:17). Sliding down the 
scale a bit to the book according to PEANUTS, I noted a simple message 
there in similar vein which showed Lucy screaming in the first three 
frames: She's saying: "It's my life—I'll do whatever I want with i t . . . I'm 
my own person and I'm the one who has to live it." Then in the fourth 

3 



frame, Lucy quietens down—and adds humbly—very humbly in fact for 
Lucy—WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM OTHERS. 

Because our theme is one of the most challenging of all our con-
ferences thus far, may we all prayerfully and productively be helpful to 
each other in our discussions of THE CHURCH INSIDE AND OUT. It 
goes without saying we all join in Common Cause in invoking the 
Heavenly Father to bless our efforts, to deepen understanding of our role 
in the Kingdom, to intensify our determination to live—in inward re-
newal and reconciliation—our great religious heritages. 

Finally—as we look for some surcease in world turmoil, and mourn 
the loss of domestic tranquility in our great Country, might I humbly 
suggest that we could turn to the Book of Nehemiah for some scripturally 
motivating similarities to world conditions today. 

Along these lines, I have grouped Ezra and Nehemiah because the 
accomplishments of these men were quite complementary; each helped 
to make it possible for Judaism to hold fast to its self-identity during the 
trying times of the Restoration. 

For instance, Ezra the priest-scribe, is the first to mention Water Gate 
(Nehemiah 8:1)—just as Ezra as a great religious reformer succeeded in 
establishing the Torah as the constitution of the returned Community. 
Thus—in our 20th Century, we too must do our part to restore as the 
Spirit moves us the love of God and fellow-man to suffering humanity; to 
the people asking us to help them as they work and pray for a return to 
ind ividual and national moral integrity in this Country. For I believe with 
Walter Lippmann, who once remarked and still reiterates in his latter 
years—that the great issues of life and politics in a prosperous nation like 
ours—ARE NOT MATERIAL—BUT SPIRITUAL . . . "for those in high 
places," he says, "are the custodians of the beliefs it cherishes, of its 
permanent hopes, of the faith which makes a nation out of a mere 
aggregation of individuals." 

May we draw inspiration, too, from the great Nehemiah. He was a 
man of action; he rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem; he introduced critical 
administrative reforms. His "generous dedication of talents to the serv-
ice of God and of God's people remains an example of undiminishied 
force for laymen today." 

In the next several days of Conference, let us in our discussions 
about Jesus and the Kingdom—be mindful of our common vocation to 
contribute continually to a more effective community of peace, justice 
and love—that with open hearts—and open heart surgery occasionally 
(if necessary) disabuse us from our ennui, our ignorances, our stereo-

4 



types—that in clarity and charity—we may remember and apply the 
beautiful words of the Ezra-Nehemiah message to the people: "Today 
is holy to the Lord your God. . . . Do not be saddened this day, for 
rejoicing in the Lord must be your strength." 

Thank you and God bless you. 

5 





Opening Remarks 

DR. M. THOMAS STARKES 

GREETINGS—Bishop Durick, Father Hotchkin, and Dr. Belew. 

We come here to make history—two great bodies—in the new 
shape of ecumenics, in the midst of a crisis in American and world 
values. 

We can respond by covering—or imagining a conspiracy—by brand-
ing all who have different ideas, different concepts and different ethical 
mores as traitors, or the goats relegated to punishment or oblivion. This 
reactionary view always wishes to feed the correct doctrine into other 
people. This highly intellectualistic view of the individual does not— 
and, indeed, cannot—recognize an other self as a creative mind or 
unique person. 

But there is another option: one of open dialog—not duelogue. 

Michael Novak, in American Philosophy and the Future, points out 
that too often we do not perform authentic dialogue, even with a group 
of friends, rather we perform a duelogue in which we are primarily inter-
ested in shooting down one another. Instead of listening, we are busy 
reloading. The only realities exchanged are volleys. 

The youth counterculture in 1974 is trying to tell us something about 
why we are here. 

The critical issue for the group of angry yet patient generation—with 
which I am quite familiar—is the transformation of culture—a new 
vision. 

Underlying their experimentation of dress, drugs or rock—is a posi-
tive commitment to a new style of living that evidences what it means 
to be. 

And to be authentically human, joyously alive and personally 
fulfilled. 

We come here tonight as representatives of two great traditions— 
but also as representing God's effort to have us be the church in the 
late 1970's. 

Are we guilty as charged? 

7 



As part of an institution so much in trouble, not because it is con-
troversial, but because it is boring, and failing to speak to genuinely 
human issues. 

We are unable to ignore what the charismatics are saying—even if 
it is sometimes in tongues. 

They say, "We want and deserve joy—and direct personal experi-
ence—and celebration." 

But unlike the charismatics—may we mix our message, please, with 
challenge to be the church in the world.— 

So we come as bureaucrats set for a high-level conference. 

Will we come laden with inherent superficiality, confusing activity 
and numbers with growth of faith and connection. 

Will we be so self-sufficient that we forget to be human while being 
experts? 

No? 

We will be honest enough to admit that within the sphere of 
denominational fellowship we feel strongly the compulsion to conform 
to the expected standards of that group—and in ecumenical gathering 
the pressures are there to be more responsive to other Christian bodies. 

So here in the next few hours, we will be open enough to be true 
to our past and expectant of the future. 

We will face the question of how or whether we should and can 
transcend the forms of our institutional churches to become the church 
obedient to the workings of God in the world. 

So, we gather among friends, such as Bishop Joseph Durick, Father 
Bob Berson, Father Pete Sheehan, and we celebrate that God is here. 
We come to be and to change and to think—and perchance to dream. 

These are my greetings. 

Here are my hopes: that one day Christians' words will not linger for 
acceptance in the wings, but be center stage— 

"By this shall all men know that you are my disciples—if you have 
love one to another...." 

8 







The Dialogical Process 

REV. EDWARD J. KILMARTIN, S.J. 

INTRODUCTION 

This paper is concerned with the doctrinal dialogue between repre-
sentatives of Christian denominations. It is divided into four parts. First 
of all we will discuss, in a general way, the nature, aim and method of 
dialogue. This section will include a consideration of the origin of the 
modern concern for dialogue both inside and outside the churches. 
Secondly, some remarks will be made on the problem of representation 
of Christian denominations. The existence of intellectual pluralism 
within churches prompts us to ask: Who do representatives represent? 
Thirdly we will undertake a consideration of the possibility and legiti-
macy of doctrinal dialogue between world views which are really or at 
least apparently essentially opposed. These general observations are 
especially applicable to the dialogue between Christians and non-
believers but also are useful for the question of dialogue between 
churches which accept the possibility of heresy. Finally, a presentation 
will be made of the official Roman Catholic viewpoint concerning Ecu-
menical Dialogue on doctrinal issues between representatives of 
Christian churches. 

I. DIALOGUE: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: 

In general, what is the nature, aim, conditions and method of dia-
logue? To what can we attribute the modern concern for dialogue 
everywhere in the world? These are the questions I would like to dis-
cuss in this section. 

1. The Nature of Dialogue. 

The word diálogos refers to a speaking together with the accent 
on togetherness and communication by persons of themselves to one 
another: Diá - logos: through a thought, a word which is directed toward 
a community of thought. The result of properly conducted dialogue 
should be a better mutual grasp of the truth, better relations between the 
participants (respect and mutual trust.) 

2. The Aim of Dialogue. 

Dialogue is an indispensable tool for those who are attempting to 

11 



broaden areas of mutual agreement on the level of simple human rela-
tions, quest for the truth or collaboration in attaining ends of a practical 
nature. 

Depending on the particular goal of a dialogue, a different 
emphasis will be found. Here we can distinguish three types of dialogue: 

1) the encounter aimed at overcoming mutual prejudice and 
establishing mutual esteem and respect; 

2) the encounter aimed at seeking the truth of positions held by 
the interlocutors and so attaining a deeper grasp of the truth and fuller 
knowledge of reality; 

3) the encounter aimed at collaboration toward fixed practical 
objectives. 

Each of these types of dialogue has its own particular value and, 
in some measure, leads to the other types and enables advancement in 
the other types. Psychologically speaking, the first type of dialogue 
seems absolutely necessary as a starting point for any real progress on the 
other two levels. For dialogue implies a certain reciprocity (a giving and 
receiving). 

3. Conditions of Dialogue. 

Since dialogue is aimed at progress in unison toward a greater 
community of life, outlook and accomplishment, each partner must be 
open to the other, ready to accept newer insights and, at the same time, 
appeal to the individual insight and free assent of the others. There must 
be reciprocity! But this implies also the readiness to change one's own 
way of living and acting if the truth is leading in a new direction. There 
must also be mutual commitment! Ultimately dialogue is the com-
munication of ourselves to one another on all levels: human relations, 
truth and practical collaboration. It differs from teaching as such, from 
polemics; both of which involve monologues. Its aim is mutual enrich-
ment and unity on as many levels as possible. 

4. Method of Dialogue. 

The method of dialogue involves several elements which can 
operate in succession or concurrently: 

1) Exchange of ideas whereby each presents a point of view on 
the subject at issue; 

2) Comparison of ideas to bring out the differences or similar-
ities; 

12 



3) Further investigation of shared positions; 

4) Highlighting aspects of the subject previously unnoticed 
which leads to further investigation. 

5. The Origin of Modern Concern for Dialogue. 

We live in an age of dialogue. The development of communica-
tions has advanced the idea of the unity of all mankind and, to some 
extent, the reality of it. On the other hand, there is the growing recog-
nition that our society is characterized by intellectual pluralism. By 
"intellectual pluralism" is meant the sum total of experiences, insights, 
impulses and human possibilities in all spheres of human living. As a 
sum total it is so immense and complex that it cannot be organized and 
reduced to a single integrated system. It derives from the most diverse 
sources of knowledge and experience of such complexity that no a priori 
theory of science can be found which can reduce them to a system or 
relate them to one another. There is no one representative of this total 
complex such as might exercise authoritative control over all its elements. 
All departments of this amorphous complex are significant for the tenets 
of the Christian faith. All these elements are factors in modern man's 
picture of the world, and in his interpretation of himself, which in turn 
constitute the situation in which he lives out his life—and also his 
Christian faith. 

In the face of this pluralism it is clear that dialogue is required if 
mankind is to live with one another. 

Moreover, personalist philosophy has shown the value and nec-
essity of dialogue through its development of the meaning of the human 
person. In its explanation of the meaning of the human person in his 
relations with others, it has made clear the interdependence of persons 
in their subjectivity, i.e., the relations between persons as subjects of 
feelings, thoughts and achievements. These interpersonal relations are 
shown to tend to the development of mankind and society, relations of 
understanding and truth, of love and peace, of encounter and com-
munion, of hope and fulfillment. 

II. REPRESENTATIVES OF CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS IN DIA-
LOGUE: 

This intellectual pluralism of which we speak exists also in the 
churches and necessarily so. For the members of the churches live in a 
situation constituted by this intellectual pluralism. Such a situation gives 
rise to pluralism in theologies even with in the same denomination. 
Whence arises the question: Who do the representatives of Christian 
denominations engaged in dialogue represent? 

13 



In the concrete case the answer has to be given by a judgment 
based on concrete facts. However we should say that intellectual plural-
ism within a church does not of itself exclude the possibility of true 
representatives of the church as a whole. Complex and heterogeneous 
schools of thought are compatible with a common confession of faith. 
But, whether in fact a particular theological outlook is consistent with 
the characteristic belief of a community is often more difficult to estab-
lish than was formerly the case. 

For this reason a short formula of faith is especially required today, 
in this pluralistic society and pluralistic church, i.e., pluralistic in theol-
ogies. Such a formula should distinguish between fundamentals and 
other truths and not simply repeat old formulas but explain them (Cf. 
K. Rahner, "The Need of a 'Short Formula' of Christian Faith," Tl IX, 
117-126). Such a formula, representing the common confession of faith 
of the community, can serve as a focal point of dialogue within a church 
to establish whether a particular theology, a reflective interpretation of 
the faith and creed, is consistent with the symbol of faith. 

We have to accept the fact that intellectual pluralism exists in most 
churches: variety of expressions, insights, etc., because the members of 
the churches live in a situation constituted by intellectual pluralism. The 
theologians within a church can be extremely pluralistic. However since 
such a close connection exists between faith and theology, they can 
never be completely separated. Hende Christians, being pluralistic in 
theology, in spite of their unity of faith, must discuss their theologies in 
order to assure themselves that the differences in their theologies do not 
affect the unity of their creed. Out of such dialogue within a church one 
can establish legitimate representatives of a church. 

However, in actuality, certain representatives appointed for dia-
logue with another Christian denomination may not really be repre-
sentative but only be mistakenly presumed to be so. It may also occur 
that because of the respective theologies of representatives of a church, 
they do not seem to be representatives of a particular church to the 
partners of a dialogue; or it may be that the partners of the dialogue will 
judge that a church which allows such pluralism is incapable of a com-
mon confession of faith. 

To establish whether parties in dialogue really represent the respec-
tive churches requires, on the part of each group, internal dialogue in 
order to establish whether they are really, and to what extent, represent-
atives of a ch urch. It also requires dialogue between the two parties to 
establish that the pluralistic theologies found within each group are con-
sistent with the unity of their respective creeds. Otherwise the danger 
exists that a false impression will be given of lack of unified witness 
within the particular representatives of a church. 

14 



III. THE POSSIBILITY AND LEGITIMACY OF DOCTRINAL DIALOGUE: 

Human history has led men's minds to a personalist philosophy of 
communion. Dialogue has been the fruit of this philosophy. Throughout 
the world dialogue is seen as both possible and necessary between even 
those who hold opposing world views. This attitude should be accepted 
by Christians. 

All Christians are called to promote dialogue with all mankind as an 
expression of brotherly love and can find grounds in revelation for the 
confident assertion of the dignity and worth of the individual, i.e., his 
eschatological vocation. He can accept even an unbeliever as worthy of 
a dialogue which will be profitable for both parties. 

The question of the possibility and legitimacy of doctrinal dialogue 
with unbelievers has been raised and answered many times. Here I only 
want to point out the substance of those replies which seem satisfactory. 
Th is is done because, in the nature of the case of dialogue between 
Christians, some similar questions arise which require similar answers. 
Also, I want to treat this question because of the criticism which has 
arisen over the establishment of the Vatican Secretariat for Non-Christian 
Religions, whose function is to promote dialogue with those holding 
world views contrary, or seemingly contrary, to the Christian perspective. 

The basic questions concerning real dialogue between Christians 
and non-believers can be summarized as follows: 

1. Must the parties remain in an attitude of inquiry about all doc-
trines if dialogue is to be open? 

2. Can dialogue be carried on if both parties believe they possess 
the truth? 

3. Is dialogue possible if the partners start from different systems 
of thought? 

4. Is dialogue possible if one partner believes that all truth derives 
from man, while the other holds that there are objective truths? 

We will attempt to answer these questions in turn. 

1. Doctrinal dialogue between partners holding opposite views can 
result in the discovery of points of agreement and lead to enlarging on 
them. 

It should be recognized that in such dialogue one is always dealing 
with the personal acquisition of truth. One should be aware of the 
limitations of the individual and of historical communities in the search 
for truth. This creates readiness to consider the opinions and efforts of 

15 



the other and to embrace the elements of truth contained in both 
positions. 

On the other hand, doctrinal dialogue has no meaning unless one 
believes that the intellect can obtain, to some extent, objective truth; 
and that each individual has a contribution to make in search of the 
truth which others should value because of the fact that he attains a 
view of reality which is proper and unique to him. 

2. The fact that each participant considers himself to be in posses-
sion of the truth does not preclude dialogue. In fact dialogue is intended 
to clarify and bring more closely together different positions. It is 
sufficient that each of the participants believes that his grasp of truth 
can increase through dialogue. 

This attitude should be accepted by all believers because the truths 
of faith are always inadequately grasped by believers. What is known has 
a history of comprehension and interpretation in which the known still 
remains not completely known and can be better known through 
dialogue. 

Furthermore such dialogue can issue in agreement because it may 
be discerned that what is really meant is the same though expressed in 
different ways. The condition for such a conclusion will be the appro-
priation of the whole existential experience out of which the partner in 
dialogue speaks. Only then can one say that what the other holds and 
really means is false or included in his own view of things. In such 
dialogue one must attempt to draw the "no" of the other within his 
own view and answer it by a fuller "yes" by facing it. 

3. The fact that the partners hold different systems of thought does 
not preclude dialogue. Every system of thought contains certain truths 
and values not necessarily receiving their sense and importance from 
the system itself and which can be separated from it. Placed in their 
proper light a certain degree of agreement can be reached on these 
truths and values. 

4. Where partners do not agree on the meaning of truth, the pur-
pose of the dialogue will be to come to some notion of truth and of 
principles of reasoning that all can agree on. Without such agreement, 
still the conversations are not without fruit. For both have come to 
knowledge of the limits beyond which the dialogue cannot proceed. 

The churches should enter into dialogue with all mankind not only 
because human freedom demands that the truth be freely accepted 
through personal assent, but also because the churches are capable of 
being led to deeper levels of their own truth. The churches can be led 
to purify distorted interpretations attached to their understanding of the 

16 



faith. They can attain that concrete historical form of the truth which 
has to be worked out if they are to proclaim the Gospel effectively today. 

The conditions for such dialogue with unbelievers are the following: 
1) It must seek the truth. Hence dialogue should be broken off 

when it is being manipulated for other ends. 
2) It must be faithful in presenting positions. Differences must not 

be concealed by the use of the same language which hides varying 
meanings. 

3) It must be committed to revision of positions where demanded. 
4) Even where this dialogue does not result in doctrinal agreement, 

agreement on practical objectives can be reached. To proceed to action 
is legitimate granting the objective is good, values are not compromised 
and it is opportune. 

IV. THE DIALOGUE AMONG CHRISTIAN CHURCHES': THE OFFICIAL 
ROMAN CATHOLIC VIEWPOINT: 
The Vatican II Council sought to promote dialogue between 

churches with the goal of fostering the unity of separated Christian 
communities (Cf. Unitatis Redintegratio 4, 9, 11, 22). It acknowledged 
the principle of equality in dialogue and the importance of dialogue to 
foster mutual understanding (Unitatis Redintegratio 9). However, the 
document on Ecumenical Dialogue of the Secretariat for Promoting 
Christian Unity, published in 1970 ("Reflections and Suggestions Con-
cerning Ecumenical Dialogue"), offers a more detailed discussion of the 
nature, aim, basis, conditions, method, subjects for, and forms of 
ecumenical dialogue. 

I would like to review with you some of the highlights of this docu-
ment relative to the official dialogue between representatives of the 
Catholic Church and other churches. 

On the subject of the nature and aim of ecumenical dialogue, we 
read that what is demanded of dialogue in general (reciprocity and 
mutual commitment) must be found in ecumenical dialogue, specified, 
however, in accord with the concrete aim of this dialogue (II, 1-2). 

The goal of ecumenical dialogue is to prepare the way for the "unity 
of faith" in "a church one and visible" (II, 2d). Hence, in the concrete, 
it aims at the following: 1) mutual growth through sharing in the mystery 
of Christ and of His church on all levels; 2) mutual sharing in the ministry 
of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; 3) cooperation in responding to the ques-
tions posed by the "world"; 4) cooperation in answering the common 
questions which arise within the Christian communities themselves. 
(II, 2a-d). 

The basis of ecumenical dialogue, already established by Vatican II 
(Ad Gentes 15; Unitatis Redintegratio 3, etc.), is amplified with insistence 

17 



on the fact that because Christians share in the new life in the Spirit by 
faith and baptism, a certain community already exists. 

The Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity document (Reflections 
III, 1-3) calls attention to the following: 1) Christians, living in the Spirit, 
are in a position to communicate to each other the riches of the Spirit 
they possess; 2) Christian communities as such, possess spiritual goods 
and are capable of sharing with each other their common elements; 
3) The Holy Spirit is continually working in the life of faith of the in-
dividual Christian prompting each to exercise a prophetic role by com-
municating the spiritual goods they possess to others. Ecumenical 
dialogue provides the occasion for such an exchange. 

In addition, the document refers to the natural consequence of the 
churches' effort to renew themselves: They are led into dialogue in order 
to question themselves concerning their fidelity to Christ's will (III, 4). 

Thus, the SPCU document underlines the consequences of the 
mutual possession of the Spirit by individual Christians and churches. It 
makes possible the sharing of the gifts of the Spirit through dialogue and 
so enables Christians to grow in unity of thought and action! Here it is 
presupposed that no one has a corner on the market. The Spirit is 
possessed by each believer and community according to their openness 
and shares its riches through the faithful disciple. 

These remarks, as the corresponding ones of II Vatican, are aimed at 
provoking among the churches a Theology of Communion founded on 
the mutual possession of the Spirit and actualized through the human 
communication characterized as dialogue: a situation of openness to the 
advent of the Spirit through all men of good will! 

In considering the conditions for dialogue, the SPCU document 
notes that, by its very nature, dialogue requires an attitude of sympathy 
and openness (IV, 1). Again it asserts also the principle of equality 
(IV, 2a-c). 

But what does the document mean by saying that the participants 
are to consider themselves equal. A close reading of the text in question 
reveals that: 1) both parties should consider each other as faithful to the 
Gospel according to their lights (IV, 2, a); 2) that both parties possess the 
Spirit and so are able to learn from each other speaking through the 
Spirit (IV, 2, b); 3) that a certain communion of spiritual goods already 
exists between the Christian communities represented (IV, 2, b). 

On the other hand the SPCU document calls attention to a basic 
inequality between the different Christian communions (IV, 2, a). This 
inequality, based on concrete differences, leads to the conclusion that 
all positions are not equivalent. Therefore it leads to the rejection of 

18 



doctrinal indifferentism (IV, 2, a). The object of dialogue, therefore, is 
the differences which exist in the content, development and expression 
of the faith of the churches (IV, 2, b). 

In this latter connection, the SPCU document calls attention to the 
way Catholics should present doctrine. Here we will only note the cru-
cial points: 1) Catholics are instructed to bear in mind that there exists a 
hierarchy of truths which vary in relation to the foundation of Christian 
faith (IV, 4, b; cf. UR 11). This hierarchy of truths should be clearly 
indicated, as well as the link which is seen between these truths. 2) 
Secondly, attention is called to the problem of language. Since it is a 
question of establishing real communication, the participants should sub-
mit the language they use to a hermeneutic, a critical study. To avoid 
travelling along parallel lines wherein the same thing is meant by differ-
ent words, one should discuss the mentality, the genius of a culture, the 
philosophical tools, traditions and styles of life (language) which lies 
behind what is said (IV, 4, c). 3) Finally, the SPCU document calls atten-
tion to the area of legitimate diversity which is compatible with the unity 
of the churches (IV, 5). 

Concerning the method of dialogue, after noting what must be 
observed in common with all dialogue (V, % a-d), it goes on to discuss 
certain things specific to the method of ecumenical dialogue. Concern-
ing the lines of enquiry, the SPCU document suggests: a) truths confessed 
in common; b) truths obscured in one community but developed in 
another, c) religious insights even in areas of divergence (V, 2, a). It also 
calls for an exposition of doctrine done in a constructive way which 
avoids the tendency to define by opposition: a process which generally 
results in overstress or hardening of certain positions (V, 2, b). Finally, 
it encourages cooperation in a constructive synthesis with use made of 
every legitimate contribution and aimed at the assimilation of the whole 
of revealed truth. 

On the subject of the topics of dialogue, the document has some 
good observations to make. First it insists that the subject of dialogue 
should be chosen with a view to the real life of the churches. Secondly 
it suggests that they be chosen because they lie within the competence 
of those in dialogue. The reason for this is clearly stated: The practice of 
bringing in others to discuss special topics risks bringing the dialogue to 
an end because the participants will be unable to express themselves to 
one another. 

CONCLUSIONS 

In conclusion, I would like to make some personal observations. 
1. It seems appropriate to stress what is implied in the document 

of the SPCU and the whole dynamics of dialogue, namely the role of 

19 



love. The partners in dialogue must accept the fact that behind what 
one judges to be the falsest of theories can be hidden the being-in-the-
truth of the man who accepts his existence genuinely. This provides the 
basis for mutual love: The acceptance of one whom God accepts. It is 
this love which must support dialogue. Without this love dialogue is not 
possible: true dialogue, which aims at the truth. St. Paul says: "If I have 
all the eloquence of men and angels, but speak without love, I am simply 
a gong booming and a cymbal clashing. 

But this love already unifies. Hence, it is the goal of dialogue to 
make the effort to insure that the love which already exists in the heart, 
and which makes Christianity believable, may appear in mutally ex-
pressed and possessed truths. It is by loving one another and conversing 
with one another that we actually do theology or rather build theolog-
ically. 

2. Dialogue between the churches is required for decisions of the 
churches, but it is not a substitute. Dialogue cannot overcome the gap 
between theory and action, between the possibility and actuality. Here 
we have in mind theological conversations. . 

3. Those appointed for dialogue between different denominations 
should foster dialogue on all levels: human relations, search for truth, 
collaboration in practical action. In a word they should be a "commu-
nity" which accepts the ancient Hebrew view of truth, i.e., that it does 
not exist in the abstract but must concretize itself in action. Such a com-
prehensive dialogue ought to be considered sanctioned by the churches 
which approve their membership engaging in the particular form of com-
munication known as dialogue. The form and extent of practical action 
will depend on circumstances. But it should occur that the truth of unity 
may appear. 

4. Since meetings between members of official dialogues are so few 
and far between, it seems imperative that the members normally dia-
logue between themselves almost exclusively. They should carefully 
prepare the subject of the dialogue and give their witness to each other, 
listening and learning from each other. Only rarely should outsiders be 
brought in to lecture. The process of growing together requires being 
together and not giving attention to someone who can only serve to 
intrude on the mystery of personal encounter by which we come to 
really know one another. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Roman Documents 
1. Vatican II, The Decree on Ecumenism, no. 9. 
2. Dialogue with Non-Believers, Secretariat for Non-Christian 

Religions (Vatican Press, 1968). 

20 



3. Reflections and Suggestions Concerning Ecumenical Dialogue, 
Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity (National Conference 
of Catholic Bishops, 1970). 

Articles 
K. Rah ner, "Reflections on Dialogue within a Pluralistic Society," 

Theological Investigations VI: Concerning Vatican Council II 
(Helicon Press, Baltimore, 1969) 31-42. 

K. Rahner, "Dialogue in the Church," Theological Investigations 
X: Writings of 1965-1967 2 (Herder & Herder, New York, 1973) 
103-121. 

21 



IM! 



The Ecumenical Experience 
at the Grass Roots 

DR. C. BROWNLOW HASTINGS 

How can we experience any kind of cooperation between Baptists 
and Roman Catholics at the grass roots? Let's take a look. In October 
of 1972 in Houston, Texas, one of the features of the program of our 
Southwestern Regional Baptist-Catholic Conference was a Baptist 
worship service brought by the pastor and choir of a local church. 
During the singing of the choir all of us were struck by one young lady 
who seemed to radiate joy more than any. Her face looked slightly 
familiar, but traveling at my age and being in so many different places, I 
gave up trying to place her. After the session, the choir had gone to their 
buses and l was busy with preparations for the morrow, when I looked 
up to see our friend returning to the room. "I just wanted you to know," 
she told me, "that I heard you in Virginia some months ago speak about 
your work in Baptist-Catholic relations and frankly I didn't get it. But 
after seeing and hearing what went on here tonight I am so glad that 
we don't have to hate Catholics anymore!" 

Then there was that Cleveland, Ohio, priest, who heard about how 
to start local dialogues between Baptists and Catholics at the ecumenical 
workshop in Toledo a year ago. He believed what he heard and went 
home to organize a Sunday afternoon dialogue in one of the largest 
Baptist churches of the city. He brought 400 people together represent-
ing three parishes and three Baptist conventions. Of course, it was a bit 
stiff and uptight, but it was happening! And perhaps his greatest accom-
plishment was in getting the three Baptist groups to sit down together. 
Naturally you could have expected at least one Catholic would urge all 
us "separated brethren" to return to Rome and one Baptist rehearsing 
all the gory details of the Inquisition, but the lay people were not buying 
all such irrelevancies. They are the ones who are truly practicing 
ecumenism at the grass roots. And it is breaking out all over. Father Bob 
Berson, whom you will meet here, is the regional missionary in the 
Southeast for the Glenmary Fathers and is the field worker for the 
Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs as liaison 
with Southern Baptists. Within the past year he has helped to arrange 
several different kinds of dialogue in Georgia, Florida, North Carolina 
and Tennessee and is presently working with local groups in Louisiana, 

23 



South Carolina and Alabama. We both agree on two observations about 
ecumenism: our biggest enemy is not prejudice but apathy, and our 
greatest joy is to hear of spontaneous ways local Baptists and Catholics 
are working together in many places. We also observe that apathy is in 
proportion to dominance. Where Catholics predominate, the hierarchy 
could care less. And it is very hard to get those Baptists in one rural 
Alabama county excited about this work where their associated report 
cla ims a total membership just under 110% of the 1970 census! 

Our progress may be likened to two neighboring patrimonies, 
whose ancestors fought so much each built high walls against the other. 
As a consequence all manner of suspicions, false images, rumors and 
outright lies grew like weeds in a dismal swamp. As the walls crumble 
with age, the present descendants find less and less enthusiasm for 
restoring them to their former perilous heights. Now between fallen 
parapets we are beginning to catch a glimpse of each other in our 
patchwork backyards. Our first shock is to discover that our neighbors 
are very human, made in all points like as we are including our sins. 
Then as we begin to reach across and touch we discover that Christ truly 
sh ines forth through more of us than we used to admit. The walls are 
still there, the heritage is still strong, but the hearts are more and more 
concerned with the needs of the present age and the eyes are alight 
with a new hope of the Kingdom of Cod. 

I know I will be accused of too quick and easy solutions, but at the 
risk of being called theologically naive I would like to make a timid 
proposal for the future of Baptist-Catholic relations. Can we not shift 
our focus from the Church to the Kingdom? I do not intend that each of 
us would forsake the continuing pursuit of the meaning of the Church 
in our own traditions. My friend, Bob Berson, is planning a study leave 
of two or three years. He has intrigued me with his choice of a field for 
his graduate study—ecclesiology. This is significant of change taking 
place in Catholic thought today. When he was in the seminary doubtless 
he felt that he was taught all that anyone needed to know about the 
Church. It was given. Final, irrevocable and unchangeable. But now there 
is much ferment in Catholic thinking about the Church. He does not plan 
to teach in some secluded seminary. He plans to use his sharpened 
understanding of the Church to increase the effectiveness of his already 
able ecumenical ministry. He and I do not often agree on how one 
enters the Church, nor on the means of sustaining the life of the Church, 
but we do see eye to eye on one thing: the sharper the vision of one's 
own understanding of his faith, the greater the cooperation possible in 
affairs of the Kingdom. 

We will still need scholarly dialogues to debate our theological 
issues. We Baptists need to understand the ideals of which you speak 



when you say that the Church should be holy, that it should be true to 
its apostolic origins, that it should be genuinely katholikos. Vatican II 
has liberalized your theology of the Church with its definition "the 
pilgrim people of God." You are moving away from your former 
extremely high-church stance. 

Baptists, on the other hand, have moved into the lead in size and 
potential influence among Protestants in the post-war years. All of a 
sudden we have awakened to the fact that our aggressive evangelism and 
multiform programs have carried us pell mell into the forefront. We 
look around anxiously and ask ourselves, "Is this all that God requires of 
us? Will the Kingdom have come when we baptize our last convert?" 
Since most of us have only a meagre concept of the Church beyond the 
local congregation, our growth is forcing us to reconsider our Low 
Ch urch theology and grapple with one suited to a world-wide com-
munion of the people of God. Your new trend toward democracy and 
co-responsibility and ours toward universality and coherence at least 
deserve close watching by our ecclesiologists. 

But this is not where the action is in Baptist-Catholic relations. It is 
in the work of the Kingdom of God, which Vatican II finally freed from 
the necessary bounds of the institutional Church. Now, what is the work 
of the Kingdom? Simple. It is the business of the King Himself. 

What was the King's business while He was among men? Pro-
claiming the good news that God is a Father who cares enough to save 
everyman and who rules among men through redemptive love. Healing 
the hurt of men and suffering with and for them to restore life and health 
like His own. Calling, teaching, equipping disciples to be able to carry 
the responsibilities of God-ruled men. 

What is the King's business in the Now time? Ruling over men and 
nations at God's right hand. Representing us to the Father and serving as 
the agent of communication between God and men. Releasing His 
power and love into the world through His disciples to make their work 
effective. So as King, Christ furnishes us with the pattern and the power 
for our work as citizens of the Kingdom. Let us see how this works out 
in Baptist-Catholic relations. 

First, let us honestly take stock of the issues that divide and unite us. 
We agree on authority to the extent that Christ has the only and final 
Lordship. We disagree on how that authority is delegated among the 
citizens of the Kingdom. We agree on the revelation of God as given to 
us through sacred Scripture; we disagree on the channels by which 
Scripture is brought to bear upon the disciples. You are returning more 
and more to the primacy of Scripture over Tradition; we are admitting 

25 



more and more the influence of Baptist tradition in the handling of 
Scripture. Lest we meet and pass in the night, it behooves us to keep 
our theologians in frequent dialogue. 

We agree on the Atonement of Christ as the basis of Cod's saving of 
any man; we disagree on how His atonement is applied to sinful men. 
We agree that worship is necessary to the sustenance of our souls; we 
disagree on the modes of worship. You are seeking to make your sacra-
ments more meaningful for the people; we are seeking more symbols 
6y which to make truly holy our many churchly activities. We agree that 
Church and State are two distinct life-styles ordained of God for man-
kind; we disagree on their relationship and ways of influencing each 
other. 

Now in the light of this many timid souls would conclude there is 
no room for Baptists and Catholics to work together in Kingdom busi-
ness. There is no dearth of those narrow souls who see more in Paul's 
word, "Come ye out from among them and be ye separate" than in 
Jesus' word, "Whoever is not against us is for us." But then, it has always 
been easier to proof text our prejudices than to illumine the paths of 
reconciliation. 

Now if Kingdom business be proclaiming the Good News and 
making disciples, can Baptists and Catholics possibly work together here 
in spite of obvious disagreement? Well, they have and are. 

Take evangelism as a starter. Last fall there was a city-wide Billy 
Graham film festival in New Orleans. One of his gospel films was shown 
in eight or nine movie houses during the week. There were some 5500 
decisions for Christ. The Presbyterian pastor who was in charge of en-
listing the counselors said that of the 400 who volunteered to serve, 
there were 25 more Catholics than Southern Baptists. On the other hand,' 
a Catholic Teens Encounter Christ in Massachusetts recently invited á 
Baptist youth worker to lead their retreat on how to lead others to 
become Christian. I was invited to speak to a group of church leaders 
in Tifton, Georgia, last year on the techniques and materials our 
Evangelism Division of the Home Mission Board uses in training lay 
people to win the unchurched. My audience: 15 Catholic pastors and 
three nuns. 

You can imagine how Minnesota Baptists reacted when our late 
leader, Warren Littleford, invited two nuns to the state Baptist evangelism 
convention to give their testimony of how they had experienced the 
New Birth. Do you feel the frustration of an old-line Baptist trying to 
figure out a nun, in a modified habit, saying in effect, "I've been born 
again through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and I'm staying in the 

26 



Catholic Church!" He shakes his close-cropped head muttering "No 
way, Sis—, No way!" 

More to the point of Kingdom business is the problem of making 
disciples out of new converts. Here both of us have our hands full. 
However we may differ on the how of making converts, we are both 
genuinely concerned that we have far too many church members who 
cannot show to the world any better quality of life than the non-
churched. We are plagued with a vast host of people who are just as 
much trapped in the culture, the lifestyles, the unchristian value systems 
as the unbeliever. Our track records are poor in race relations, in sub-
servience to the powers that be, in political chicanery and ecclesiastical 
isolation. 

To the end of training disciples we can find more ways of working 
together. Adult education in the C C D , in Cursillos, in continuing 
education is a growing thing among Catholics today. The crisis in your 
schools and the demands of catechetical classes in parishes woefully 
undermanned by the religious are calling for a great new army of lay 
teachers. Baptists can help you with successful techniques of training lay 
teachers and involving the masses in Bible study. We stand ready to 
recommend certain profitable conferences and workshops where you 
would be welcome. 

On the other hand we Baptists are too activist. We need to learn 
from your great schools of spirituality how to discipline our minds and 
souls to be attuned to the things of the spirit. Not that we will enlist 
in large numbers in the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola, but we will 
learn how to listen to the spiritual giants of the past and adapt their 
values to our life-styles. More and more of us are finding real restoration 
of soul and a deepening of the spiritual life in monastic retreat centers, 
in reading the greater classics of the soul, such as Thomas Merton, and 
in Bible study that is designed for the whole man and not alone for his 
mind. Once a month six of us Baptist preachers join three monks at the 
Trappist monastery at Conyers, Ga., for a day, reading the Greek New 
Testament together. It is a veritable soul-feast, for no one has any axe 
to grind, no one has any status to uphold. We bare our minds and hearts 
to what the Spirit says through the Word and slug it out with each other 
at the deeper levels of our being. 

Last year five Baptist and five Catholic lay couples met once a week 
in homes to study for nine weeks the book of Romans. A Jesuit priest 
and I served as resource, but the lay people taught themselves. Of 
course, our basic differences surfaced and that right often, but we found 
that the Word was more attractive than our pop debates. We ended 
with a deeper sense of unity and love than any of us dreamed possible. 

27 



All of us are deeply concerned over moral issues, especially those 
that relate to family life. I am confident that Catholics would find a 
ready welcome among many Baptists in your stand against unlimited 
abortion and for the right to life. We too are concerned about where 
genetic engineering may take us in the near future. But we would warm 
you of the pitfalls of trying to legislate moral standards that are not 
shared by unbelievers, from our experience with Prohibition. 

You do have some excellent family life programs going where we 
could plug in: the pre-Cana conference for those about to be married, 
for example. And since more and more of our young people are marry-
ing across interfaith lines, would it not be wise to include some Baptists 
in those conferences where appropriate to interpret the faith and rights 
of the Baptist party? Your Marriage Encounter weekends and our 
Couples' retreats take on an added dynamic when there are present 
those of other faiths. Why should we ignore each other in these when 
our people go right back into their communities to work out their 
problems shoulder to shoulder with people of other faiths? 

So without trying to force our present structures we can challenge 
Baptist and Catholic friends to discover new ways of sharing in the 
resources and disciplines of the Christian life. We may not be able to 
eat together at the Lord's table, but we can at least eat in each other's 
homes and retreat centers with spiritual concerns dictating the way we 
break bread together. If not the Eucharist, then surely an Agape meal. 
Of course, it helps if we are all of one mind and accord, but if we had to 
wait on that kind of unanimity, my three-generation family would never 
eat together! 

Now let us not despise simple things. Some are saying ecumenism 
today is a burnt-out wick. There are too many other pressing issues for 
us to go on with meetings like this where we just meet to get acquainted 
and try to update our images of each other. And some are saying let's 
spend our energy and money on those who are close enough to us to 
hope for union. But that invites a return to the old triumphalism, which 
we both are trying to eschew. It is true that much of the early post-
Vatican II enthusiasm has waned. We are tired, overburdened and often 
short-tempered in the midst of the crowds who look to us for ministry. 

But it is just for these very reasons that we must not quit nor return 
to our denominational ghettos. The world, the flesh and the devil are 
too much for either of us and especially as individuals fighting our 
isolated battles. We need to go beyond the formal ministerial con-
ferences, the local councils of churches and the many worthwhile civic 
and social projects, where we ought to be throwing our combined 
weight. We hunger for each other in our humanness and seek to draw 

28 



hope and courage through men whose lives God has touched. I could 
wish that, if we have not already done so, each of us would return to our 
places of ministry to hunt up some neighboring pastor across our mter-
faith lines and develop a life-long friendship. Sure, if the word gets out, 
some Baptist may lose a revival meeting and some Catholic a promotion. 
But that's a small risk as compared with the blessings that may accrue. 

This kind of strengthening of each other is beginning among semi-
narians. When they develop the right kind of human understandings m 
their formative training, they will not be so apt to carry into life a burden 
of prejudice and isolationism. James Hefley, while at New Orleans 
Baptist Seminary a few years ago, learned by practical contacts in that 
unlikely environment of South Louisiana. He wrote of his metano.a m 
the book, A Prejudiced Protestant Takes a New Look at the Catholic 
Church. And he is still a Baptist! 

How encouraging it is to see the growth of. consortiums of 
theological schools, such as in Louisville, where students from several 
seminaries are encouraged to take classes in other than their own 
Faculty members are giving lecture series in other seminaries Pastoral 
counsel ing and clinical training uses methods and understan ings 
know no interfaith bounds. 

Even better for these seminarians is the practical experience many 
are receiving in student ministries. There they have opportunities to 
learn how to work together in inner city ministries, in ruralareas such as 
Appalachia. On a more long-term basis the work of C O R A and JSAC 
provide all of us with more vehicles of ministry than either of us are fully 
utilizing We could take these avenues more seriously than we are at 
present. Here in the fires of service we can melt more prejudice than 
dozens of structured conferences. 

But we ought not to despise the structured modes either. For some 
of us are so highly programmed that we would never get around to 
crossing these bridges of understanding unless someone built the bridge 
and gave us a shove. Detractors will always ask "What good does it do 
to get Baptists and Roman Catholic leaders together? What is your 
hidden agenda? Why spend good mission money on such futilities?' 
Well why not? Christ has promised that where two or three, or 80 or 90, 
are gathered together in his name He will be in their midst And when 
Christ is allowed in the midst, even of such a gathering as this, who can 
guess the directions the Spirit of God may take? The past regional con-
ferences at Daytona Beach and Houston produced unexpected and 
thrilling consequences as these people went back home. I have great 
faith in the Spirit who has always been able to use the most unlikely 

29 



means and the most improbable of people to bring about results. Truly, 
it is not by the might of our ecclesial organizations, nor by the power 
of our dynamic leaders, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of Hosts. Let's get 
on with Kingdom business then! 

30 







The Role of The Minister and The Church 
In Reference To The Unchurched 

DR. PAUL G. GILLESPIE 

The Christian church is by its very nature evangelistic. Having been 
grasped by the message of the gospel, a first impulse is to find ways of 
sharing the Good News with our brothers. I represent a tradition that 
in attempting to devise ways of sharing the gospel has resorted to some 
pretty unacceptable methods and techniques. Yet we all are obligated 
to try to communicate the gospel with the people of God's world. 

At the 1954 meeting of the Assembly of the World Council of 
Churches, one document on evangelism stated: -

"Evangelism is the participation of the total Christian com-
munity in Christ's mission in the world; 
Every single aspect of the Church's life and activities is of 
evangelistic significance; 
In proclamation, fellowship and service, the Church must 
demonstrate the Gospel in the actual life context of men; 
Laymen are on the frontline, served by the ministry whose 
function is to equip the people of God for its mission. 
Laity and ministry together strive to be of the mind of Him who 
'emptied Himself' in service to the world." 

In our own parish we have found that evangelism is as much the 
work on boring committees that free the church structures for openness 
and ministry to and with people of all stations and races, tutoring and 
social casework, work with former mental patients, and the like, as much 
as proclamation and visitation. 

What is it that we actually have to offer the unchurched and 
unredeemed of the world? My conviction is that we only have CHRIST 
IN COMMUNITY to offer. Christ in community. Ours is not the task of 
winning people. That is God's work. Ours is the mission of sharing the 

33 



Good News of Christ in community. For all of the key New Testament 
words are "relational"—reconciliation being the most obvious. 

Three things are to be shared. First, we share through our witness 
the TRUTH of God and his relationship to man. Second, we offer our-
selves and Christ for relationship. And third, we invite people into the 
Christian community (church). Accordingly, when we share our 
Christian witness with another, leading them to embrace Christ, we have 
a threefold obligation to help them: 1) Find a church where the system 
for embracing and being embraced by the TRUTH is to their own liking; 
2) Offer ourselves to them for a continuing relationship of "brothering"; 
and 3) Help them find a "community" where they can feel comfortable 
with the style of church life and find nurture, love, and support. 

Two kids—one black and one white—one formerly Unitarian and 
the other formerly Episcopalian—were seeking a "community" to help 
them grow up in their new commitment to Christ. And I think 
evangelism was tied up in creating a parish community that could love 
and accept responsibility for and to them without either judging their 
interracial courtship or their previous church affiliation. To me, that is 
the work of evangelism. 

34 



Introduction to a Discussion of the Role of the 
Minister and the Church in Reference to the 

Unchurched 

ROBERT. C. BERSON 

This discussion is intended to direct our attention to the thousands 
of people in America who are outside the visible fellowship of the 
church. It is not designed to raise the more basic theological question 
"Who Is the Church?" What we want to get at is simply what we min-
isters and church people can do to reach our non-churchgoing neighbors 
with the Christian gospel. 

Your particular discussion group may wade into this subject with no 
need of prodding. If, however, some help is useful in getting started, 
you might want to consider these six questions which address the sub-
ject at hand: 

1. Does the church have any spiritual ministry to those unchurched 
persons who show no promise of even remote interest in church 
membership? 

2. Can the unchurched be reached by enlisting their active co-
operation in church-initiated programs of assistance to the dis-
advantaged? 

3. Who are these people who do not come to our churches? Are 
they the very poor and the very rich? Are there obstacles in 
their road which have nothing to do with faith? 

4. How can a middle class church gather in new members or even 
proclaim the gospel to people on other strata of society? 

5. Is there a way to reach those who have already been approached 
many times, perhaps heavy-handedly, and emphatically rejected 
the church? 

6. Is it enough for the Christian to witness to Jesus and the gospel 
simply by truly Christian social action? Must the gospel be 
verbalized by minister and church members alike? 

35 





MAJOR ADDRESS 

The Church Always in Need of Reform 

Ecclesia Semper Reformanda 
REV. AVERY DULLES, S.J. 

For churches issuing from the Reformation, and especially those 
having links with the radical Reformation, the idea of reform in the 
Church contains no surprises. Protestantism is by its very nature a reform 
movement. Luther's aim was not to found a new Church but to reform 
the existing one. Calvin considered it his life work to bring about "a 
reasonable and Christian reformation" restoring the Church to its original 
purity on the basis of the word of God.1 Some of the early Protestants, 
no doubt, imagined that their own Churches, once established, required 
no further reformation, but by the middle of the seventeenth century 
John Milton could confidently proclaim that the process must extend 
"even to the reforming of Reformation itself." 2 In the present century 
the slogan, "ecclesia semper reformanda" has become widely accepted 
among Protestants. 

In the ancient Church, the idea of reform was operative almost from 
the beginnings, but the early reformers were concerned with the 
reformation of persons in the Church rather than with the reformation of 
the Church itself. Only in the middle ages did it become apparent that 
in some cases moral and spiritual reform could not be achieved without 
doctrinal and structural reform. The Gregorian Reform in the eleventh 
century effected sweeping institutional changes under the leadership of 
a renewed papacy. In the later middle ages, the emphasis shifted again. 
For the conciliarists, the papacy became not the chief agent but rather 
the chief target of reform. 

After the Protestant Reformation, the idea of reform was treated 
more cautiously in the Catholic Church. Reform of morals and discipline 
still offered no difficulty, and was in fact vigorously pursued by the 
Council of Trent. But from the sixteenth century to the twentieth, doc-
trinal and structural reform were suspect. The Church was on guard 
against innovations that might weaken its links with its own past. 

37 



Th is defensiveness, however, was abandoned under John XXIII. 
Vatican Council II cordially welcomed the idea of reform, even in the 
areas of doctrine and structure. The classic text is from the Decree on 
Ecumenism: 

Christ summons the Church, as she goes her pilgrim way, to 
that continual reformation of which she always has need, inso-
far as she is an institution of men here on earth. Therefore, if 
the influence of events or of the times has led to deficiencies in 
conduct, in Church discipline, or even in the formulation of 
doctrine (which must be carefully distinguished from the 
deposit itself of faith), these should be properly rectified at the 
proper moment.3 

For Vatican ll's concept of "continual reformation" one should refer 
also to the Constitution on the Church, in which we read: "While Christ, 
'holy, innocent, undefiled' (Heb. 7.26), knew nothing of sin (2 cor. 5.21), 
but came to expiate only the sins of the people (cf. Heb. 2.17), the 
Church, embracing sinners in her bosom, is at the same time holy and 
always in need of being purified, and incessantly pursues the path of 
penance and renewal." 4 Although the term "reform" is not used in this 
passage, the idea of ongoing reform is clearly present. Thus we may 
conclude that the concept of a Church that is continually obliged to 
reform itself has a secure place today in Catholicism as well as in 
Protestantism. Practically speaking, all agree that the Church can be and 
needs to be reformed, but there are sharp differences regarding the nature 
and limits of reform. After a brief discussion of the meaning of the term 
"reform," I shall attempt this morning to categorize some of the types or 
models of reform. Then, in a second part, I shall explore the areas to 
which reform may be thought to extend, and finally I shall give some 
reflection on the values and dangers in reform. 

k REFORM: ITS NATURE AND TYPES: 

The etymology of the term "reform" throws little light upon its 
meaning. To "reform" could simply mean to "form again," hence to 
remake or transform. Unlike creation or foundation, reform implies 
change in a preexisting subject. With some exceptions to be mentioned 
later, authors generally distinguish reform from transformation. Trans-
formation suggests a radical change, whereby a thing is changed into 
something else, whereas reformation means a change in which the 
original identity of the subject is not lost but preserved. 

A further precision of meaning has attached itself to the term. Since 
the second century—as can be shown from the writing of Tertullian— 
"reform" has regularly meant a change for the better, and amelioration. 

38 



A change for the worse would be called rather a "deformation." Those 
who believe in Church reform, then, hold that the Church can and 
should be changed for the better without loss of its own identity. They 
hold that the Church exists in an imperfect but perfectible state. 

Advocates of Church reform thus occupy a middle position. On the 
one hand, they differ from extreme traditionalists who hold that while 
individuals and groups within the Church should be reformed, the 
Church itself is irreformable. On the other hand they differ from 
revolutionaries, who are not satisfied to reform what already exists. The 
ecclesiastical revolutionary would wish to destroy the existing structure 
and to erect another in its place. 

To view the Church as reformable is to assert against the tradi-
tionalists that the Church as it exists in history is made up of humanly 
limited and sinful persons. It is also to assert against radical innovators 
that the Church, notwithstanding its blemishes, remains the Church of 
Jesus Christ and should therefore be preserved. 

One can hardly discuss the desirability of reform without making 
some distinctions regarding the intention or process signified. It will be 
helpful to distinguish five types of reform, some of them more 
obviously desirable than others. 

1) Purification. This would be the removal of a corruption, the cor-
rection of an abuse. Many reform movements have assumed that the 
Church was perfect at its inception and that corruptions gradually crept 
in with the passage of time. On this theory, reform would be a restora-
tion of the pristine state of perfection or, in a word, repristination. 

This kind of reform admitted by the early Councils, which fre-
quently use the metaphors of healing disease or of uprooting weeds as a 
description of the measures they were urging. Medieval Councils con-
tinue to use these metaphors in connection with the idea of reform. In 
the Renaissance, when humanist antiquarianism was making it possible 
to gain fresh contact with Christian as well as classical antiquity, there 
was great enthusiasm for the idea of a rebirth, as the term "renaissance" 
itself implies. The idea of reform in the writings of the first Protestants 
is closely connected with repristination. 

No Christians, I suppose, reject the idea of reform by way of purifi-
cation. Corruptions exist and have to be removed. This would be 
admitted even by those who hold that the earliest days of the Church 
were by no means ideal, and that reform cannot be content with 
restoring what previously existed. Even though it were neither neces-
sary nor sufficient to reinstate the ideas and institutions of the first 
century, it is evident that the abuses of today must be corrected. 

39 



2) A second possibility is that, even though the Church lacked no 
essential perfection from the beginning, changes may be necessary in 
order to keep it abreast of the times. Thus there is such a thing as reform 
by way of adaptation. 

In the later middle ages we begin to discern a consciousness that it 
is desirable for the Church to make certain adjustments on the ground 
of "urgent need or evident usefulness." 5 It was on this ground, for 
instance, that the practice of communion under one kind was justified 
by the Council of Constance.6 

Scarcely a decade ago, Pope John XXIII popularized the concept of 
aggiornamento. He observed that so much had changed in the modern 
world that the thinking and practice of the Church needed to be brought 
into better alignment with the needs and conditions of the present age. 
In its most creative document, the Pastoral Constitution on the Church 
in the Modern World, Vatican II sought to set forth the principles of such 
adaptation. 

Adaptation is a gradual, non-threatening type of change. It implies 
a variation of emphasis and application, but not of principles. Nearly 
everyone, I suppose, admits the desirability of adaptations, though of 
course it may always be questioned whether a given adaption is war-
ranted. This kind of reform carries with it the danger that principle 
may be subordinated to expediency and that the Church may be 
unduly shaped by the world in which it finds itself. Some fear that 
through excessive accommodation the salt may lose its savor. They 
quote in warning the text, "Do not be conformed to this world but be 
transformed by the renewal of your mind" (Rom. 12.2). 

3) A third kind of reform, no less problematical, may be called 
accretion. The Church, according to this theory, would borrow from the 
non-Christian world certain ideas and institutions and integrate these 
into itself. Obviously not all human and worldly achievements are good, 
but some are of great intrinsic value. In the course of history the Church 
has sometimes adopted philosophical insights, artistic and cultural 
achievements, political and juridical forms. Some would argue that, 
living in the world, the Church cannot do otherwise. They would justify 
such appropriations on the ground that the Israelites were divinely 
authorized to despoil the Egyptians (Ex. 3.21-22) or on the ground that 
all the nations are to be given to the Messianic King as an inheritance 
(Ps. 2.8).7 

The danger in this type of reform is that the Church may become 
too immersed in secular culture and that the culture it accepts may be 
confused with the gospel. Even when the Church takes over genuinely 
good human achievements, these achievements will lack the saving 

40 



power of the divine message that has been committed to the Church. 
Traditionally, Catholic Christianity has been more receptive to the 
world; Protestant Christianity, more critical of the identification of the 
Church with any human culture.8 But Protestantism too has known 
movements of "culture Christianity," and in America today Protestantism 
is perhaps more at home with the reigning culture than Catholicism is. 
Thus the questioning of the dominant institutions and ethos of our 
society is perhaps as upsetting to Protestants as to Catholics. Some 
would say that all the large Churches have compromised themselves by 
consciously or unconsciously appropriating the American way of life. 

4) A fourth type of reform is by way of development. The notion 
of development achieved considerable popularity in nineteenth century 
Catholicism, when the biological models of growth and evolution were 
being applied to the human and social sciences. Newman promoted this 
developmental kind of thinking in his Essay on the Development of 
Christian Doctrine (1844). Vatican I approvingly quoted Vincent of 
Lerins to the effect that the understanding of dogma should constantly 
increase in the Church, but cautioned that this growth must be homo-
geneous.9 In the twentieth century, this evolutionary style of theology 
was further disseminated by ecclesiologies that used the mystical Body as 
the primary category. The Body of Christ was conceived as a growing 
organism animated by the Holy Spirit. 

Evolutionary reformism appears in numerous texts from Vatican II. 
An example may be found in the Constitution on Divine Revelation, 
which states, "As the centuries succeed one another, the Church con-
stantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words 
of God reach their complete fulfillment in her." 10 Likewise the Decree 
on Ecumenism declares that while Catholic ecumenism must be in 
harmony "with the faith which the Catholic Church has always pro-
fessed," it must at the same time tend "toward that fullness with which 
our Lord wants his Body to be endowed in the source of time." 11 

The model of organic growth has appealed to many Catholics 
because it combines the possibility of change with the assurance that 
previous acquisitions will be retained. Whereas the concept of accretion 
carries with it the danger that the Church might be adulterated by 
extraneous elements, growth implies that the Church, in changing, 
merely actualizes its own potentialities. Anything taken from the outside 
is assimilated in such a way that the Christian or Catholic elements are 
the active principles and are not subordinated to any other forces. 

Catholics have tended to justify the organic models of reform on the 
ground that the Holy Spirit lives in the Church, and the Church lives in 
history. If the Church did not grow, they say, it would be dead. 
Protestant thinkers, however, frequently protest that the developmental 

41 



model of reform is too immanentistic and triumphalistic. The Church, 
they would object, takes a possessive attitude toward the gospel. 
Instead of allowing itself to be criticized by the word of God, it presumes 
to amplify the gospel. Here again, as in our previous discussion of 
accretion, we may note a contrast between Protestant prophetism and 
Catholic incarnationalism. 

5) Since Vatican II, some Catholics, influenced by secular theology, 
regard organic models as too ecclesiocentric. They prefer to think in 
terms of a dialogic interaction between the Church and the world, and 
propose a fifth type of reform: creative transformation. 

According to John W. O'Malley, all the theories of reform prior to 
Vatican II were basically conservative; they provided for the integral 
retention of what had been. "What is notably absent . . . is reform by 
transformation or even by revolution, for both of these imply at least a 
partial rejection of the past in the hope of creating something new." 12  
Vati can II did not explicitly set forth this concept, but it did recognize 
that mankind is now standing at the threshold of a new age, and it 
accepted the idea that the Ch urch should engage in respectful dialogue 
with secular thought. Taken together, these two principles inevitably 
produced a vision of reform far surpassing anything formally endorsed 
by the Council. As O'Malley says at the end of his article, we are presently 
experiencing in the Church something other than a reform as tradi-
tionally understood. Instead of a correction, revival, development, or 
updating, he maintains, "we are experiencing a transformation, even a 
revolution." 13 

The esteemed French theologian, Yves Congar, independently 
reaches practically the same conclusion. "Our epoch of rapid change 
and cultural transformation (philosophical ferments and sociological 
conditions different from those which the Church has accustomed itself 
to until now) calls for a revision of 'traditional' forms which goes beyond 
the level of adaptation or aggiornamento, and which would be instead 
a new creation. It is no longer sufficient to maintain, even by adapting it, 
what has already been; it is necessary to reconstruct it." 14 Congar 
quotes authors such as René Pascal and Marcel Légaut in support of this 
innovative position. 

Neither O'Malley nor Congar is by temperament a radical. Both are 
acutely aware of the risks in revolutionary reform. But they say, in effect, 
that these risks must be taken if the Church is to enter effectively into the 
new age in which it finds itself. In agreement with these authors I would 
hold that, although the Church cannot accept what is simply alien, it 
can discern the presence of Christ in the signs of the times. In dialogue 
with the contemporary world, the Church can make innovations that 
do not simply grow out of its own previous tradition. Reform by devel-

42 



opment and assimilation may have seemed an adequate model when the 
Church was the controlling influence in Western culture. But today a 
proper respect for the autonomy of human culture demands a less pos-
sessive and a more dialogic relationship. The Church must creatively 
respond to the initiatives of others. Rather than speak of revolution or 
reconstruction, I prefer to use the term "creative transformation" to 
describe the style of reform most urgently needed in the present age. 

II. AREAS OF REFORM: 

The five types of reform we have just considered apply in different 
ways to different areas of Church life. For present purposes it will be 
convenient and, I hope, sufficient, to distinguish four major areas: 
morality, discipline, governmental structures, and doctrine. 

1. The area of morality, as I here use the term, has to do with per-
sonal fidelity to the Christian way of life. Since the very beginnings, 
preachers have never ceased to exhort the Christian people to a thorough-
going inner reform according to the standards of the gospel. The Christian 
Fathers thought of reform as a renewal of the human person in the 
likeness of God, according to the model of Christ, who is par excellence 
the image of the invisible God.15 Throughout the middle ages, such 
reform was assiduously practiced in the monasteries, as schools of 
pe.sonal sanctity. Even since the middle ages, when the public and 
doctrinal aspects of reform have come into prominence, the reform of 
morals has continued to be a matter of serious concern, as was the case 
at the Council of Trent. At Vatican II, the Fathers particularly stressed the 
necessity of personal sanctity as a prerequisite for fruitful participation in 
the apostolate of Christian unity. "There can be no ecumenism worthy 
of the name without a change of heart. . . This change of heart and 
holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of 
Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical 
movement, and can rightly be called 'spiritual ecumenism.' " 16 

Moral or personal reform is most closely related to the first, fourth 
and fifth of the types of reform mentioned above. In its negative aspect, 
it may be considered a reform by way of purification. In its positive side, 
it involves an initial transformation from sinfulness to righteousness, 
followed by a progressive development in the spiritual life. Thus the 
categories of purification, transformation and development are clearly 
applicable. Those of accretion and adaptation are not so evidently 
pertinent to moral reform. 

2. The second area is that of Church discipline. Every Church has its 
discipline—that is to say, its prescribed or customary way of doing 
things. Discipline is not the same as doctrine, for it relates to what one 
does, not to what one believes. Discipline differs also from morality, 

43 



since it is a rule of conduct established by a particular social group—f 
in our case, the Church to which one belongs. As examples of discipline, 
one may point to the way in which the clergy are trained, the require-
ments for ordination, the order of worship in the liturgy, and so forth. 
The Catholic Church has a vast amount of canonical and liturgical legis-
lation—more, perhaps, than any other Church—although it is presently 
in the throes of a reaction against the legalism of the past few centuries. 

The Councils of the Church have frequently concerned themselves 
with the reform of Church discipline. In the Gregorian Reform, and 
again about the time of the Council of Trent, this meant a tightening up 
of Church discipline in matters such as clerical celibacy, the training of 
future clergy, marriage legislation and public worship. The Church con-
siders that it has power to impose canonical regulations when the 
interests of the Kingdom of God so require. 

Under the last three popes, the Catholic Church has made a number 
of changes to simplify its discipline, with a view to giving more freedom 
and responsibility to the individual Christian. Some changes have gone 
in the direction of restoring the practice of the early Church; others, in 
the direction of adapting the Church to the modern world. Pope John 
XXIII, in an encyclical of 1959, gave as one of the purposes of the 
forthcoming Council "the bringing of ecclesiastical discipline into closer 
accord with the needs and conditions of our times." 1 7 

The disciplinary changes in the Church are generally to be explained 
under the categories of accretion and adaptation, though the elements of 
restoration and development are by no means absent. Speaking to a 
group of liturgists last December, the American Catholic theologian, 
Walter Burghardt, lamented that liturgists have generally not been suf-
ficiently open "to creative reform, to transformational reform, to revolu-
tionary reform." 18 It would seem that in the areas of canon law and 
liturgy, and indeed in the whole field of discipline, the Church is 
particularly challenged to engage in the kind of reform for which Fr. 
O'Malley and Fr. Congar, as previously quoted, have been calling. 

The main problems attendant upon disciplinary reform are 
pedagogical and psychological. There is a pedagogical problem because 
many people tend to confuse the areas of discipline, morality, and doc-
trine. They do not understand that laws concerning holy days, fasting, 
abstinence, clerical celibacy, and the like were freely introduced and 
can be freely changed by Church authority. The psychological problem 
comes from the fact that many Christians have an emotional investment 
in the practices with which they have become familiar. Often the 
practice of the Church, especially in the domain of liturgy, has taken on 
a sacred symbolic value. To change the discipline is to create a spiritual 

44 



void, because a newly introduced practice does not normally have the 
same devotional significance. 

Against these reasons, that would prompt one to move slowly in the 
reform of Church discipline, there are others, that point to the necessity 
of moving faster. The acceleration of cultural change means that the 
Church, if it clings to its ancient and medieval heritage, will become 
more and more of a museum piece. Young people, raised in a free and 
highly mobile society often find no sacred significance in the hallowed 
rites and customs of the Church. Thus the Church is apparently faced by 
a practical dilemma, forcing it to choose between alienating its 
staunchest supporters or failing to attract dynamic new recruits. 

3. Governmental Structures. In Roman Catholic theology, certain 
structures of the Church are held to have been determined by Christ 
himself and canonized in the New Testament as permanently normative. 
For instance, it is believed that the Church must always have pastors with 
a responsibility for teaching and government, and that among them the 
successor to Peter will always have special authority over, and responsi-
bility for, the total Church. For Catholics, the papal-episcopal form of 
government is not expendable, although there is great room for variation 
in the ways in which popes and bishops discharge their function. 

Most of the Protestant Churches likewise have rather fixed notions 
concerning the form of Church government, whether episcopal, synodal, 
p res byte ra I, or congregational. It would be very difficult, I presume, for 
the Baptist Churches to retain their identity if they were to accept a papal 
or episcopal system. Conversely, the Catholic Church would seemingly 
be unable to retain its identity if it abandoned the papal-episcopal form 
of polity. In each of these two constituencies, the existing form of 
government is considered to reflect God's will for his Church and thus 
to be non-negotiable. 

On the other hand, both Protestant and Catholic theology recognize 
a vast area of mutability in the realm of structure. In the middle ages 
the Catholic Church acquired a centralized, authoritarian, paternalistic 
form of government. Vatican II, with a view to adaptation, gave official 
status to pastoral councils and consultations, thus moving the Catholic 
Church toward a more democratic, participatory style. The heirarchy 
of boards and commissions in the American Catholic Church today is 
markedly similar to the decision-making apparatus of many Protestant 
communities. Liberal theologians in Western Europe and America are 
agitating for further democratization. There is no reason in principle 
why the Catholic Church could not accept the election of bishops for a 
fixed term of office and many other reforms inspired by secular political 
life. In the area of structure, as in that discipline, the main consideration 
is, or should be, a practical one: would the change in question lead 

45 



the members of the Church to a more intense life of faith, hope, and 
charity? If the answer is yes, the suggested reform should presumably 
be introduced. Within the limits allowed by the divinely given con-
stitution of the Church, very sweeping reforms may be made by way of 
adaptation, accretion, development, and creative transformation. 

4. The last area, that of doctrine, is the most sensitive of the four. 
Like other Christian bodies, the Catholic Church is very conscious of its 
responsibility to proclaim, without dissimulation or attenuation, the 
revelation originally committed to the prophets and apostles. Like other 
Christian bodies, the Catholic Church is irrevocably committed to the 
teaching of the Bible and to the articles of the creed—especially those 
basic articles dealing with the triune God, the incarnation, the death and 
resurrection of Jesus, and our own hope of everlasting life. Like other 
Christian bodies, again, the Catholic Church has certain specific 
teachings which it regards as non-negotiable. 

These are generally known as dogmas. Dogmas are called "irre-
formable" not in the sense that they can never be better formulated, but 
in the sense that they are held to be so intimately connected with 
revelation that the Church can never cease to teach them- Although the 
Baptists do not have anything precisely equivalent to the Roman Catholic 
dogmas, they do have, if I am correctly informed, some characteristic 
teachings that they are not likely to part with; for example, the suf-
ficiency of Scripture, the necessity of faith for a valid baptism, the 
separation of Church and State, and the primacy of the local church. 

As regards reformability in the doctrinal area, the Catholic Church 
denies, in the first place, the reversability of dogmas. Furthermore, it 
rejects the idea of any radical innovation or transformation in Church 
teaching, for it holds that it has no mandate to preach anything except 
"the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). The Church does, 
however, acknowledge the possibility of development, not simply in the 
area of theology but in dogma itself, so that the Church can define, 
as obligatory doctrine, a truth that was not explicitly known to earlier 
generations. 

Most of the Councils of the Church have used the term "reform" 
only in the context of morals and discipline. Vatican II in this respect 
constitutes an exception. In a passage from the Decree on Ecumenism 
quoted above, the Council taught that "continual reformation" is needed 
in the doctrinal area. Deficiencies in the formulation of doctrine must 
be corrected.19 

The Council especially stressed the importance of adaptation in 
Church teaching. The Church's purpose, according to the Pastoral Con-
stitution on the Church in the Modern World, "has been to adapt the 
gospel to the grasp of all as well as to the needs of the learned, insofar 

46 



as such was appropriate. Indeed, this accommodated preaching of the 
revealed Word ought to remain the law of all evangelization. For thus 
each nation develops the ability to express God's message in its own 
way. At the same time, a living exchange is fostered between the 
Church and the diverse cultures of people." 20 

Finally, the Council called for a deeper penetration of the deposit of 
revelation through a skillful utilization of the resources of modern 
science and scholarship. It discountenanced any obscurantism that 
would seek to protect the faith by refusing to enter into dialogue with 
modern scientific criticism.21 Like Vatican I, Vatican II confidently as-
sumed that there could be no real contradiction between the discoveries 
of human reason and the deliverances of divine revelation. 

Since the Council, it must be confessed, there has been more than a 
little confusion in the doctrinal area. Some adventurous theologians, 
seeking to adapt the Church's teaching to the contemporary world, have 
arrived at new interpretations that their colleagues reject as unsound. 
In this area, as in those of discipline and structure, a polarization has 
occurred. Liberals and conservatives accuse one another of being untrue 
to the directives of Vatican II. Some Catholics blame the Council for 
not having made its program sufficiently clear, but the present cleavage 
in the Church would have probably occurred even without the Council. 
In many branches of contemporary Protestantism—perhaps especially 
in the United States—similar struggles are being waged between liberals 
or modernists on the one hand and conservatives or fundamentalists on 
the other. 

Analogous conflicts, I believe, periodically occur in all religions that 
claim to base themselves on a historical revelation, such as Judaism and 
Islam. Since these cleavages are so widespread, it should be evident that 
they arise not from the bad will of individuals but from the very nature 
of such religions. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all contain an inbuilt 
tension between the demands for fidelity to the past and for relevance 
to the present. These demands often seem to point in contrary direc-
tions. Both the conservatives and the innovators are motivated by 
legitimate concerns. Church authorities would be well advised not to 
decide any disputed question without listening carefully and sym-
pathetically to what the advocates of both positions have to say. 

III. VALUES AND DANGERS IN REFORM: 
Reform is problematical because it does both good and harm; it is 

both necessary and dangerous. In this concluding section of my paper 
I should like to point out both the advantages and disadvantages in 
reformism. 

The arguments for reform are mainly two: the sinfulness and the 
historicity of man. Sinfulness causes men to distort the gospel—to use it 

47 



for their own selfish ends and even to make it an instrument for op-
pressing others. The record of history makes it clear that Christians, 
often without conscious bad will, have turned religion into a tool for 
acquiring personal honors, riches, and security. At times they have 
appealed to Christian revelation in order to maintain an unjust social 
order. Unjust wars have frequently been fought with the blessing of 
high ecclesiastics. And it is not only Church officials who have been 
guilty of such deformations. The Christian people themselves, at every 
level, tend to shy away from the harsh demands of the gospel, to muzzle 
its prophetic impact, and to take refuge in human superstitions. Against 
all such abuses the reformer must protest in the name of God. It is his 
task to rebuke, to purify, and to renew. 

Secondly, reform is necessary because of historicity. The revelation 
of God cannot be received except in fragile human vessels, limited by 
the particularities of time and place. Even the Bible, the most privileged 
expression of revealed truth, is in many respects a culturally conditioned 
document. It expresses the divine truth as perceived and understood by 
a people very different from ourselves. To proclaim the revelation today, 
the Church has to restate it in ways that come home to a contemporary 
audience. The Church itself has to be restructured to suit the needs of 
the apostolate in different times and places. The missionary imperative 
is perhaps the strongest justification for changes that would be not a 
simple development of the apostolic deposit, but adaptations, accretions, 
and creative transformations. Especially in the realms of discipline and 
structure, some discontinuity may be called for. We must ask not only 
what Jesus did provide for the Church of the first century, but what he 
would have provided had he been living in the twentieth. Only a Church 
that continually renews itself will have the power to proclaim the gospel 
to every generation. A slavish imitation of the past will not suffice for a 
genuine renewal. 

Inspired by zeal to eliminate corruptions and to modernize the 
Church, reformers have generally been very dedicated Christians. Many 
of them would be entitled to say, as did John Stuart Mill, "My love for 
an institution is in proportion to my desire to reform it." 2 2 But the zeal 
for reform, like other kinds of zeal, may be immoderate. There are limits 
to reform, and these must be indicated. 

The most basic limitation, and perhaps the only true limitation, is 
that it must really be reform. Built into the very notion of reform, as I 
have defined it for the purposes of this paper, are two provisos: that it 
be an improvement and that it leave intact the identity of that which is 
being reformed. An alleged reform is unacceptable when it violates 
either of these conditions. We must therefore ask with respect to any 
proposed change: would it weaken or strengthen the Church? Would 
it tend to dissolve the Church and turn it into something else? 

48 



All five types of reform considered in this paper are, or can be, ways 
of maintaining and building up the Church. This is evident with regard 
to purification, development, and adaptation. Even accretion may be 
fully consonant with the nature of the Church as a kind of incarnation of 
the gospel in human history. Creative transformation befits the Church 
as a living society animated by the Spirit of God. 

Every reform is, in the short run, somewhat costly to the Church. 
It disturbs Church authorities, because the questioning of established 
usages tends to undermine the implicit trust of the faithful in their 
pastors. It disturbs the faithful themselves, because it is never easy to 
adjust to changes. Whereas young and marginal members, as well as 
prophetic spirits, may clamor for innovations, the older and more 
satisfied members, who often have the ear of the highest authorities, 
prefer to maintain the existing order. Those who are at home in the 
Church as it is are inevitably tempted to look upon reform as a species of 
rebellion. 

To judge in concrete cases whether a proposed change would be 
consonant with the nature of the Church and helpful to its mission may 
be a difficult task. In a healthy Church, evaluation is carried on by 
means of experimentation and debate, under the vigilance of the respon-
sible leaders. The ultimate decision whether to adopt a proposed reform 
requires prayful discernment. Prayer is important because it opens us 
up to the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus Christ. 

Jesus himself, as we know him from the Scriptures, is the most 
inspiring and exigent criterion of reform. Standing steadfastly within the 
tradition of the Law and the prophets, he firmly rejected every form of 
infidelity. But he totally reformed the religion of Israel in the power of 
the Holy Spirit. He did not hesitate to set two against three and three 
against two in a single household. Rejected by the religious as well as 
the civil authorities of his day, he paid the ultimate price, and was vindi-
cated by God. Every Christian reformer must ask himself whether he is 
carrying on the mission of Jesus. Whoever has to pass judgment on 
contemporary reformers must sincerely ask himself how he would react 
if Jesus were alive and preaching in America today. 

The topic of reform is inextricably connected with the present 
rapprochement among Churches of different traditions, so dramatically 
evidenced by the present meeting. If the Churches are not open to 
reform, their mutual contacts cannot benefit them, but if they place 
themselves under the power of the gospel, and submit to authentic 
reform, they cannot fail to come closer to one another. If every Christian 
Church were to introduce the changes that the Holy Spirit is asking of it, 
mutual recognition and fellowship would easily follow. Reform is 

49 



perhaps the only path that can effectively lead to the kind of Christian 
reunion for which we labor and pray. 

FOOTNOTES 
1 The views of Luther and Calvin on reform are summarized with 

some helpful references in Yves Congar, Vraie et fausse Reforme dans 
l'Eglise (Paris: Cerf, 1950), pp. 365-67. 

2 John Milton, Areopagitica (1644). Cf. G. B. Ladner, The Idea of 
Reform: Its Impact on Christian Thought and Action in the Age of the 
Fathers (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959), p. 34. 

3 Lumen gentium no. 8; quoted from W. M. Abbott (ed.), The Docu-
ments of Vatican II (New York: America Press, 1966), p. 24. 

4 Unitatis redintegratio no. 6; Abbott, p. 350. 
5 "Urgens necessitas vel evidens utilitas" is the expression used by 

Constitution 50 of Lateran IV (1215). See J. W. O'Malley, "Reform, His-
torical Consciousness, and Vatican ll's Aggiornamento," Theological 
Studies 32 (1971) p. 579. 

6 The Council of Constance (1415) stated that communion under 
one species was introduced "rationabiliter" (OS 1199); cf. O'Malley, 
art. cit., p. 580. 

7 Lumen gentium, no. 13, uses the text from Psalm 2 to argue that 
the Church must "foster and take to herself, insofar as they are good, the 
ability, resources, and customs of each people," Abbott, p. 31. 

8 H. R. Neibuhr expounds and criticizes "culture Christianity," 
chiefly in its Protestant manifestations, in Christ and Culture (New York: 
Harper Torchbooks, 1956), pp. 83-115. 

9 Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Chap. 4 (DS 3020). 
10 Dei Verbum no. 8; Abbott, p. 116. 
11 Unitatis redintegratio no. 24; Abbott, p. 365. 
1 2 O'Malley, art. cit., p. 595. 
13 Ibid., p. 600. 
14 Y. Congar, "Renewal of the Spirit and Reform of the Institution," 

in A. Müller and N. Greinacher (eds.), Ongoing Reform in the Church 
(Concilium vol. 73) (New York: Herder & Herder, 1972), p. 47. 

1 5 Ladner, op. cit., pp. 63-283. 
16 Unitatis redintegratio nos. 7-8; Abbott, pp. 351-52. 
1 7 Encyclical, Ad Petri cathedram, quoted by H. Küng, The Council, 

Reform, and Reunion (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1961), p. ix. 
18 W. J. Burghardt, "A Theologian's Challenge to Liturgy," manu-

script, p. 13. 
19 Unitatis redintegratio no. 6; Abbott, p. 350. 
20 Gaudium et spes no. 44; Abbott, p. 246. 
21 Ibid, no 62; Abbott, pp. 269-70. 
2 2 Quoted by Richard P. McBrien, The Remaking of the Church 

(New York: Harper & Row, 1973), p. xiii. 

50 



PRESENTATION OF D I S C U S S I O N 

Social Issues of Common Concern To Christians 

DR. WILLIAM J. CUMBIE 

My Brothers and Sisters in Christ: I really don't know why I am here 
to speak. My only qualification to be speaking is the word "concern." 
I'm really a promoter, administrator, planner but I care about the society 
in which I live and I care about the future which God is giving us. 

I speak out of the context of having spent half my life in the bed-
room communities of Suburban Virginia, next door to the Nation's 
Capital. I said bedroom communities. That really is not accurate; it's bed-
room non-communities. The major social issue I believe that faces Urban 
America is the ABSENCE OF COMMUNITY. I do not believe we have it 
in any Metropolitan area in our Country nor do I believe we have it in 
the mind-set of most Americans. Christians ought to be concerned about 
community as its absence robs us all, destroys the fiber of our society 
and frustrates the prayer our Lord taught us to pray: "Thy Kingdom 
come, Thy will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven." 

I list some concerns. They should not be seen as a want list for a 
political liberal—they could be seen as that—but they are some con-
cerns I think Christians share. They are not listed in any order of priority. 
I've already alluded to one that I think is an overriding one—the need 
for community. And I think that anybody who has lived through the last 
two years knows that we need a revival of PUBLIC MORALITY in Amer-
ica. When the highest office in the land is stained with scandal, and the 
governments of major states are rocked with purchase-bribery, and the 
second highest office is vacated on nolo contendere, we know that 
something is wrong and Christians ought to be concerned about public 
morals. We also ought to be concerned about PRIVATE MORALS. 

A major concern—a social issue—is H O W CHRISTIANS CAN BE 
INVOLVED IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS. I, like most of you, reject the 
withdrawal syndrome. I respect those who believe God has called them 
to the monastic life, but I do not believe that call is universal for all 
believers. God has some shock troops who need to get into the legisla-

51 



ture and in the political parties and in the communities to shape and 
direct His reformation of society. I endorse the enabling role of the 
clergymen, to instruct and equip the "laos" of God to be involved in the 
political process. That's a social concern that ought to be uppermost in 
our minds. 

A major social concern is the QUESTION OF WAR AND PEACE. 
President Eisenhower once cautioned the Country about becoming 
dominated by a military-industrial complex. Have you thought lately of 
how much our current affluence is the product of the military spending 
in Southeast Asia? Have you asked yourself what causes war, and what 
produces peace, and how can we, as men of God, the called ones, con-
tribute to the building of peace? 

A social concern that ought to capture our Christian compassion are 
the concerns about HUMAN WELFARE. I think particularly about HOUS-
ING which seems to me to underlie nearly all of the other social con-
cerns that cause upheaval in Metropolitan areas. Right now, the County 
where I live is in a struggle about growth vs. no growth vs. planned 
growth. Maybe I'm being too judgmental when I say that some of my 
friends, who advocate no growth in the guise of preserving the environ-
ment, have baptized their prejudice with environmental trappings so as 
to keep out the poor, the Black, and others who have been deprived by 
our society. 

I think concerns about human welfare include EDUCATION. I don't 
want to get into my colleague's area particularly except to ask this kind 
of question: Does the public education bureaucracy equip the pupils for 
responsible living in a free society or is it a bureaucracy to perpetuate 
incompetence in the professional staff? It is some of both. Christians 
ought to be concerned that it is not the latter and that it is the former. 
Does the public school education undergird the values which are in our 
American heritage that spring out of our Christian concerns about per-
sons, institutions and relationships? 

I think a concern that most Christians share about human welfare 
has to do with HEALTH SERVICES. I'm not talking about the quality of 
health services; I'm talking about their distribution. Can a Christian 
endorse an entrepreneur system of health services distribution and turn 
his eyes away from the hurts of humanity which are passed by in that 
kind of economic system? 

Another area about human welfare concerns HUNGER and POVERTY 
and SOCIAL DEPRIVATION. A whole galaxy of concerns spring out of 
these words. 

There is a Christian concern about the ENVIRONMENT. My col-
league, who is to follow me, is looking for a tank of gas this afternoon. 

52 



He wants to get back to Washington. He has burned up down to his 
quarter and the miracle worker from Baltimore, Wesley Johnson, my 
colleague here, cannot even tell him where there is an open gas station 
That's a concern for Christians, not because we can't get gas, but what 
have we done to the "Garden" with our pollution and environmental 
alterations, and to what degree and in what form should our Christian 
concern address this issue? 

There is the whole area of concern about the FAMILY. The present 
assault on marriage, with its pseudo-scientific descriptions of pagan 
immoralities, justifying all kinds of unbiblical and, in the judgment of 
all the Christian Churches through all of their histories, sinful human 
relationships as being normative. Do we have a word to say that is both 
redemptive and constructive toward this social issue? How about the 
change of the roles of male and female? What is legitimate in the 
aspirations of the feminists? Where should we males drop back from a 
chauvinist position? What is the Biblical revelation at this point and 
where does Christian understanding of social issues derive? 

And then there is the whole problem of PARENTING. The drive for 
substitute parents, especially for substitute mothers, institutional in cer-
tain settings, is one that we ought to address. If we must have day care 
centers as substitutes for mothers, how can we impute to them a Christian 
context where the values that are taught and relationships that are 
learned are in harmony with the revealed will of God as we understand it? 

And there are the problems of the AGING. Most of the physical, 
social arrangements for living prohibit the multi-generational family. 
How much of our Christian values have we lost because of the separation 
in physical environment of the multi-generation unit? And how can we 
deal with that problem constructively and in the Christian context? 

A concern which pervades many of the things above is the concern 
about RACISM. It's institutionalized in many of the issues I have raised 
above. Some of my brothers, with whom I have bled and sweated through 
my own pilgrimage, who are in this meeting today, who have helped 
open my eyes and helped me break out of my inborn prejudice, could 
help us to understand how we, without thinking, very often perpetuate 
racism. 

And then there's the whole question of JUSTICE. The collapse of 
effective justice dispensing in the legal system of our Country is almost 
obvious. What can Christians do to have equal justice under the law for 
all people? 

Finally, if we are going to talk about social issues, do we really 
believe that we can make a difference? Dr. Harold Lindsell, with whom 

53 



I am privileged to share church membership at the First Baptist Church 
of Alexandria, is the Editor of Christianity Today. He wrote in a 
beginning of the year editorial about the despair that is pervasive among 
many Christians about our ability to make a difference. He has suggested 
on many occasions that our best hope with social issues and hurts is that 
of amelioration. I am not ready to buy that. 

Last summer, when the Baptist World Alliance Executive Committee 
met in Einsiedeln, Switzerland, I learned a new hymn. (It was an inter-
esting experience for Baptists to hear a Benedictine tell us of the similar-
ities between Baptists and Benedictines.) 

"Your Word Makes Us Hope, Lord" 

Your word makes us hope, Lord, 
And to look ahead with peace 
The future opens to us 
For our faith is in Thee. 

Your word makes us trust, Lord, 
That you only are our hope. 
That certainly remains forever 
Victory through Jesüs Christ. 

Your word makes us love, Lord, 
And concerned for all mankind. 
Help our love be ever faithful 
So all see we are Thine. 

Your work makes us hope, Lord, 
And to look ahead with peace 
The future opens to all 
Who in Thee put their trust. 

Otmar Schulz 
Theodore F. Adams, Trans. 

Social issues are of common concern for Christians. I believe that 
Christians can and must make a difference! I believe, precisely because 
we pray . . . Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on EARTH! 

54 







GROUP D I S C U S S I O N REPORTS 

Group 1-A 

The first discussion period dealt with a set of topics roughly grouped 
around Question 4. "How can a middle class church gather in new mem-
bers or even proclaim the gospel to people in other stratas of society?" 
It was phrased in the discussion: "How does a middle class church carry 
on a program of evangelism to the poor? Some of the general notes of 
this difficulty were first distinguished: 1) There is a problem in identifying 
the poor in large numbers; they are nameless and faceless. 2) It is par-
ticularly difficult for a middle class minister to understand and speak to 
the poor, particularly if there is also a cultural difference, e.g., black as 
different from white which impedes this communication. In one locale 
visits of the minister and members of the white congregation to the black 
areas were resented, since the whites always returned to their homes in 
the evening. After several attempts at conducting this sort of evangelism, 
the white congregation decided that the best way would be to support 
the work of a poor black church in the ghetto, even though a different 
denomination. Not a happy solution, but the best in the circumstances. 

A special case of the poor and the powerless is that of prisoners, 
particularly those in maximum security prisons. 

A third case of the poor is those who are recently unemployed. How 
does one reach this class particularly the many among them who are 
unchurched? These have a special spiritual problem: that of a loss of self 
esteem. Once very useful and successful, they think themselves useless. 

Through all this, the minister ought not forget that his ministry is 
spiritual: he must have the conviction that the most important element 
of the life of a man is his relationship to Jesus Christ; and unless the 
Church assists him to have and strengthen this, the Church has no minis-
try. The Black churches show us that the poor can be very busy, dedi-
cated and devoted church members because their members have estab-
lished th is relationship, even though they are materially poor. 

These notes define the problem. 

57 



As for solutions, the following were suggested: The first is that of 
presence: just being there when people hurt, even though there might 
not be very much today. It is also important that the minister be avail-
able: although this help may be offered many times and refused, there 
will come a time when it is needed, and then it will be sought out. 
Therefore it is not useless to continue to offer it. 

In this matter, the discussion returned several times to the difference 
between the Catholic territorial parish and the Baptist congregational 
structure. The priest, because of his clerical garb is very identifiable. 
(Baptist ministers, however, in several situations where this identity is an 
asset have taken to wearing some sort of clerical garb.) In a territorial 
parish also, the responsibility for the evangelization of the unchurched 
is plain: it is the pastor's. In some cases, where a Baptist minister may 
wish to take responsibility for the poor in the neighborhood of his 
church, he will discover that very few of his congregation live in the 
neighborhood, and to them the process of ministry there seems alien and 
strange. 

Two theological questions were mentioned as worthy of develop-
ment or of being kept in mind: the theology of laity, their responsibility 
for the Church and for its mission; and, for the Black community the 
theology of liberation. 

A-1 The second discussion 

In the second discussion, the group dealt with a family of prob-
lems dealing with the Church and social concerns. The first problem, 
returned to several times, was that of the clergyman in social concerns. 
Should the church offer specific solutions to racial problems or remain 
in the realm of general principles. The either/or was not accepted. It 
was agreed that the Church should enforce the consciences of laymen, 
who would- then be responsible for creating the solutions; the Church 
could judge perhaps that a preferred solution was not in harmony with 
the gospel. From then on, the clergyman must trust in the integrity of the 
layman as he goes abput fashioning the solution. 

The fact that there are 15 clergymen in Congress who do not enjoy 
agreement as the solutions to the common problems they face, indicated 
the difficulty of there being a Church answer or one Christian solution to 
any problem. 

In Washington, a small group of laymen band together to pray for 
one legislator: they learn about his life and his responsibilities, the prob-
lems he faces; and then meet with him to assist him in the solution to 
these problems. 

58 



It is true also, that Church-assisted and endorsed solutions that work 
in one community may not, for good reasons, work in another. Project 
Equality is one such example. Diversity of church solutions and even 
contradiction between churches, may not be as wide and as opposed 
as appears at first glance. Often the parties take sharply opposed posi-
tions for the purpose of polemic and out of a spirit of mistrust. 

A third large question was that of the relation of the individual 
congregation to the national church board or diocesan office, in designing 
and implementing solutions to social problems. Both have a role, neither 
is sufficient without the other. First it was noted that there is a great need 
for individual action on the part of Christians: writing to their congress-
men, and sending letters to the editors of daily papers. Yet, on the other 
hand, this independence, sometimes identified as American and some-
times as Baptist, should not be stressed. In corporate action there is 
strength. Second, it is agreed that the weakest link in the chain is the 
local church. Solutions to social problems seem so clear when they are 
described in the literature of the national or diocesan board. But they 
can never be preached or advocated or implemented in that form in the 
local congregation. 

It seemed to some that an episcopal form of church order was better 
for the identification, preparation and transmission of solutions to be 
implemented at the local level. Yet on close examination it appeared 
that both episcopal and congregational churches employ the secular 
processes of local initiation, higher formulation, and then a return to the 
local congregation and returning to the national level before a policy 
becomes firm. 

The role of the Church was thought to be fourfold: 1) Witness: 
speaking out in word and deed on behalf of the poor, the powerless, the 
needy and the disadvantaged in any way; 2) Advocacy: the acceptance 
and support of the programs of another group; 3) special service: the 
caring for the effects of social injustice: hunger, disease, etc.; 4) and 
social action: the healing of the cause of the injustice and the misery. 
All are the work of all churches; none can be omitted; while one may 
prevail at one time. 

Are there specific programs by which the Church might treat of 
social ills? One is the Community Life Series. This is a three evening 
program sponsored by the Church in a neighborhood, which ought to be 
ecumenical, trans-racial and involving every economic class. Assisted by 
facilitators, the people identify the problems of their neighborhood. On 
the second night they place them in priority order; and on the third 
night they choose the top three; and formulate some kind of solution to 
them. Often the process begun by the Church, becomes the beginning 
of a community organization and the start of substantial social change. 

59 



In discussing Baptist and Catholic polity, a fact noted by Brownlow 
Hastings in his talk, that while the Catholic Church is becoming more 
conscious of the role of the members of the local congregation in de-
termining the activity of that Church, the Baptists have placed in their 
confessions some references to the whole universal Church of Christ 
everywhere—somehow found in each congregation. 

The final question: Where do we go next? 1) Catholics and South-
ern Baptists ought to dialogue again, particularly on the questions aptly 
chosen for this conference: evangelism to the unchurched, the church 
and social issues, the need for reform in the Church, etc. Each has much 
to learn and teach to the other. 

2) This conference is unique in that it brings together representa-
tives of the Southern Baptist Churches and of the great, large and power-
ful Catholic dioceses: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore,.Wash-
ington and Chicago. This is significant: the dialogue has come to a 
wider than regional basis. This fact would be of interest to the Catholic 
community. 

3) Where possible also, Catholic and Baptist churches, should pair 
together in the areas of evangelism and of social change. 

Group 2-A 

o ur time of discussion was opened up by asking the question "who 
are the unchurched"? It was decided that if we are to reach the un-
churched in our society, we must first discover who they are. Several 
basic statements might be made concerning our discussion of this issue. 
1) The fact that a person's name appears on a church roll does not mean 
that they are necessarily "churched." One of the great fields of evangel-
ism is on our church rolls. 2) The fact that a person attends church on a 
regular basis (perhaps even weekly) does not necessarily mean he is 
"churched." Often our members "fall out" with the church over slight 
matters or in times of crisis when they suspect that the church has been 
judgmental towards them. A sence of community must be developed 
before one is "churched." A spectator, even a regular one, is not a part 
of that community. 3) If the church is to reach the unchurched it must 
equip itself to confront those who have no personal relationships. 4) In 
searching for answers as to why we have so many "unchurched" in our 
churches several suggestions were made. 

a. Some uphold the tradition of the family. 

b. Infant baptism (in R.C.) and pre-adolescent baptism. 

60 



In our afternoon session we began by coming back to the area of 
evangelism and shared some of the patterns which are emerging from 
our churches. We particularly discussed the involvement of the laity in 
our witness and the need to evangelize those who made no practice of 
being a part of the church. 

We later jumped to the topic of alienation discussed earlier. It was 
noticed that often minority groups have a pessimistic feeling of aliena-
tion, but that our American experience has been that the minority can be 
heard and does have the ability to change things (e.g., civil rights move-
ment of the 60's) It was indicated that, in our day, we have to decide, 
as Christians, that we can no longer depend upon societal pressures in 
the area of values. Therefore, we must apply what influence we can 
upon our own people and attempt to bear a witness to the surrounding 
culture. 

From this point on, our discussion wandered from alpha to omega 
and was generally enjoyed by all. 

Group 3 

The Church has for a long time avoided social action, however, more 
and more support for it is found today. Specialization, apart from social 
action, polarizes people. To avoid polarization, there is a need for sym-
pathy and support from all sides. We must respect the talents and con-
tributions of the social activist. One must be sensitive to the concerns 
and contributions of others. If we are not sensitive to the whole picture 
of evangelism, we are failures. Many who have been involved in social 
action are drawing away from it at the present time. A lot have been 
disappointed in social action. They thought social action would fill our 
churches, but to some extent it emptied our churches. For some social 
action was doomed because it carried a "price tag." A good social action 
ministry must be nurtured. When we talk about church, we are talking 
about people. About 13% of the population of Columbia, Maryland, is 
related to the social activities of the local churches. The church will 
begin to give social ministry when, 1) the church realizes that people are 
hurting out there; 2) we have something to share; and 3) people will 
plug into a community, a group, where others care—doing something 
about the hurt. 

How do you become a Christian witness and avoid the pitfall that 
faith is just a gimmick? Three words mean the same thing and yet have 
different meaning to people: dogma, doctrine and teaching. We must 
get across our teaching to our people: everybody is valuable in the sight 
of God. A well-instructed laity gets things across to others better than 

61 



priests. We must work through people, e.g., when a person comes for 
instruction in the faith, he is already converted through a lay person. 
People have the obligation to become missionaries. 

Your first mission is to where you are—whether suburban or other-
wise. The job of evangelizing—healing hurts—in the suburb is the best 
thing you can do for the unchurched or for the inner city. The problems 
of the suburb are much more difficult to define. When the hurts in the 
suburb are healed, these people can begin to minister unto others. We 
have not done much healing in the suburb because our society does not 
allow it. 

Individuals and churches are pulling back from social work and it 
is asked: "How does ecumenism come into the picture?" It comes in 
cycles—his lack of interest in social work. There was a statement issued 
in 1918 immediately after World War I. Five years later things changed 
again. At present we are going downward. The present moral situation 
is comparable to conditions in Germany in 1929. No one would have 
predicted the extermination of millions of Jews in the 1930's and no 
protest over it. Thomas Jefferson saw the continuing conflicts between 
blacks and whites and eventually one killing off the other. Can we give 
Christian witness where the law of the land is no longer based upon a 
Christian appreciation of humanity? (Cf. Court decision on abortion.) 

The philosophy of inevitable progress evolved in the nineteenth 
century; and along with that we developed a theology of enough. 
Where do we go from here? H. G. Wells recognized the bankruptcy of 
inevitable progress back in 1914. We should not be despondent about 
the pullback from social action. People always ask: What has this got to 
do with religion? There is a real teaching role for us. Through teaching 
you must liberate people from their hangups. 

We must do more than just ride coattails. The Church sometimes does 
not only stand on the side of the oppressed. She is the oppressor 
People are often oppressed in subtle ways often hardly noticeable. In 
social issues, clearcut things are seldom possible. In social action it does 
not mitigate my responsibility in case I do not know how to do it? I must 
share my faith and help. If we have difficulties in church, it is because 
there has been very little liberation in the Church. What is the role of the 
minister in liberating his wife? Buddhists admit they know when a 
Christian is around. He sees wrongs and does something about them. 
Women should not get less than men for the same work. If a woman 
chooses to operate in a man's world, it does not mean she is less a 
woman. The work of the church is to liberate man. The basic insight of 
Christianity is the liberation of the person of the community. 

Social concerns are common to us. One difficulty is to start the 
dialoguing process. We must come up with an agreement on good and 

62 



evil and be able to say, as our founding fathers did, ". . . we hold these 
truths to be self-evident. . . ." Catholics follow the natural morality. 
Natural law needs updating. Baptists have not systematically arrived at 
morality. If we are trying to create a society that agrees on good and 
evil, then atheists must be brought into the picture. Oppenheimer, 
frightened by the atom bomb, was willing to talk about human life. 
Church, local and universal, is the keeper, the steward of the moral value 
system of mankind. People are willing to listen to some significant voices 
out of the institutional church. 

Group 4, First Session: 

The group had some difficulty in getting down to identifying the 
unchurched. An evangelist came to hold a revival; he asked the pastor if 
he had any unchurched prospects and he said, "Oh, yes." Then, when 
asked who they were, the pastor said, "They are all around us." They 
did not seem to have faces nor addresses nor specific needs. 

However, our group did reflect the need and desire to minister to 
the unchurched and voiced several areas of concern. 

The power of the media was noted and the great influence in the 
homes fed by programs of an immoral and violent nature. Many spon-
sors appear to have little concern for the types of programs they under-
write. It was suggested that through economic and verbal sanctions 
some of this might be alleviated. Also, the church might go on the 
offensive in using the media to present a Christian influence by pooling 
their resources. 

The use of conferences on family life, marriage counseling, etc., 
could reinforce the family unit and be a means of outreach. In minister-
ing to the unchurched there was expressed the possibility of the church 
being wililng to change its style of ministry to identify with the needs of 
the community. This might involve a group of churches working 
together in the inner city doing what a single church could not do alone. 

The question arose as to the motives of the individual church in 
calling the unchurched to the community of believers. Possibly the 
church was self-centered and was not willing to make referrals of pros-
pects to other churches. 

The pastors felt the great burden that was placed upon them inas-
much as their fellowships needed many ministries that only they could 
perform. In other instances lay persons could help with outreach. In 
Baptist circles often the laity lacked a motivation of concern; with 
Catholics the trend of the lay movement has yet to be widely accepted. 

63 



In challenging and equipping the layman, there was the need to 
examine more closely his particular gifts so that he might be used in that 
capacity. The availability of materials from the Baptist Home Mission 
Board on Witness Involvement Now were noted. 

One pastor shared that a few of his laymen had begun to reach out 
to others. He was unable to account for this, but like the wind that blows 
where it will, he was seeing the results and was grateful to God for it. 
Thus, the church was found to be not static—someone was asking, "Who 
is my neighbor?" 

Group 4, Second Session: 

The moderator shared a thought from Gabriel Moran that the com-
munity must not be oppressive but have a Christianity concern in the 
economic, political, sexist, religious, and racial realism. 

The issue of parochial schools was discussed and one pastor sug-
gested he would prefer to dwell on where we might find common 
ground to wield a concern for the restoration of Christian values in 
education. With increased mobility in American life, the sense of com-
munity and moral values seemed to be lacking. He thought there should 
be alterations in helping the parochial schools through busing, books 
and shared time. 

There was expressed great apprehension on the question of pro-
abortion, not only on that one issue but that it set a pattern or principle 
for other important causes. That is, when we take the position that over-
population, possibility of poverty and lack of parental responsibility are 
solved by abortion, other areas of life also become expendable. People 
tend to want freedom but fail to shoulder the responsibilities that go 
with that freedom. Confusion comes about as to a sense of values. The 
medical profession becomes pressured and uncertain as to their position 
in relation to abortion. 

One pastor recommended the reading of Dr. Menninger's book, 
Whatever Happened to Sin. 

In all of this and other issues was the question of how do we 
succeed because there are tensions no matter which way we decide. It 
is not enough to work hard to accomplish the American dream so all will 
come out rosy. The church must be prophetic so it will be a Christian 
dream. It must be sensitive and act as a corporate body. Where mem-
bers are part of secular agencies they must be equipped in Christian 
responsibilities. 

64 



In making the Christian principles known on issues of concern, 
some churches have task groups within the church who speak out on 
political issues. Southern Baptists use agencies such as Home Mission 
Board, Christian Life Commission and seminaries as catalysts in challeng-
ing the churches to be knowledgeable on these issues so they might 
speak to them. 

In all of this, the emphasis must be on the whole person, for Jesus 
is not only Savior, but also Lord. 

Group 5, First Session: 

1. Yes, a Baptist church in Hyattsville has for several years con-
ducted a ministry for compassion, especially directed to that segment 
who have no church interest. This might include help of food or services 
in illness or death. This was not done as proselytizing or evangelizing, 
just hopefully what Christ would do. This was considered to be an 
excellent example in the practical order of "Lumen Suerti" (Vatican 
Document). The church is not her own end. She does not exist for her-
self, but as the vehicle of Christ's teaching. 

Most agreed that there is a spiritual ministry to the non-churched, 
though it is sometimes necessary to be selective in the people who minis-
ter. We find these people through twenty-four hour answering service, 
by performing as Christ did, wherever, whenever needed. 

The question was raised as to motives. Do we minister because they 
are suffering or in need, or for reconciliation? If our first aim is to help 
the "hurting," is hope of future church membership an ulterior motive? 
If help is given in the spirit of Christ, then the recipient may ask why? 
It was agreed that we have to earn the right to witness. 

2. Several think from experience, that where church-initiated pro-
grams exist, such as halfway houses, church day nurseries, those helped 
(families) do not respond. Those who have improved situations do not 
help the less fortunate. Reasons range from lack of responsibility to the 
existence of crime and drugs. 

We all have a mandate to administer to the disadvantaged. Witness 
and ministry are definitely related but not inseparably joined. The 
compassionate ACT has to precede the word for credibility. 

Also discussed was the dimension of spiritual ministry to the dis-
advantaged of the heart. Many r\eed spiritual comfort more than services 
of compassion. It was mentioned we may save a soul, but lose a life. We 
can reach a soul through the gospel. Are we trying to change the lifestyle 

65 



of the person? When drug or crime problems are over, psychological 
problems have just begun. 

3 & 4. Our church rolls are full of people who do not attend serv-
ices, who feel the church has not met their needs. Members of both 
faiths recognized enormous numbers of poor people to help. There are 
obstacles to making church members where there are varying economic 
and class barriers. 

It was mentioned that sometimes an invitation to church member-
ship in tfie past was based on the potential of some good to the church 
from this prospect which definitely should not be a criterion. 

5. Sometimes, the best way to reach people is in a crisis. Sincere 
interest in a time of personal disaster will open closed doors. 

The question was asked whether we put the church before Christ. 
Indoctrination seems to be the name of the game. At this point we had 
an interchange of prejudicial images. Catholics have been criticized for 
too often getting converts into the church. Catholics responded that 
Baptists seemed over-aggressive in this manner also, with go-out-
and-get-them, knock-on-the-door technique. The Billy Graham image is 
not always acceptable. We should, as one put it, be fishers of men, 
rather than keepers of the aquarium. 

The crisis approach to non-church goers was only one. Reading 
matter judiciously passed on and good example were stressed. 

Some of the Baptists praised and revitalized stress of Roman Cath-
olics on individual witness. It was pointed out that all of us know more 
about Christ than we are sharing with others. Deeds of service are more 
costly than gospel words, but it is not a case of either/or—both are 
necessary. 

Group 5, Second Session: 

Discussion of present national situations. What are the causes of the 
loss of public morality? Some of the thoughts on this—We have been 
busy producing a pragmatic man who says "How do we get the job 
done?" not "Is it right or wrong?" We have done so well in achieving 
the good life here—settled in and received so much sustenance on our 
earthly home, we have forgotten the ultimate city, the destination. In-
stead material success has been our goal. Public and private morality 
question precedes the present situation. We can question motives on 
both political sides. Isn't public morality necessarily based on personal 
morality? Can a public morality exist separate from the personal? Fur-

66 



thermore, can we be silent in the face of clear-cut, gross immorality? 
We have had too many examples of justification, but no repentance for 
misdeeds. There is much moral sensitivity at the grass roots level, we 
can still be shocked, thankfully. There are reasons for hope in some 
areas. Also, much cynicism, frustration of "everybody does it"—guilt in 
both parties, etc. What is new is the enormous awareness of it, since it 
has been done before. Do we need new attitudes of responsibility or 
protest or both? Examples—slander, vicious attacks, malicious under-
handed things. We must not excuse this; we must assume our part in 
making justice prevail. 

We all have responsibility and need repentance for what has hap-
pened such as in the case of recent wars. Is there such a thing as a "just 
war?" Many think there never has been a just war, and urge non-violence 
at the risk of personal martyrdom. Pacifism seems the only answer. It 
was pointed out that the choice of war or no war is not always available. 
Also, that some wars are less evil than others. Never black and white, but 
a choice of the lesser evil. However, there were several in agreement that 
one can use violence to protect oneself, or one's household. There is a 
justification for helping our neighbor in case he is threatened. The prob-
lem seems to be different on a larger scale. Who is our neighbor and 
which ones do we help? 

On amnesty for the draft dodgers several agreed that there should 
be a condition of service to the country for forgiveness on the basis that 
anyone who feels so strongly about killing and war service should also 
be conscientious enough to make it up some way. Would we, in case of 
a soft line, suffer as a country for defense in case of an attack. It was 
pointed out that even more so in hindsight the issues of the Vietnam War 
were different than others the U.S. had fought. Also, many youth who 
left the country were disillusioned with the whole country. Should it be 
amnesty? Haven't they suffered enough? There is room here for grace 
and mercy. 

The issue of peace is a frustrating one. We lack good understanding 
of world problems, a grasp of issues. However, we can all agree that the 
best place to promote peace and make starts is with each other—family 
levels, neighborhood and inter church. We have a terrific individual 
responsibility to start and to try. We must not underestimate the power 
of our prayers for the decision makers. Let us react to events: (ex.) effect 
of demonstrations for Soviet Jewry, (ex.) effect of Ralph Nader on con-
sumerism. 

Interestingly enough, there were geographical differences influenc-
ing our opinion. Southern Baptists are convinced of very fine Christian 
schooling in Southern public schools. On the other hand in more liberal 

67 



and diverse school areas, the public schools seem to be promoting their 
own religion of secular humanism, so that concerned Christians fear for 
unhealthy influences. 

I am happy to report that this discussion proceeded with the best 
ecumenical manners, and with renewed understanding of each other's 
views. 

Group 6, First Session: 

1 How can the church reach those who are not interested in church 
membership? Part of the problem has to do with our own priorities: we 
easily bog down in building, administering day-to-day operations. 

Model: Roman Catholic permanent deacons develop ministries 
among those who have needs, whether there is expectation of overt 
response or not. 

Model: Baptist mission action groups of laymen and women are 
designed to serve special groups or institutions with definable, specific 
needs. Specific religious issues may or may not arise. 

Involving church people in evangelism ought to begin with an 
emphasis on what church is—the redeemed people of Cod on pilgrimage 
and in mission. 

Reaching others means continuous challenge and presentation of 
the Gospel, so that when the teachable moment comes, there is a con-
text in which response can be made. One's verbalization and interpre-
tation is important. 

Basic, however, is the sharing of whole selves, the communication of 
personality and acceptance. 

2. Who are the unchurched? 
—those who have been judged by the "righteous" 
—the poor, who feel "unqualified" 
—minorities 
—the alienated, who have found other forms of community, 

acceptance, and equality. 
—the self-sufficient, without enough crises in their lives to 

prompt a sense of need. 
—those who are in revolt against institutions, who see structures 

as paralyzing. 
—those without voices in any form of institutional life. 
—those who see intellectual dishonesty in the claims of the 

Christian faith. 

68 



3. How can middle class churches deal with stratification? 

The churches must obey Christ's mandate to go out into the world, 
contacting their own defensiveness, dealing with the total community 
and refusing to engage in "selective evangelism." They must resist the 
temptation to flaunt their affluence. 

What is Christian community? It is positive responsibility, living for, 
servanthood. It is an expression of God's living in us, giving us the gift of 
oneness. All too seldom can the world see the community which ought 
to characterize the church; but community cannot be shared until it is a 
reality among us (note the older Baptist terminology of "brother" and 
"sister"). If community outside the church exists in American society, 
it is hidden, fractured, disjointed. Within the church, our separated 
structures inhibit community, for we cannot envision or relate to an 
"invisible church." Community, to be real, cannot be imposed; it must 
be indigenous. A theological affirmation: we may think, of Christ not as 
remote divinity, but as our brother, "first born among many brethren." 

Family life: Community is important not only among peers but must 
also be multi-generational. Catholics' Christian Family Movement and 
Marriage Encounters programs are lay movements for the strenthening 
of marriage. These involve Biblical insights, worship, and social con-
cerns. One-parent-families are a special concern. Churches can and are 
providing day care, after school care, admittedly a "Band-Aid," but a 
necessity. 

Women's Concerns: The role of women is changing in. Baptist life. 
Whereas it has been tied up with an auxiliary organization and with mis-
sions promotion there are now broader roles and even, for a few, ordina-
tion. Catholics are having a difficult time finding an acceptable role for 
women. The priest has been idealized, and women have accepted sec^ 
ondary roles. Swift change is difficult to adjust to, and will require prep-
aration to avoid over-simplification of the issues. In churches and fami-
lies, some women are in leadership and resent it because men have 
abdicated. For women to take greater leadership in the church might be 
counter productive to male leadership. Women do need satisfaction, 
having all the psychological mechanisms, related to growth and personal-
ity development that men have. Somehow men and women will need to 
find complementary rather than competitive roles, in which each can 
make a distinctive contribution. 

Prison reform: If we feel helpless considering what ought to be 
done about prisons, we are only reflecting the helplessness of all those in 
the prison system. Some are attempting halfway houses, or literacy 
education programs. 

69 



General discussion: Catholics will observe a Holy Year in 1975, call-
ing Christians to reconciliation and renewal. This fits well with the 
Baptist World Alliance's "Mission of Reconciliation," which culminates 
in the Stockholm Congress in 1975. Since Nov. 21, 1974, marks the 
tenth anniversary of the Vatican II decree on ecumenism, perhaps there 
can be many local ecumenical observances there. 

Group 7 

Are some issues too explosive for the dialogue? We should listen to 
each other's areas of concern. Many Christian laymen don't want their 
clergy to be socially involved. Yet the church and the Christian must 
judge moral issues in the social order. "Civic Religion" is a problem 
today. The Church must dialogue with other institutions. The Church 
should use investments with a view to social responsibility. Does per-
sonal relationship to Christ go before any attempt to renovate society? 
The Church at least can see that issues are discussed in a healing way 
without calling into question the intelligence and good will of those who 
disagree with us. Beyond dialogue, how does the Church change the 
social order? Action and dialogue must go together as we cannot have 
one without the other. The clergy should dialogue with community 
organizations and break out of a ghetto. In building community it is 
necessary to live in the community one is building and not be a commuter 
as is often the case. Some way should be found to pair or associate rich 
and poor churches so that they do not become socio-economic ghettos. 
Many today turn away from social ministry. There must be a balance 
between social action and personal piety. 

Religious values must, primarily, be given in the home. Christians 
must be concerned about public schools. In our discussion Roman 
Catholics and Southern Baptists did not divide along denominational lines 
on aid to church school questions. Some Roman Catholics are opposed 
to public aid; at least one Southern Baptist favored it. 

Group 8, First Session: 

Role of the minister and church in reference to the unchurched: 

The discussion opened with an appreciative evaluation of the intro-
ductory remarks by Paul Gillespie and Robert Berson. The emphasis on 
bringing people into community was discussed at some length, and 
became a recurring theme, throughout the discussion. 

Several participants, Catholic and Baptist, observed that there is a 
need of evangelism within our own parishes. 

70 



It was admitted by one that the word "evangelism" turns him off. 
Another commented that evangelism can be "good news" or "bad 
news." The feeling was expressed that there is too much smugness 
among evangelicals—especially Catholic charismatics. There was obser-
vation that evangelism has often been virtual neglect of concern for the 
church and growth in discipleship. Some time was given to evaluating 
weaknesses of approach, and improper motivation. It was emphasized 
that while methods have often been improper that evangelism is 
required of the church as a mandate from the Lord. 

In consideration of some of the questions suggested by Berson, it 
was admitted that the unchurched are represented in every segment of 
society and that the problem of the church reaching them with any 
meaningful ministry is severely complicated by the social barriers among 
various segments of society. It was lamented that many geographic areas 
are virtually untouched by churches content to minister only to their 
own particular strata of society. 

Not much attention was given to the inherent obstacles to certain 
people having an openness to the gospel (that is their social circum-
stances, family condition, etc.) but all agreed that in our evangelistic 
confrontation we often create obstacles by smugness and other unworthy 
or insensitive attitudes. 

In speaking to the subject of reaching those who have emphatically 
rejected the church it was suggested that there is value, even necessity, 
in the church recognizing its sin and periodically being called to serious 
and genuine rededication to Christ and his commission for us to bear 
witness to him. Such a spirit will result in an attitude of unconditional 
love to the one outside the community of faith as well as to brothers and 
sisters in the communion. 

It was pointed out that love is the vehicle of evangelism, and that 
the effectiveness of evangelism is enhanced by the radiation of the love 
and joy of Christ within the church fellowship. It was noted that the 
verbalization of the gospel witness is necessary and the whole commu-
nity of believers should be prepared to bear such witness. 

Group 8, Second Session: 
The discussion opened with the moderator questioning the political 

and social conservatism of Southern Baptists. It was pointed out that no 
theological stance of Southern Baptists necessitates this conservatism in 
areas of politics and social action. 

Several problems were pointed out in getting churches involved in 
social concerns. One said, Baptists have traditionally hidden behind 

71 



local church autonomy to excuse their failure of involvement on a wide 
scale. Another indicated that a Baptist pastor is sometimes in a most 
vulnerable position when he takes a stance unpopular in his parish. 
He has no recourse beyond his congregation. Question was raised about 
the limitations on a parish priest who may be social action minded who 
has a bishop highly unsympathetic with his concerns. 

It was noted that an atmosphere of desire for ecumenical coopera-
tion in working for social betterment is usually difficult to create in a 
region where one denomination is in the overwhelming majority, (e.g., 
Catholics in Rhode Island and Baptists in Tennessee). 

The need was seen to create a broadening social concern mentality 
in our congregations. A Baptist participant asked hopefully if the Cath-
olic church did not have structures to accomplish this. No assurance was 
forthcoming. In fact, it was pointed out that while the Catholic church 
has long had its social encyclicals, even the priests have hardly read 
them, and they rarely filter down to the laity. 

It was agreed that both Catholics and Baptists have been too individ-
ualistic in their interpretation of the Christian life. 

A great deal of time was taken in discussing the necessity of com-
munication. It was observed that our congregations are usually polite 
and quiet—but their quietness does not necessarily imply they are 
listening. 

The question was raised if those in the group, active in social better-
ment causes, act as Christians or just as citizens. The response was posi-
tive that the role is seen as definite Christian action. One commented: 
"I would not dare do it without God's wisdom." 

One participant cited the analogy of the athletic team trained for 
the game, indicating that Christians should be thus trained and ready for 
facing life in the world. 

Another agreed with the principle, and pointed out that the church 
has too often just reflected contemporary culture. Another pointed out 
that the disadvantaged have only been confronted with a message on 
how to endure the present and hope for the sweet by and by. One com-
mented that Black Baptists are great to "spiritualize" and bypass social 
crisis with an easy "let Jesus do it for you." (The same participant had 
pointed out earlier that many Black Baptists had turned to the Catholic 
Church being persuaded that it was more concerned for their social 
welfare.) 

It was pointed out several times that we have too departmentalized 
our religion—separating social concern as a separate area of life, thus 
taking lightly these responsibilities. 

72 



Several in the group cited efforts in ecumenical cooperation in social 
betterment causes. Probably more time was taken in self-judgment 
than any other theme. And while it was noted that we are making 
progress it was also pointed out that this is small comfort to the man who 
hurts now. 

The following suggestions were offered as guidelines for ecumenical 
efforts in areas of social concern: 1) agree to differ on some points, 2) 
strive to love, 3) join to serve. 

Conclusion 

Another milestone in Southern Baptist/Roman Catholic relationships 
has been reached as a result of this third in a series of regional confer-
ences. We are grateful to all who planned, worked, participated in and 
attended this conference. We are a little closer to the spirit Christ prayed 
for during His earthly life: "that all may be one." Our hope and prayer is 
that the spirit in evidence during these days will grow and develop all 
of us in the one Body of Christ. 

73 









Conclusion 

The concluding ceremony in the chapel was rendered by the First 
Rising Mount Zion Baptist Church Choir of Washington, D.C. under the 
direction of the Rev. Ernest Gibson, Pastor. Participants of the Confer-
ence were invited to join in the congregational singing which was 
spirited and expressive in its content. We are, indeed, grateful to this 
group and its pastor for their genuinely spiritual contribution to the con-
clusion of our Northeastern Baptist/Roman Catholic Regional Confer-
ence at Marriottsville, Maryland. 

77 



I 







Baptist Participants 
Baptist-Catholic Regional Conference 

Marriotsville, Maryland 
February 4-6,1974 

J. William Angell 
Wake Forest University 
Box 7221 
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109 

Andrew J. Allen 
1008 45th Street 
Washington, D.C. 20019 

Cecil Anderson 
Viers Mill Baptist Church 
12221 Viers Mill Road 
Wheaton, Maryland 20906 

William I. Barkley, Jr. 
Superintendent of Missions 
Potomac Association 
807 Roxbury Court 
Waldorf, Maryland 20601 

M. Wendell Belew 
Director, Division of Missions 
Home Mission Board 
1350 Spring Street 
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 

Mrs. Robert Binda 
Box 165, Rt. 1 
Crimora, Virginia 24431 

Thomas E. Bourne 
Wilton Baptist Church 
P.O. Box 109 
Wilton, Connecticut 06897 

Chester L. Brown 
Hampton Baptist Church 
40 N. King Street 
Hampton, Virginia 23669 

Minor Davidson 
International & Language Ministries 
D.C. Baptist Convention 
1628 16th Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20009 

William J. Cumbie 
Executive Secretary 
Mount Vernon Association 
P.O. Box 3097 
Alexandria, Virginia 22302 

Mr. and Mrs. Thomas W. Downing, Jr. 
University Baptist Church 
3501 N. Charles Street 
Baltimore, Maryland 21218 

Mrs. Helen Fling 
Westchester Baptist Church 
12 Orchard Ridge Road 
Chappagua, New York 10514 

W. Barry Garrett 
Baptist Press 
200 Maryland Avenue, N.E. 
Washington, D.C. 20002 

Paul G. Gillespie 
Takoma Park Baptist Church 
635 Aspen Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20012 

Ms. Miriam Anne Glover 
Director, Religious Education 
Woodbrook Baptist Church 
8100 Ridgeley Oak Road 
Baltimore, Maryland 21234 

81 



Roy D. Cresham 
Executive Secretary-Treasurer 
Maryland State Convention 
1313 York Road 
Lutherville, Maryland 21093 

R. Stuart Grizzard 
National Baptist Memorial Church 
1501 Columbia Road, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20001 

Miss Kate Ellen Gruver 
Interfaith Witness Department 
Home Mission Board 
1350 Spring Street, N.W. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 

James V. Hamblen 
Superintendent of Missions 
Howard County Baptist Association 
5306 Hesperus Drive 
Columbia, Maryland 21043 

C. B. Hastings 
Interfaith Witness Department 
Home Mission Board 
1350 Spring Street, N.W. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 

Chevis F. Home 
First Baptist Church 
23 Starling Avenue 
Martinsville, Virginia 24112 

Glenn A. Igleheart 
Regional Director 
P.O. Box 253 
Glen Ridge, New Jersey 07028 

Thomas A. Jackson 
McLean Baptist Church 
1326 Calder Road 
McLean, Virginia 22101 

William H. Jenkins 
Director, Division of Ministries 
Virginia Baptist General Board 
P.O. Box 8568 
Richmond, Virginia 23226 

Wesley M. Johnson 
Superintendent of Missions 
Baltimore Association 
1717 York Road 
Lutherville, Maryland 21093 

James A. Langley 
Executive Secretary 
D.C. Baptist Convention 
1628 16th Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20009 

Kirk Lash ley 
Director, Campus Ministries 
Averett College 
Danville, Virginia 24541 

Miss Edith P. Lawrence 
Director, Church Extension 
275 W. Main Street 
Marlboro, Massachusetts 01752 

James N. Lewis, Jr. 
Director, Language Missions 
Baptist State Convention of Maryland 
1313 York Road 
Lutherville, Maryland 21093 

Mrs. Meese 
c/o Mrs. Robert Binda 
Rt. 1, Box 165 
Crimora, Virginia 24431 

Mrs. Ernest L. Miller 
3607 Roxboro Road, N.E. 
Apt. 3 
Atlanta, Georgia 30326 

Watson E. Mills 
Averett College 
West and Main Streets 
Danville, Virginia 24541 

William B. Mitchell 
Interfaith Witness Department 
Home Mission Board 
1350 Spring Street, N.W. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 

82 



Miss Meredith E. Moore 
Box 1524, College Station 
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 

Carter P. Morell 
Kensington Baptist Church 
10100 Connecticut Avenue 
Kensington, Maryland 20795 

G. I. Norris 
Massachusetts Association 
706 Lowell 
Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 

Charles B. Nunn, Jr. 
First Baptist Church 
Box 366 

Bluefield, W. Virginia 24701 

AI Oliver 
3763 Richmond Avenue 
Staten Island, New York 10312 
R. Carrington Paulette 
E. Washington Heights Baptist Church 
2220 Branch Avenue, S.E. 
Washington, D.C. 20020 

R. G. Puckett 
Editor, Maryland Baptist 
1315 York Road 
Lutherville, Maryland 21093 

Ronald L. Rogers 
Director, Christian Social Ministries 
Baltimore Association 
1717 York Road 
Lutherville, Maryland 21093 

Philip Rodgerson 
Department of Missions 
P.O. Box 8568 
Richmond, Virginia 23226 

John Saunders 
Brotherhood Secretary 
Baptist Convention of Maryland 
1313 York Road 
Lutherville, Maryland 21093 

Joseph M. Smith 
Baptist Student Union 
Memorial Chapel 
University of Maryland 
College Park, Maryland 20742 

William T. Smith 
8800 Sad ley Road 
Manassas, Virginia 22110 

Mrs. Seay Smith 
Nicholis Road 
Douglas, Georgia 31533 

M. Thomas Starkes 
Director, Interfaith Witness Dept. 
Home Mission Board 
1350 Spring Street, N.W. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 

Alva E. Thompson 
5821 Maryhurst Drive 
Hyattsville, Maryland 20782 

Julius Thompson 
First Baptist Church 
55 Adclare Road 
Rockville, Maryland 20850 

Carl W. Tiller 
Baptist World Alliance 
1618 16th Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20009 

H. Wesley Wiley 
Director, Metropolitan Missions 
D.C. Baptist Convention 
1618 16th Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20009 

Edmon L. Rowell, Jr. James M. Windham 
106 Oakwood Circle First Baptist Church 
Danville, Virginia 24541 Silver Spring, Maryland 20907 

83 



James E. Wood, Jr. 
Baptist Joint Committee on Pub. 

Affairs 
200 Maryland Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20002 

Rev. Ernest Gibson 
First Rising Mount Zion Baptist Church 
4105-18th Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20011 

84 



Roman Catholic Participants 
Baptist-Catholic Regional Conference 

Marriottsville, Maryland 
February 4-6,1974 

Rev. Francis Comely 
Diocesan Ecumenical Chairman 
St. Helena's Rectory 
602 Philadelphia Pike 
Bellefonte 
Wilmington, Delaware 19809 

Rev. Msgr. Matthew P. Stapleton 
Chairman of the Ecumenical Comm. 

of the Archdiocese of Boston 
Saint Columbkille's Rectory 
321 Market Street 
Brighton, Massachusetts 02135 

Fr. Gabriel Duffy 
Chairman of Ecum. Affairs Comm. 
ArchdioCese of Washington 
1721 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036 

Rev. Mark Heath 
487 Michigan Avenue 
Washington, D.C. 20017 

Rev. Ernest T. Gatta 
Pastor St. Edward Parish 
1604 Palace Lane 
Bowie, Maryland 20175 

Rev. F. X. Wheeler 
4000 Cathedral Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20016 

Rev. Julian Guzman, S.D.S. 
St. Mary's Rectory 
7401 Buchanan Street 
Landover Hills, Maryland 20784 

Rev. Deacon & Mrs. Clarence Enzle 
5217 Edgmoor Lane 
Bethesda, Maryland 20014 

Rev. Deacon Charles Hoffman 
13900 Blairstone Lane 
Wheaton, Maryland 20906 

Fr. Charles Angell, S.A. 
do Msgr. James Rigney 
Chm., Archdiocesan Ecum. Comm. 
St. Patrick's Cathedral 
460 Madison Avenue 
New York, New York 10022 

Fr. Nicholas Trongo 
612-2nd Street 
Leechburg, Pennsylvania 15656 

Fr. Gregory Flohr 
Seton Hill College 
Greensburg, Pennsylvania 15601 

Rev. Lionel A. Blain 
69 Quincy Avenue 
Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02860 

85 



Rev. Ronald Lawler, O.F.M. 
St. Francis Capuchin College 
4121 Harewood Road, N.E. 
Washington, D.C. 20016 

Fr. Stephen Forish 
908 Washington Street 
Easton, Pennsylvania 10842 

Rev. Stephen Vidoczy 
St. Joseph's Church 
526 North Street 
Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania 18229 

Fr. W. Jerome Sullivan 
Our Lady of Perpetual Help Parish 
115 O'Connel Avenue 
Buffalo, New York 14204 

Rev. Charles V. Devlin 
Cardinal's Comm. of Human Relations 
222 North Seventeenth Street 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 

Rev. N. Robert Quirin 
9418 Gayton Road 
Richmond, Virginia 23229 

Mr. Gene Scapanski 
c/o Rev. N. Robert Quirin 
9418 Gayton Road 
Richmond, Virginia 23229 

Rev. J. M. Connolly 
2521 E. Preston 
Baltimore, Maryland 21213 

Rev. Harry Wallace 
St. Theresa's Church 
Main Street 
Munnsville, New York 13409 

Fr. Jack Healy 
2260 Lake Avenue 
Rochester, New York 14612 

Fr. John Peter Sheehan 
Ecumenical Affairs 
1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20005 

Fr. Joh n Hotchkin, Director 
Ecumenical Affairs 
1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20005 

Fr. Bob Berson 
Box 912 
Newnan, Georgia 30263 

Most Rev. Joseph A. Durick 
Bishop of Nashville 
421 Charlotte Avenue 
Nashville, Tennessee 37219 

Rev. Avery Dulles, S.J. 
Woodstock College 
475 Riverside Drive 
New York, New York 10027 

Fr. Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J. 
20 Sumner Road 
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 

Rev. Edward Glynn, S.J. 
Theology Dept. 
Georgetown University 
Washington, D.C. 20007 

Fr. Paul Liston 
3125 39th Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20017 

The Rev. George Cora 
5870 Thunder Hill Road 
Apt. B-4 
Interfaith Center 
Columbia, Maryland 

Mr. Russell Shaw 
usee 
1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20005 

86 





*