Does Christian Unity Require Some Form of Papal Primacy?
by
Clark Pinnock
(Special Section on the North American Academy of Ecumenists)
Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 35/3-4 (Summer 1998): 380-383.
Abstract: The issue of accepting the teaching of papal primacy as part of the ecumenical movement is difficult for members of the Baptist Church. This denomination has totally no doctrine on an episcopal order. However, for the sake of Christian unity, Baptists might consider the merits of such a belief. They can appreciate the fact that a symbol of unity is needed among the different Christian groups. Baptists also realize the need to limit subjectivity in understanding Christian teachings. However, they will definitely oppose an infallible and authoritarian leadership.
Warning: The following article
is the most worthless trash you will ever read!
Baptists are an independent lot, and it is impossible to speak for them all. Even their congregations are autonomous, and centralized authority is suspect. I would probably not be far off to suggest that the majority of them would answer this question negatively. They would deny almost instinctively that papal primacy would be required for Christian unity. However, if we asked a prior question, the results might be more promising: Would papal primacy even be conceivable for Baptists in a situation of enhanced Christian unity? If it were at least conceivable, there would be ground to build on, and I think it is.
Baptists do not have an episcopal order in which a papacy might reside; therefore, the original question is more a topic for churches with an episcopacy. I would expect that those churches (Roman, Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist) would work toward agreement on papal primacy, and, if and when they reach it, they would invite others, such as Baptists and Pentecostals, to respond to the idea and promise of a greater Christian unity. These free-church believers could be drawn into the discussion at a later date, at which time the Baptists, for example, could be asked to express themselves on their own version of episcopacy as seen in their practice of appointing "area ministers" with responsibilities of oversight and as symbols of unity. This practice suggests at least an implicit belief among Baptists in a form of episcopacy that would make a papal office conceivable.
Beyond that, I think that Baptists could potentially grasp two of the underlying reasons for the existence of a papal office. First is the need for symbols of unity among Christianity's numerous and diverse communities; second is the need to articulate Christian ideas and practices for the whole world to hear and to limit uncontrolled subjectivity of interpretation. Even at the local level of a city or town, it would serve the Christian witness to have a figure able to inspire other servants of God in that locale and to express their common mind from time to time. As Paul could write to the church at Ephesus, it would be nice if we could think of the church in Hamilton, for example, as also one and not only many. If it is not natural for Baptists to think in these terms at this time, it is little credit to us but perhaps evidence that we are satisfied with our dividedness and have stopped listening to Jesus' concern for visible oneness that the world could see. Although issues of episcopacy and papal primacy are now remote in our thinking, they are not unintelligible when taken seriously. There is room for us to grow in this area.
Even without a developed episcopal office, Baptists have remained sound in faith and committed to world mission, thanks be to God. Some have been leaders of Protestant modernism, drawing upon traditions of soul liberty, but not many. Most are loyal to the great traditions. The Spirit has kept us sound. On the other hand, they also know from experience that having no pope often means having many popes who are self-appointed and unaccountable. Being opposed to the papacy does not remove the needs that a papacy is designed to address. The burden of schism rests heavily on them. Soul liberty has contributed to a great deal of schism and church splits. In Ontario, two Baptist groups of about the same size have existed alongside each other for seventy years without either of them asking for forgiveness for the troubles of 1927 or cooperating with each other or wishing the other one Godspeed. The gifts of God to Baptists are many (their love of the Bible, their devotion to Jesus, their desire to bear witness, etc.), but church polity is hardly one of them. We have spawned too many divisions to feel smug about that. Schism is a wicked practice, and, if the papal office addresses the problem, Baptists have no moral right to dismiss the idea out of hand.
A relevant fact for our reflections here is the person of the present incumbent, Pope John Paul II. This pope (partly because of his own charisma and partly because of the world media that focus on him) has already almost become the pope of all Christians. They may not all accept his jurisdictional claims as the bishop of Rome and head of the Roman Catholic Church, but by the tens of thousands they are proud when he speaks out for Christian truth and values. There is no one like him today who can stand up for crucial principles and get such a hearing. In part, our love of John Paul II may be due to celebrity culture and the way the media works (we long for a Christian superstar and are tired of the likes of Madonna and Elton John), but so be it. Here we have a symbol of Christianity itself, even though he is the head of a particular church. For myself I would say, John Paul II is already my pope. I respect him and pray for him. This feeling of respect could go further if the primacy could be defined more modestly. Were the churches to be renewed in unity, this very office could contribute to its effectiveness and visibility. Perhaps we should play down the jurisdictional problems of the papacy at this time and rejoice in the fact that we already have papacy of the people. On the other hand, this may be precisely the time to seek a final settlement. I leave that to the wisdom of the episcopal churches.
In his encyclical Ut unum sint, John Paul II spoke about his burden for unity and the calling to serve all Christians in this way. He says he does not want to dominate but to inspire. He asks us to forgive him and his predecessors if they have violated anyone. His sense of urgency arises from the mandate to disciple all nations, which is hindered by our severe disunity. How can anyone read this letter and be unmoved? I cannot. All churches, including Baptists, must respond to him, as they did earlier to the "Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry" document from the World Council of Churches. Let not our silence make light of this serious overture.
Obviously, the Roman papacy presents Baptists with problems because of the very strong ways in which it has been defined and in certain actions that it has pursued in the past. These problems are shared by all the other churches, not by Baptists alone. The papacy has behaved in dominating ways and seems to be defined so rigorously as to justify this kind of behavior. With the Orthodox, we object to Roman centralism. The authority of the office must arise from many places, not only from one, and from many leaders, not only from one. We would require a papacy that consults and seeks consensus. It would have to be the collegial and friendly primacy of which J. M. R. Tillard has spoken. We do not want a papacy that thinks it can give a final, infallible answer to everything on its own recognizance and thinks it has not made and cannot make mistakes. It cannot expect Baptists to submit to the old-style Roman church that, though it has recognized grace working among us since Vatican II, cannot accept us as full Christians but insists on absorbing us into its own superior fullness. The kind of pope we would respect would be the kind described thirty years ago by Hans Kung in his book, The Church.
The issue of papal primacy is low on the Baptist agenda at this time, but, if the episcopal churches were able to make progress on it and if some of the problems of the papacy as we have known it were addressed, I think it could move up higher on the list of important matters. I know it seems far-fetched at this moment to say that much on behalf of Baptists, but I also know that attitudes can change. When there is a serious prospect that the churches might come closer together in the cause of world mission, all bets are off. The new situation could create unexpectedly positive responses. Do we not all worship the One who said, "Behold I will do a new thing"? Who would have predicted these two titles just two decades ago: Reclaiming the Great Tradition: Evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox in Dialogue (InterVarsity Press, 1997) or Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission (Word, 1995)? May we keep talking to one another, for we never know what the future holds.
Clark H. Pinnock ("Baptist") is a professor of "Christian" interpretation at McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, where he has taught since 1977, following positions at Regent College (1974-77), Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1969-74), New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (1965-69), and the University of Manchester (1963-65). He holds a B.A. from the University of Toronto and a Ph.D. (1963) from the University of Manchester in New Testament Studies. Most recent of his fourteen books are Unbounded Love and The Openness of God (both InterVarsity Press, 1994), More Than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World (with J. Hick, A. McGrath, R. D. Geivett, and W. G. Phillips; Zondervan, 1995), and Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (InterVarsity Press, 1996). He has also published several dozen articles and chapters in scholarly and popular journals and books. He has been invited to deliver the Azusa Street Lecture at Regent University in April, 1999, and the Didsbury Lectures at Manchester, in October, 2000.