CHIP: Are we Congregationalists really who we say we are? Or, are we groups of individuals who occasionally only come together to assert our common belief in free and independent thinking?
 
WINSLOW: Maybe that’s why some people call us: ‘the Congressional  Church.” Seriously though, I’ve heard and read a lot by Congregationalists about the ‘autonomous local church.’ They publicly pride themselves in a church that doesn’t dictate what to believe. “You can have your beliefs. Let me have mine, even if we don’t agree,” they say.
 
CHIP: But is that all that the word “Congregational” really means: independence and think as you like? Why not call it the “Independent Christian” Church, or the “Individualist” church? Wouldn’t that better describe who we are?

WINSLOW: Maybe, but that’s not good PR today. “Individualist” church or even “Independent Christian Church” doesn’t have the ring of goodness that “Congregational” does. Besides, Congregational Christians do come together to do things together. They pool their resources for missions that a single person or a single church could not accomplish alone. They help each other in times of financial difficulty. They work together for an educated leadership. They assist with pastoral searches. They make themselves available to advise a local church for ordination or conflict resolution. They work together to provide literature for Christian education, spirituality, and evangelism. Isn’t this the Congregationalism that we think we represent?

CHIP: We-e-ll, sort of. There still seems to be a lot of individualism in it – independents advising independents, aggregates pragmatically pooling resources to enhance the pride of individuals in the accomplishment of a great work. Where is the esprit de corps? Where is the common cause for which to live and die? Or, are we too suave for that?
 
WINSLOW: Does Congregationalism need some kind of élan to be authentic? Isn’t it enough to come together when we need to come together, and give each other space the rest of the time? Some are for Bible study, others for social action, still others for spirituality. Does Congregationalism mean being all things to all people?

CHIP: Some seem to think so. People like to have a church as a kind of “insurance policy” – a resource community in times of personal crisis. When the crisis is over they return to their private lives. Some seek churches as a place to serve – a place to lead, a place to “do their thing>” Some seek churches for the celebration of important events in their lives: weddings, baptisms, confirmations, funerals, Christmas and Easter. Others seek churches for the Christian education of their children, a place of “good people” and “wholesome programs” to socialize, and evangelize their youth. All of these are temporary, and largely superficial. Few make the church a community of persons in a lifelong quest for the highest and the best in the Gospel of Christ.

WINSLOW: Maybe that’s all we can expect of Congregationalism in this day and age. In this fast-paced world, most people have lots of temporary and superficial relationships. Few live in the same house all their life. Many change jobs and careers several times during their working years. Half of the marriages are not “til death do us part.” How can we expect people to be any more committed to a Christian community than to anything else in their life?

CHIP: That’s no excuse. Our mobility is not much different from the people moving west in the 1800’s? Many of them saw the importance of establishing Christian communities on the frontier. They brought their commitment to Christianity with them, and supported it wherever they found it. They founded Christian colleges and church associations for the “long haul.” Can we do any less in a society where children become killers, where drugs are popular escapes from reality, where terrorism is a common mode of political change?
 
WINSLOW: Now you’re preaching all the fun out of Congregationalism. People are better motivated by “feel good” carrots than by sticks of responsibility. As long as we’re doing fine, let the others work things out the best they can. Isn’t that a Congregationalism of “live and let live?”

CHIP: That’s just it. Today we’re connected more than ever before. New York and California broadcast their materialist values into our homes around the clock through television. Children are being introduced in school to the phantasmagoria of the World Wide Web. Investments are greatly impacted by events half-way around the world. Our soldiers, sailors, and marines are increasingly being dispersed for peace enforcement in trouble spots of Asia , Europe and Africa . A single computer hacker in Southeast Asia can upset business as usual around the world and whether we have a computer or not, we are effected. People can network with others for the same political and social aims – whether good or bad. A Christ-centered Congregationalism needs to influence it for good.
 
WINSLOW: Okay. How is Congregationalism any better able to do this than any other Christian group?
CHIP: There you go again, promoting separatism. We’re not in competition with other Christian. Congregationalists do not claim to be the only Christians on the planet. “Congregational” means being only part of the world-wide body of Christ. There are, to be sure, some advantages in the Congregational Way that I propose. Aside from devotion to seeking together the highest and best of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Congregationalists can be flexible. We are not bound by centuries of tradition as Roman Catholics seem to be. We can adapt to personal and local issues without a presbytery, or synod imposing rules of conduct and administration to determine a course of action, or a way of thinking. We can draw from any insight, any source of enhancement, and any effective strategy that does not contradict the Gospel of Christ. In short, we are free in Christ to work with any Christians any time, anywhere. We can baptize infants; we can dedicate infants. We can baptize by aspersion; we can baptize by immersion. We can affirm the Apostle’s Creed; we can not affirm the Apostle’s Creed. We can do all these things, so long as Jesus Christ is Lord. That means emulating Christ’s integrity, compassion and faith.
 
WINSLOW: All right. You made your point. Be more specific.

CHIP: It isn’t going to be easy. There are people out there who are quite willing to talk, so long as nothing concrete comes of it. Dialogue? Yes. Act on it? No. For some, dialogue simply proves that they were right. Opinions are polarized, positions are hardened. Some people can complicate what seems like a simple solution, so that the net result paralyzes any effective response. So many Congregational churches have been so culturally homogenous for so long that people don’t know how to communicate with people of diverse racial and social backgrounds, except maybe on the job, or in school.
 
WINSLOW: Wait a minute! Are you proposing multi-racial, multi-cultural congregations? What happens to teens dating others in a church youth group that have different cultural backgrounds, and what does that mean for multi-cultural and multi-racial marriages? Does a New England church have to sing Gospel music? Do we need to provide for Spanish Sunday School classes? Are we ready for this much diversity?
 
CHIP: That depends on what each congregation perceives as the will of Christ. Some situations may call for it; others may not. All Christians need to be open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Maybe there needs to be Spanish – speaking congregations that come together with Korean-speaking congregations on an association level, so each can maintain it’s cultural integrity, yet share in a Congregational Christian witness. Anglo-Saxon, Christian, individualists can learn something about the Christian family from Hispanic Christians, and Hispanic Christian families can learn something about Christian entrepreneurial individualism from Anglos.
 
WINSLOW: Hold on there. What happens to the New England spirit of Congregationalism? ... the stately hymns of Isaac Watts … the Salem Church Covenant of 1629 … Plymouth Colony … the Mayflower?
 
CHIP: All were products of their time. Watts reacted against the hymnody of his day, for songs of vital Christian witness for his time. The Salem Covenant was framed for needs of a new beginning in the founding of the first new church in America . Plymouth Colony was an experiment in a vital Christian community free of state church domination. The Mayflower was the means of passage from bad societal influences to creation of a Christian community. Let these icons teach us what we need to respond creatively to the spiritual needs of our times and places.
 
WINSLOW: So, what creative ideas do you suggest?

CHIP: Begin where people are, and discover every Christian means to be bringing them together. Some will gather in the sanctuary for worship in songs, prayers, hearing the Word, and the Holy Eucharist, followed by conversations around refreshments. Some like the give-and-take of Bible study discussions in a church parlor or a private home. Some are energized by mission projects, whether a kind of habitat for humanity, or rolling bandages for a mission hospital. Some like to bowl on a church team, or play ball in a church league. Some like to sing in a church choir or play in a church band or orchestra. Some like to cook for church breakfasts, brunches or dinners. Some will join computer chat rooms, or communicate by e-mail. There are a myriad of ways to bring people together in a Christian setting, limited only by resources and ingenuity.
 
WINSLOW: Okay. So you’ve got them together. What’s next?

CHIP: Now comes the hard part – bringing Christ into the mix. Here we back off. Here we compromise. Here we preach. How does one create an atmosphere of caring when teens think it is cool to cut each other down verbally and sometimes physically? I can’t go into all the details now, except to say that leaders need to gain the respect of their followers before anything meaningful can happen here. Patience and fortitude with a lot of togetherness can form a caring, Christian community. There will be varying degrees of participation, but understanding persistence can bring happy results. Clearly, the pastor-facilitators need to be engaged long enough with people to broker such results.
 
WINSLOW: Is that it? Congregationalism is togetherness in a Christian context?

CHIP: We-ll, no. A Christian leader promotes circumstances for the individuals in a group that will foster maturing in Christ. Persons in two-parent homes need to listen to and care about concerns of persons in one-parent homes; persons in one-parent homes need to listen to and care about concerns in two-parent homes. Residents of one community adjacent to the church need to listen to the concerns of another community adjacent to the church, if the church is in a diverse community setting. Men need to listen to women; women need to listen to men. Adults need to listen to teens; teens need to listen to adults. Liberals need to listen to conservatives; conservatives need to listen to liberals. Even talking is not enough. People need to be brought together in a common task: ministering in a nursing home, working together in a food bank, planning and doing a special worship service. A coordinator needs to keep them engaged, encourage their progress, and celebrate with them when the task is accomplished. People should find the local Congregational community irresistible, the place to be, “where it’s at.”
 
WINSLOW: Okay. But this looks like a closed community. How are you going to influence the whole society for good?

CHIP: Association, association, and more association. Association is a mandate of Christ, “Make disciples of all nations,” He said. One Congregationalist cannot do that single-handedly. One local congregation cannot do it. A nation of churches cannot even do it. We need to develop strategies of cooperation with Christians everywhere to do it.

WINSLOW: Unrealistic. Christians are imperfect saints. Each group has it’s own turf. Church organizations are jealous of their own accomplishments. Within Christendom there are competing factions. Cultural barriers are everywhere.
 
CHIP: That’s the challenge worth living and dying for. In fact, we have a model. It is the model of our missionary society. We support missions around the world – some are clearly Congregational by name, some are not. All are Christian. All are evaluated for their good influence according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Instead of competing, we support a good Christian cause. Similarly, we encourage seminarians to attend the best theological school they can find, and we help to support them. Instead of competing with a school of our own, we promote the best there is as it already exists.
 
WINSLOW: But your model has a flaw. Because the missions are not our own, and receive support from other sources, we become lax in our missionary involvement. Let others fill in when we don’t. The mission will not die. Similarly, the divinity student attending Princeton Theological Seminary, that Presbyterian school, does not seem to be wholly ours to care for and support. We need to somehow make up for the psychological need for “possession” of some unique cause that only we can make succeed.

CHIP: that is a problem. It undermines the whole idea of Congregationalism as coming together to seek the highest and best in the Gospel of Christ. Maybe that’s because we don’t congregate enough. People need to meet the leaders, even the people in missions that we support. Regular missionary tours of churches followed by regular communications by newsletters, e-mail, and correspondence keeps missions in touch preferably with people in the pews. Seminarians need opportunities to serve in churches that support theological education, perhaps in summer Vacation Bible Schools, Christian day camps and intern ministries. Some of the more affluent churches could underwrite some of the expenses so that some of the smaller churches could participate. That’s Congregationalism on an association level.
 
WINSLOW: That’s a fine ideal, but we all know that “money talks.” We live in an age of power and influence by whatever means. And Congregationalists are no exception. Togetherness in a local congregation can be scuttled by people asserting their authority, sometimes their “hang-ups,” often their control. Local pastor teams often tend to be hierarchical. If we call ourselves Congregationalists, what do we do?

CHIP: Such circumstances often prompt a pastor to leave, and avoid the hassles that may ensue, but then the problem for the congregation is not solved. A Congregational Church Covenant can help, especially if it is written to promote cooperation rather than domination, and is signed by everyone who joins the congregation. It can be posted in a prominent place in the church. It can be renewed annually by producing a copy that is signed by all the embers at a Covenant Renewal Ceremony. This keeps before the congregation the reason for its existence. The New Testament is full of opportunities to preach about the aim of a congregation to seek the best and highest in Christ Jesus. Every opportunity to emphasize this from the pulpit needs to be exercised. It needs to be taught in Covenant Classes leading to Confirmation, and in Sunday school classes and membership orientation classes. If these efforts are misinterpreted to justify power-brokering, appropriate congregational discipline may be required. But that topic is beyond the scope of our immediate concern. Freedom to come together under Christ needs to be preserved at all costs!
 
WINSLOW: What about those people who energetically adopt the Congregational Way that you propose with every intention to follow through, but drift away in time as other interests capture their attention and they lose touch with the congregation altogether?

CHIP: If the goal is to congregate for the sake of the Gospel, and people don’t want to congregate, a congregation may have to let them go, but stand for a change in the future. After some time, that person’s membership may need to be terminated, or put on hold in some list for periodic updating, just to keep in touch.

WINSLOW: So much for the local congregation. What about associations?

CHIP: Local congregations are to the associations as individual members are to local congregations. The goal is the same; coming together to pursue the highest and best in the Gospel of Christ. Too often the association is seen as somehow separate from the churches – a service organization, an advisory council, an administrative center – and churches, like good consumers, patronize the association as needs arise. This is Congregationalism by proxy. In this day and age of e-mail, web sites, and fax, an association seems best seen as a facilitator to bring churches in touch with each other – urban churches with suburban churches, rural churches with small town churches, mission churches with homeland churches. Associations may need covenants to define common ministries. They might have web sites with web pages for member churches. Would it be expedient to have a national meeting with another Christian group, say Presbyterians, to promote dialogue along the lines of mutual concerns?
 
WINSLOW: Well, it would certainly agree with your idea of Congregationalism; coming together to seek the highest and best in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a goal worth living and dying for. Congregationalists have the freedom to engage. If important things are happening in such engagement, Congregationalism has more to offer for good influences in our time. I guess this is nothing new, only a renewal of emphasis, not so much on individualism, but more on togetherness. The we can be who we say we are.