Revisiting Convergence

 In my last discussion, I was talking about how I am starting to take another look at the Convergence Movement I was part of just prior to becoming Catholic.  That was, in the fundamental sense, my catalyst for coming into the Catholic Church.  However, I had the draw of liturgy and sacramental faith long before that, as it was evident even when I was very young.  I have told the story of that many times, so no real need to rehash that except to say that one initial spark happened only a mile or two away from where I am sitting now in Baltimore.  The purpose of this discussion is to explain what Convergence is, and in doing so I will also determine my own standing as a Convergence Christian - can I still be identified as such, or have I evolved beyond it in my faith journey?  That actually may be a question that sparks a second discussion, but for now here is where we are at. 

What emerged as the Convergence Movement actually dates back to a meeting in 1977 in Chicago when a number of Evangelicals and Pentecostals started to explore what they understood the early Church to be.  Many of them were involved in some other Charismatic trends of the time, such as the now-discredited Discipleship/Shepherding movement, and it was the excesses and deficiencies of movements like that which led to many of these individuals seeking to grow in their own faith journeys too.  A document, called the "Chicago Call," was produced from those meetings and it essentially became the manifesto of the Convergence Movement when it formally emerged on the scene later in the early 1990s.  I have talked about this document before, and it had much to do with how many of us did discover the ancient Church, including its liturgical forms.  That being said, the movement has undergone much sorting, and there are segments of it that are still trying to figure out the details of what all this means.  This leads to a couple of issues I have noted that I will get into momentarily, but I think to do that it is integral to the discussion to understand the underlying impetus of the Convergence focus, and that would be the "Three Streams."  Let me explain what those are.

The "Three Streams" represent in Convergence thought three expressions of Christianity that have existed side by side for generations, but often seem to be opposed to each other.  However, for those rediscovering their own faith through Convergence, these three streams are really not in contradiction, but rather compliment each other as they represent for the Convergence Christian three important aspects of faith that branched off an original "river."  That "river" for the Convergence Christian is the New Testament Church.  The "Three Streams" are defined as follows:

1. Evangelical - this stream represents the importance of the inerrancy of Scripture - often from a more literal interpretation - as well as the emphasis on the evangelization aspect of the Church. 

2. Liturgical - this stream represents the historic Church, rooted in Tradition with a form of worship that dates from Apostolic times with even Hebraic accents.  The liturgy, Sacraments, and also a faith that is lived rather than just articulated is integral.   

3. Charismatic - this emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit in the individual believer, the supernatural dimension of faith, and a vibrant faith that is lived as well as professed.  

If one were to take a Trinitarian approach to this, the Evangelical represents the Son, the Liturgical represents the Father, and of course the Charismatic represents the Holy Spirit.  And like the Trinity is one God in three distinct persons, so the Church is one Church with three distinct streams through which each member of the Triune Godhead manifests different attributes.  That, in a nutshell, is what Convergence is truly about.

However, over the course of the growth of the Convergence Movement, there have been some proverbial scraped knees as trying to integrate these three streams is a matter of experimentation and it has created some inconsistencies.  The most over-emphasized aspect is probably the Charismatic stream, in that you have traditional liturgy and contemporary "praise music" being hashed together in what is in essence an ecclesiastical mess.  Having a Charismatic/Pentecostal dimension to one's spirituality does not mean you have to ape everything the typical Charismatic/Pentecostal group does with window-dressing of liturgy, and I have come to understand it may mean something completely different to be integrated.  The historic liturgies of the Church are sufficient enough in their richness to be left alone, and they don't need to be "Pentecostalized" to be relevant to the Convergence experience. Charismatic expressions of faith, such as moving in the gifts (in particular healing) can easily be part of a liturgical form with no problem, but many Convergence leaders have to get beyond the thinking that they are essentially vested Pentecostals.  Also, informal meetings and events outside the sacramental/liturgical context are not out of the question either - there is no problem whatsoever with things such as prayer groups, and I would even advocate for revivals and crusades as well.  Also, while the ordained ministry in the Church is sacramental - meaning it is solely male and made up of three fundamental orders (bishop, priest, deacon), this does not negate the importance of lay ministry, and a more formalized lay ministry can be implemented as well that is outside the liturgical framework - lay evangelists, for instance, can be both men and women who are called to evangelization, and the historic Church does not say women can preach - it just says they can't be ordained to Holy Orders is all.  A young Pentecostal Holiness guy in Georgia named Tim told me something years ago that emphasizes that women can indeed proclaim the Gospel, and it was this - the first preacher of the Gospel was Our Lady, and she did so by giving the Word in flesh to the world as God's chosen vessel.  This is one reason why over the years I have appreciated people such as Kathryn Kuhlman, and in my own faith journey it was often women preachers in the Pentecostal tradition that had the greatest impact on me personally - I look back to people like Sister Ann Mayfield in Brunswick, GA, in whose little Pentecostal Holiness congregation I received the fullness of the Holy Spirit and first spoke in tongues myself.  I note people like Rev. Shirley James, who prophesied a healing over me in a Foursquare church years ago.  And, I remember the elderly lady Pentecostal minister who led a small church in my hometown years ago, Sister Lily Carr Plaugher.  All of these ladies, as well as higher-profile female preachers like Kathryn Kuhlman, had an impact on my spiritual growth.  And, although all of them have passed on now, they still hold a special place in my own story of faith too.  Now, with two of the aforementioned - Sisters Mayfield and Plaugher - they were pastors of churches, which I would not agree with now, but they were also godly ladies who had a gift of preaching.  Women therefore can preach and proclaim the Gospel anywhere, and I have no problem with creating a class of lay evangelists in the Church who could do just that. Some of the most prominent religious orders were also founded as well with the charism of preaching and proclamation, specifically the Dominican Friars, and many of their number were lay brothers.  This again has its basis in Scriptures such as Romans 12:4-5 and I Corinthians 12, which talk about the importance of all members of the body - not every member has the same gifts, talents, or abilities, but each is important.  And, in the Convergence model, this is where the Charismatic aspect in particular would shine the brightest.  The challenge though would be coming up with a clear model to embody it, and that I believe is part of the growth pains of what it means to be part of the Convergence Movement.

The aspect of the Evangelical stream of Convergence I think is integral within the context of the Liturgy would be a high view of Scripture.  I have mentioned the Fourfold Hermeneutic of Scripture many times before (Literal, Allegorical, Moral, and Anagogical - the acronym LAMA), and one thing about that is that Scripture is ultimately God's book and passages of it can be all four of those at once.  The importance of context is also integral to that, as Scripture is completely true and is of divine authorship, so I would hold a very strong view of Scriptural inerrancy.  This means that God as Creator did exactly as Genesis documents, and a big problem with the Liturgical stream in recent decades in particular is that a number of liberal elements (particularly liberal Episcopalians and Lutherans, but also liberal Catholic orders such as the Jesuits) have been stuck on this 19th-century fallacy that Scripture needs to be somehow "demythologized."  The short answer to this is no, it does not - Scripture is NOT myth, and to claim otherwise is to deny some essential aspects of Christian faith.  In a true Convergence parish, Scriptural inerrancy (including a literal Creation narrative) is paramount, as you can't understand the liturgy or anything else without it.  Some have tried unfortunately - one example is the campus minister here at the school where I teach, who is into all this "liberation theology" garbage and he politicizes even sacramental elements of faith to a degree they lose their true meaning in his interpretation.  This is not what Convergence would endorse, because it detracts from the historic faith element that birthed the movement to begin with.  This is why in recent years I have grown a bit concerned with some Convergence leaders who court liberal theologians like Leonard Sweet and Stanley Hauerwas, and the result is a blurred line between actual Convergence and the "Emerging Church" movement of heretical Evangelicals like Rob Bell and Brian McLaren.  These two movements are not the same, and there should be no intermingling of them.  I also have concerns about some leaders who are influenced by renegade Catholic writers such as Richard McBrien, Henri Nouwen, and Thomas Merton - those individuals and their writings should be anathema to anyone who wants to embrace a true Convergence model of the Church.  These are some growing pains of that movement, and they must be addressed and dealt with properly to avoid stagnation. 

So, this is my official revisitation of what the Convergence Movement is to me, as I am starting to revisit a lot of things lately as I decide what the next move is in my own spiritual growth.  I am as of late a bit concerned about the current state of the Roman Catholic Church, of which I am part, as I see disturbing trends with the last Pope as well as the current Pontiff, and I also see spiritual rot in people like this campus minister at my school - he is a true abomination in all honesty.  A lot will be determined by the course of action I see the Church take, and it will also determine if I stay in the Roman Catholic Church as a communicant or I decide to pursue a more orthodox Catholic path elsewhere.  Thanks for joining me, and will see you next time.