Church of the Savior, Part I

This is part one in a series that compares Church of the Saviour in Washington, D.C. to Columbia Presbyterian Church and Alcoholics Anonymous. While Church of the Saviour’s style and emphasis do not dovetail to most of my preferences, I am intrigued and inspired by their radicalism and commitment to serving Christ. I also am interested in some similarities in its practices to Alcoholics Anonymous. I am not qualified to recommend CPC be one way or to criticize Church of the Saviour. I simply think that its practices provide us another opportunity to reflect on our communal life and thereby be enriched in Christ.


Last year, one of our CPC members, Charlie Cromwell, mentioned a church he had heard about in Washington, D.C. called Church of the Saviour. On my autumn auditing trip up there last year, I went as far as doing some reading about it and even researching how to get there. Ultimately, I didn’t take the time to attend. This year I discovered my niece Liz, Siege’s older sister, who resides in D.C., was attending so that posed a great opportunity for me.

Some background would be helpful.

And why not let the church describe itself? The bolds are the church’s, but the italics and the Roman numerals are mine. If you have the time, you might want to read it all carefully because it really challenges what I think of as our common assumptions.

I. The Church of the Saviour, an ecumenical Christian church envisioned by Gordon and Mary Cosby in the early 1940s, was incorporated in 1947 in Washington, D.C., when they and seven others became its first members. From the beginning, church members sought to embody Christ in intentional and sacrificial ways, welcoming radical diversity and calling all to be ministers through the generous sacrifice of time, energy and resources.

II. Interpreting the call to discipleship as the integration of two journeys in community—an inward journey to grow in love of God, self and others and an outward journey to help mend some part of creation—the church became the catalyst for numerous helping ministries primarily in Adams Morgan, a neighborhood two miles north of the White House.

III. In 1994, the Church of the Saviour became a “scattered community” of 8 small faith communities (today there are 9). Each of these churches is independently incorporated and seeks to embody its own unique vision, missions and structures, while striving to maintain an “integrity of membership” in the spirit of the founding church. The churches share a membership commitment as well as similar formation processes, which often include participating in a mission group and taking classes in the church’s School of Christian Living, as well as joining the community in its ongoing life of worship and celebration. Formation for an intern member might last as long as one to three years. Annually, after a period of intentional discernment, all members renew—or withdraw—their covenantal membership.”

IV. “Integrity of membership” helps members to really choose whether or not they still are called to the challenges and joys of this way of journeying with Jesus and Jesus’ friends. At the heart of the church’s model is Call—each one, together with others, discovering unique ways to carry part of God’s dream. In small mission groups, members gather around a shared vision for embodying healing and hope—the outward journey—and the group then becomes accountable to one another for the inward journey, including ordered practices in the areas of prayer, study, money, health, work life and so on. In this way the mission group members, and all with whom they are in relationship on the outward journey, help each other find fullness of life.

V. Today, 60 years later, Gordon and Mary Cosby and others continue to play with new ways of becoming the authentic Church. What might happen in our hurting and distrustful world if people started coming together in small groups deliberately organized around perceived differences—of race, economic class, gender, age, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc.—and from that point of diversity vulnerably opened their lives, told their stories, unmasked their shared addiction to a socio-political system that has kept them alienated, and then together began to take steps toward healing and justice? Presently six groups are exploring such a model.

Now that’s a whole bunch of words, isn’t it? Let me tell you what jumps out at me. A lot of it strikes me as extremely bold.

I. Welcoming radical diversity:

Oh! How I sometimes gnash my teeth when presented with some peoples’ thinking about the gospel! I am not alone in this. Much of the recorded history of Christianity involves arguments regarding doctrine and the arguments continue today. But Christianity, as it manifests itself in communities and in individuals, varies widely on the relative emphasis placed on doctrine. Pretty early, at least in reformed thinking, some churches opted out. For instance, Quaker’s deemphasize doctrine, choosing to be guided by an “inner light” instead. And some churches emphasize the opposite, adherence to particular thinking both as part of and evidence to a relationship with the Lord.

Where are we on that at CPC? My take is somewhere to the left of middle. We share a reformed confession that is (1) systematic in nature, and (2) driven by Calvinist thinking (a French lawyer for heaven’s sake!). So our “common” thinking is important to us. We proclaim it weekly. Yet on an individual basis, besides a generalized version (when we join), we do not hold one another accountable about how we express our faith in thought or deed.

I guess there are positives and negatives to that. On the one hand, we honor “the priesthood of the laity” having regard for your personal experience and language about the Lord. It also honors the power of “truth.” Do we or do we not trust that those who sincerely seek the Lord will either achieve or be rewarded by proper thinking and therefore proper action in that person’s walk? However, on a negative note, don’t we also lose sight on a weekly basis of what it means to be “saved by grace, walking in faith” and depend on the “try harder” walk?

I know I lose sight of radical grace and I attribute that partially to a lack of robustness in our communal theological walk. In my mind, we might be lukewarm here, for example, making sin something we do when no one is looking and suffer the temporal consequences of, rather than a condition we have that requires radical intervention by our tortured God.

But back to these guys, Church of the Saviour, the “welcoming radical diversity” language clearly takes the “Church” out of the doctrinal picture and posits it on the individual member. So they are farther left than we are.

II. An outward journey to help mend some part of creation

This language reflects the church’s common call to activism of some sort and to me reflects the main reason my niece chose this church above all others in D.C.

The particular “scattered community” to which Liz attends is called the Eighth Day Community and the following order of its call reflects its emphasis:

“Call: Christ calls us, the Eighth Day Faith Community, to be his body in the world and to respond to his overwhelming love for us by:
• making a radical commitment to building a caring and just society and joining concretely with the oppressed in their struggles;
• speaking truth and listening to our brothers and sisters as we support one another in following Christ;
• contemplating our relationship to God, our lifestyle, and the community of faith;
• joyfully participating in life as it is given;
• celebrating our belonging to the whole of creation and to God.”

Man, number one would be ambitious for a dirty rotten sinner like me. I came to church because I needed help. I can’t even fix myself, let alone the world. And my pessimism doesn’t stop there. I don’t think the world can be fixed. Because of sin, it’s under a curse and it’s ruled by Satan. We’ll have a just society when Jesus comes back, not before. Without Jesus, it’s all a pretty tragic package.

Noting that paragraph V above clearly introduces politics (see the underline) into the mix, I’m also pessimistic that our common faith in Christ results in any communal wisdom about what society should or should not do. If you want to be convinced of that go to one presbytery meeting. Our paster, Tom Hagood, always is looking for volunteers. Therefore, I question that it is right that communal, political activity be practiced by a church.

So there, and so what? That doesn’t get me off the hook for mending some part of creation. There’s this troublesome command to “Love.” And that means “action” if you believe James and the founders of AA who say that “faith without works is dead”.

My pessimism is no excuse. Just because something can’t be fixed, doesn’t mean you don’t try to mitigate the problem. After all, we live in the South, and the South is enamored of lost causes. On top of that, Our House and AA are great examples of “building a caring” society that is not political, at least not nowadays, surely not in Decatur. So, clearly and communally, I am not off the hook for service.

Now Tom is faithful about reminding us that we “Love.” He points at Our House, the peanut butter sandwiches, the way we treasure all children, the food pantry, et al, as examples that our “love” is not kept to ourselves. So we too share in this call to mission.

But overall, we are more traditional insofar as our number one manifestation of being Christ’s Body. I think most of us would say, the call of the CPC is “Word and Sacrament,” or “making disciples and sending apostles”, or “educating our children.” Then we might say, “Mission.”

III. Annually, after a period of intentional discernment, all members renew—or withdraw—their covenantal membership.

To rejoin annually is institutionally courageous and I can’t imagine it in a community that struggles with a budget like we do. The service I ultimately went to was “renewal day” so I had the opportunity to hear the whys of some people renewing. I’ll talk more about that later, but here I’d like to tell you what they commit to.

At Eighth Day, there are several levels of membership; intern, member, and covenant. The intern and covenant members agree to spend a minimum of 45 minutes a day in devotional activities such as prayer, meditation, scriptures, or journaling. They also agree to participate in and be held accountable by a mission group, and to attend weekly worship, normally at Eighth Day. They promise proportionate financial giving, beginning (!) with a tithe (5 percent for interns). And did I forget to mention the annual (!) silent (!) retreat (!)?

The regular members don’t agree to all that but the language still goes beyond what we require. For example, it affirms both the inward/outward journey, and the importance of spiritual disciplines and Christian community.

You are clear that we have members at CPC who tithe or spend at least 45 minutes daily or weekly participate in a mission group. Some, probably one or two might even attend an annual (!) silent (!) retreat (!). But between you and me, can you imagine anyone who does all that? Maybe, one or two? Maybe, none.

Does it strike you as strange the combination of doctrinal freedom and member regulation? Don’t we have something resembling the opposite?

More later.