The "Oneness" of the Church

As we all know, Jesus Christ prayed for His followers to be One. This came up in another thread here, but was getting off topic.

What did Jesus mean by His followers being One? Did he mean the Church? Has it ever been One? Could it be One now?

My own take is that the Church was One prior to the Councils of Chalcedon 451 AD/CE. Interestingly, especially for Protestants, this was after the Canons of the Bible had been agreed, at the Synod of Hippo 393 AD/CE.
«1

Comments

  • One in impossible love.
  • An utterly meaningless phrase.
  • Scripture reference:
    John 17 vv20-23 (Read whole chapter for context)

    Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
    That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
    And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
    I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

    KJV
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    One in impossible love.

    This. The 'Church' consists of people who have different ways of seeing things, of varying opinions and personalities. It always did, as we see in Paul's letters. But like every family, we're charged with loving one another as kin. We are one in the love of God and of each other.
  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    One in impossible love.

    This. The 'Church' consists of people who have different ways of seeing things, of varying opinions and personalities. It always did, as we see in Paul's letters. But like every family, we're charged with loving one another as kin. We are one in the love of God and of each other.

    To be fair, Jesus never mentioned "the Church" in this chapter.
  • It's a tricky one. In my experience those who cite these verses the most tend to be those who want unity in their own terms and everyone else to do things they do.

    That applies equally to the RCs, the Orthodox and to some Protestant groups who see their way as the best way.

    Not sure how we resolve that one.
  • It's a tricky one. In my experience those who cite these verses the most tend to be those who want unity in their own terms and everyone else to do things they do.

    That applies equally to the RCs, the Orthodox and to some Protestant groups who see their way as the best way.

    Not sure how we resolve that one.

    The Ecumenical Movement? (Don't worry, I'm just joking!)
  • Ha ha ...
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    To be fair, the ecumenical church I attended for ten years is the one place where I really experienced church oneness - the only church I've been to where there was no one-upmanship against other denominations, but a genuine welcoming of different traditions and a focus on what we have in common, to love God and each other.
  • It means more to me to look at the church in the 1 Corinthians 12 sense - one body but different parts working together for the whole. We are not all meant to be the same. 'Unity in Diversity'.
  • Maybe not all the same, but what does it say to the village where both Anglicans and Methodists meet separately, alternate weeks, no more than a dozen in each congregation? Why separately? There is precious little that is different in their beliefs and practice.
    Multiply this many times over across the UK.
  • Because the Anglican was the boss' church and the Methodist the workers. I even know of a situation where the URC was the bosses church and the Methodist the workers. The joining together is a crossing of the social structure of the village.
  • Maybe once upon a time but not now.
  • Chorister wrote: »
    It means more to me to look at the church in the 1 Corinthians 12 sense - one body but different parts working together for the whole. We are not all meant to be the same. 'Unity in Diversity'.

    Diverse gifts and abilities, yes, diverse cultures, yes, but diverse doctrines?
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Sure, diverse doctrines, because in our human limitations we are never going to come even close to fully understanding the mystery of God - we are all seeing through the glass darkly, seeing glimpses of different aspects of something far bigger, and which may seem to contradict each other in our binary-thinking minds, but may just all be parts of a far bigger prism. We can't possibly contain God in one neat set of doctrines, no matter how thorough we are. Recognising our limitations, and that we don't have the monopoly on understanding God, is surely part of maturing in our faith and humility.
  • fineline wrote: »
    Sure, diverse doctrines, because in our human limitations we are never going to come even close to fully understanding the mystery of God - we are all seeing through the glass darkly, seeing glimpses of different aspects of something far bigger, and which may seem to contradict each other in our binary-thinking minds, but may just all be parts of a far bigger prism. We can't possibly contain God in one neat set of doctrines, no matter how thorough we are. Recognising our limitations, and that we don't have the monopoly on understanding God, is surely part of maturing in our faith and humility.

    Well that's how I understand the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate - they are indeed (as far as I can see) both right (up to a point), yet we will never be able to understand how this can be. The problems start when one side starts pushing their doctrine too far.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    I agree. And in my limited experience of ecumenism, having a variety of denominations all worshipping and working together tends to prevent focus on pushing debatable doctrines like that. Though I suspect your experience is different from your comment above about the Ecumenical Movement, so I imagine my experience may not be typical. Though it suggests it is possible.
  • …..having said that, St Paul spoke of "sound doctrine" in Titus 2, implying that there must have been such a thing as "unsound doctrine."
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Yes. I tend to see that as preaching that glorifies the preacher, that is about aggrandising self rather than worshipping God. Not things like Calvinism v Arminianism, or whether people should be baptised as babies or adults.
  • Puzzler wrote: »
    Maybe once upon a time but not now.

    Don't be too sure - memories live long in villages, there are even allegedly neighbouring villages which don't "get on" because the fought on different sides in the English Civil War!

    Even in towns, churches often retain their social identity over time, especially "gathered" ones in town centres,
  • I don’t disbelieve you.
  • fineline wrote: »
    Yes. I tend to see that as preaching that glorifies the preacher, that is about aggrandising self rather than worshipping God. Not things like Calvinism v Arminianism, or whether people should be baptised as babies or adults.

    On what basis do you see it that way, fineline?

    Obviously, when the Apostle Paul was writing Christian doctrine was in the process of development. They were working out the implications of the 'Christ Event' and thrashing out their theology as they went along. So no, I don't believe they were debating issues of free will and predestination or whether baptism should be by immersion, effusion or sprinkling, for adults or children ...

    Nor were they necessarily thrashing out all the issues that later occupied so much attention at Nicea and Chalcedon, although clearly the trajectory was there which eventually led to the great Councils.

    Yes, they'd have been wrestling with issues like Christology, pneumatology, eschatology and all the other -ologies.

    There'd also presumably be issues around preaching that glorified the preacher or aggrandised the self, but that's not really a 'doctrinal' issue as such, more one of conduct.

    Can I be cheeky and ask you to cite chapter and verse? ;)

  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    I was basing it on Christ’s parables, what I see as the focus of his teaching, and things like what Paul said about people saying they’re following Paul or following Apollos, and what James says about selfish ambition and vain conceit. Here is a verse from James: ‘What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from the desires that battle within you.’ This is the first verse of chapter 4, since you want a reference.

    It is an overall sense I get from reading the Bible, that the major things being confronted by Jesus and Paul and others were people focusing on self, glorifying self, getting what they want for themselves. It doesn’t seem to be details on how we interpret the mystery of God. But I haven’t made an in-depth study of it.
  • Ok. I get that, but surely that's a general principle rather than a body of doctrine as such?

    Although Christians and churches of every and any persuasion can be unduly focused on believing 'yhe right things' rather than doing them ...

    Coming back to the Ecumenical thing. The Ecumenical Movement has tended to come in for some stick for pitching things at 'the lowest common denominator.'

    I understand people's qualms about that. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work towards grass-roots ecumenism. I suspect that local ecumenical initiatives have more chance of getting anywhere than conferences, pronouncements and joint statements at official levels.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Gamma, yes, I understand that this is not what is normally described as doctrine. But I'm not too convinced that the systems of doctrine people focus on - the 'ologies' as you call them' - are what is laid out in the Bible. These things seem more about human desire to capture and control something that really can't be captured and controlled. I may of course be totally off-course here - I am not claiming to know what it's all about, but simply expressing my understanding. I was brought up to focus on systems of doctrine, reading systematic theologies and such. I am aware of them. But as I get older, the more I read the Bible, the less I think that is what is being prescribed, and it really does seem to be as simple as a shift of focus from self to God, and that the wrong teachings and doctrines described are about aggrandising self. I continue to read the Bible and pray, and may well later come to the conclusion that I am wrong, but this is where I am at so far.
  • ...Coming back to the Ecumenical thing. The Ecumenical Movement has tended to come in for some stick for pitching things at 'the lowest common denominator.' I understand people's qualms about that.
    Precisely - that's why I'm not too keen on it - the "Ecumenical Movement" that is. I'm not even sure what it is supposed to be anymore, since much of their work is not just inter-denomination, but inter-faith.
    However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work towards grass-roots ecumenism. I suspect that local ecumenical initiatives have more chance of getting anywhere than conferences, pronouncements and joint statements at official levels.
    Now, to me, that's a different thing altogether. I remember a tour around Port Sunlight, where the host told us about the church built in the village for the workers. William Lever, himself a Congregationalist, founded the church as "non-denominational", as he thought all his workers believed in the same God, the same Jesus Christ, so should be able to worship in the same church. I liked that idea, why not indeed? But some time later it changed to being a Congregationalist church, I've no idea why. Now, as you might guess, it's United Reform.

    So, in principle, the idea of good relations and sharing with other denominations, "non-denominational" et al ought to be a good thing - but why, when things seem to be just the way they should be, do they start to fall apart?
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    What does that mean, practically, to be pitching things at the lowest common denominator? The lowest common denominator of what? What is it that is being diluted or removed? And in terms of maths, nothing is lost by finding a lowest common denominator - 1/2 is exactly the same as 45/90, but without unnecessary clutter. I’m not sure how this applies to churches.

    My own experience of ecumenism (which may well be atypical) is a very small church with a different preacher each week, alternating - Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, etc. And sometimes no official pastor, as there aren’t enough to go round, so the congregation do it themselves. The Catholics have a separate Mass, but all meet together for things that can be done together, like Ash Wednesday and social things. It’s not ‘high’ church, and the budget is very small - it’s in a poor area. When there is liturgy, it’s on a sheet of paper that you take as you come in. The preaching is not focused on details of doctrine that separate one denomination from another, but on following Christ. I haven’t had any sense of my faith being diluted or lessened in any way by attending this church, but have appreciated the lack of rivalries and oneupmanship, and the focus on loving and serving God and each other.
  • Historically, there is no great surprise when a "non-denominational" ideal turns into a congregationist church. Originally that was just a statement about church government.

    Over time "congregationist" became associated with a certain theology and practice - and a long time later they joined the URC.

    No great surprise. In fact, it takes an incredible amount of effort to continue being "non-denominational" for an extended period.
  • fineline wrote: »
    What does that mean, practically, to be pitching things at the lowest common denominator? The lowest common denominator of what? What is it that is being diluted or removed?....

    It means anyone can believe and practise almost anything they like - "The rules are 'there are no rules'." The only necessary thing, I would have thought, would be the Holy Trinity - but even then, there could be wildly unorthodox interpretations of it.
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    What does that mean, practically, to be pitching things at the lowest common denominator? The lowest common denominator of what? What is it that is being diluted or removed?....

    It means anyone can believe and practise almost anything they like - "The rules are 'there are no rules'." The only necessary thing, I would have thought, would be the Holy Trinity - but even then, there could be wildly unorthodox interpretations of it.

    The alternative is posturing by various groups over who determines which rules are applicable.

    I did some historical research a while ago about an irregular ecumenical mission in England. It was set up in coordination with various churches (albeit all Protestant, I think) but some decades after it started, hit a crisis when the Anglican vicar determined that the building was Anglican (which it wasn't really) and that henceforth only Anglican services would be allowed - of course other groups would be allowed to participate and help. This led to a split and the "free churches" set up their own institution down the road.


  • Mark BettsMark Betts Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    ...I did some historical research a while ago about an irregular ecumenical mission in England. It was set up in coordination with various churches (albeit all Protestant, I think) but some decades after it started, hit a crisis when the Anglican vicar determined that the building was Anglican (which it wasn't really) and that henceforth only Anglican services would be allowed - of course other groups would be allowed to participate and help. This led to a split and the "free churches" set up their own institution down the road.
    It sounds like it became somewhat ego-driven - an all too familiar occurrence.
  • Well no, not just ego. Ay heart there was a genuine theological disagreement about the kinds of services Anglicans would tolerate in ecumenical groups of which they were part.
  • I think you are missing my point, Fineline. I'm not decrying grass-roots ecumenical initiatives of the kind you describe.

    I know a church building on a university campus that was built in the 1960s with the full expectation that full blown ecumenical unity would soon be achieved. It was cleverly designed to facilitate all kinds of worship. The kind of official unity envisioned by those who commissioned it was never realised.

    Does that invalidate it? No, I don't think it does. It was a bold experiment and acts as an ecumenical hub to some extent.

    I remember reading something by a Russian Orthodox believer imprisoned in the Gulags who observed that genuine ecumenism occurred in the wastes of Siberia.

    I agree with mr cheesy that non-denominationalism is hard to maintain. Indeed being non-denominational can end up as being more denominational than the denominations.

    This is what happened with the so-called 'non-denoms' in the US and their UK equivalents.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Gamma, I didn't think you were decrying it. I was curious to know what was meant by the lowest common denominator, and giving my particular experience (knowing it may well not be representative of ecumenism as a whole) as an example of my own understanding of ecumenism. I was curious to know of other examples.

    In my own experience, I don't find it means, as Mark Betts said, that 'people can believe and practise whatever they like' - though in a sense, everyone does to some extent in any denomination. In any denomination, in any church, talk to individuals and you'll find not everyone interprets the Bible the same way or acts in the same way. But the creeds of the various denominations are pretty similar.

    I have found though, in ecumenism, people are focusing on the things the denominations have in common - which to me are the essentials, the important things, of our faith. The Trinity is part of it, yes, but I'd suggest (heretically, I'm sure) that the Trinity is a mystery, and Christianity is not so much about how we intellectually understand the Trinity, but about, as Jesus said, loving God and loving our neighbour. And I do find this is a focus in the particular ecumenical church I am familiar with, and I see that as an incredibly positive thing. The things that denominations differ over are not, to me, the important things, but they all too often become the major focus and are a distraction. They distract from God, who should be our focus, and it becomes an ego-driven one-upmanship game, focused on being 'right'. To have a church where differences are put aside, and there is a focus on serving and loving God and each other, this is surely what is advocated in the New Testament. The fact that, say, some may get baptised with sprinkling as babies and others may get baptised as adults with full immersion - or indeed with sprinkling if they prefer - isn't, to me, an 'anything goes' thing, but respecting people's different traditions.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    By the way, the reasoning behind the ecumenical church where I live was not actually ecumenism in itself. It's the fact that a new housing estate, all council houses when it was first built forty years ago, was being built on fields, to create a new area for people to live, and it needed things like shops and a pub and a church. Rather than have the situation Puzzler described above, of 'the village where both Anglicans and Methodists meet separately, alternate weeks, no more than a dozen in each congregation,' it made sense to build one church, for all denominations, and the local people can all worship together. There's rarely more than 20 or 30 in the congregation. But the people have over the years become committed to ecumenism and serving the local community and welcoming anyone who wants to join the church. It has been a very positive experience of ecumenism for me - I'd never heard of such a thing before I moved here.
  • There is a difference between "non-denominational" vs "ecumenical" churches and groups.

    Also the whole idea of ecumenicalism has changed (at least in England) in the last 30-40 years. In my view ecumenical groups today tend to embrace differences - whereas the classical "non-denominational" setups of several centuries ago were indeed efforts to demolish the differences.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Yes, this ecumenical church is definitely not the same as a non-denominational church. The denominations simply co-exist and worship together, and respect each others' differences. My experience of non-denominational groups is that they are quite fundamentalist evangelical. Though again, my experience may not be representative.
  • I think that's an important distinction, mr cheesy.

    At one time the charismatic movement was seen as carrying ecumenical potential as participants from all manner of church backgrounds and traditions claimed a similar pneumatic experience.

    The reality, though, was that this was only going to appeal to those susceptible to a certain level of religious enthusiasm - although the charismatic dimension could indeed flourish in more contemplative settings as well as revivalist ones.

    But the idea of everyone uniting around a particular position on charismata was always going to be a pipe-dream.

    It's sometimes posited that ecumenism is a sign of decline. Groups only reach out to and cooperate with others if they are losing their own distinctive flavour or charism.

    Like everything else, I suspect it depends on the underlying circumstances.i submit that it's going to work more effectively in a situation like Fineline's than, say, a village with generations of separate congregations.

    It's also going to work by default rather than design in a Gulag or other extreme circumstance. Both Western and Eastern Orthodox Christians shared communion as the Ottomans stormed the walls of Constantinople.
  • This video, THE CHURCH & ECUMENISM by Father Spyridon (Greek Orthodox) is worth a listen. It is very much at odds with what we've been discussing, but is he right?
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    This video, THE CHURCH & ECUMENISM by Father Spyridon (Greek Orthodox) is worth a listen. It is very much at odds with what we've been discussing, but is he right?

    Well I don't know enough about Orthodox doctrine to know if he speaks for anyone but himself.

    But I would note that if you took away the hat and beard and slightly changed some of the phrases, he could easily be critiquing the "ecumenical movement" as a conservative evangelical. The parallels are uncanny.
  • If he were a Catholic cleric and saying the same thing, would he be right?

    I can see what he's getting at but then we get the conspiracy paranoia - it's all those wicked, evil Masons. They're the ones to blame for ecumenism.

    I half expected him to start blaming the Jews and quoting The Protocols of The Elders of Zion.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm dubious about Freemasonry too, but I don't see it lurking behind every bush.

    This is where I think some of the Orthodox let themselves down. They can be just as binary as Protestant fundamentalists.

    If he'd stopped before blarting on about Masonic symbols on US dollar bills I'd be more inclined to hear him out. It's not as if the Orthodox are the only ones who believe that God makes people members of the Church - however understood.

    I'm not Orthodox but I reckon I could make a better fist of putting forward a case for Orthodox ecclesiology without having to resort to the usual paranoid tropes about mischievous Masons and evil Protestants out to undermine the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

    The RCC would make the same claims for itself as Fr Spyridon makes for Orthodoxy. I might personally incline more towards the Orthodox than I would to Rome - for a variety of reasons. How do we know which one is right?

    I just wish people would set out a case without indulging in conspiracy theories and chauvinism.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    Mmm. I suppose I just see these kinds of things as people speaking from within a specific worldview and appear unable to appreciate that other people do and think differently.

    It seems to be just about saying "I'd believe in ecumenicalism if everyone agreed with me.."

    But part of the point of ecumenicalism (when it actually works at all) is an appreciation of difference and living with people who retain sincere points of difference - and yet, somehow, enjoy being together.

    Edit: again, that's not to do with Orthodoxy, I feel exactly the same when I hear evangelical criticisms of ecumenicalism.
  • ...If he'd stopped before blarting on about Masonic symbols on US dollar bills I'd be more inclined to hear him out. It's not as if the Orthodox are the only ones who believe that God makes people members of the Church - however understood.

    I'm not Orthodox but I reckon I could make a better fist of putting forward a case for Orthodox ecclesiology without having to resort to the usual paranoid tropes about mischievous Masons and evil Protestants out to undermine the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
    Yes I agree - I don't see how conspiracy theories about Masons help us.
    The RCC would make the same claims for itself as Fr Spyridon makes for Orthodoxy. I might personally incline more towards the Orthodox than I would to Rome - for a variety of reasons. How do we know which one is right?

    As they both originate from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, you could argue that in this they are both right.
  • Sure, and the Protestants derive from the RCs, one might argue that they've got the same genes in their DNA, even though they are a step or two removed ...

    How we sort it all out I've no idea.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    Sure, and the Protestants derive from the RCs, one might argue that they've got the same genes in their DNA, even though they are a step or two removed ...

    How we sort it all out I've no idea.

    Probably not our job to sort it all out.

    (Or is this going to make certain persons say I don't give a fuck and imply I am a bad person because I don't want to sort it all out, and further because I don't agree with their bishop?)
  • No, we can't sort it out but it affects all of us. Indifference is not an option but then neither is acting as if it all depends on us.

    Whenever we choose we worship somewhere, we are choosing not to worship somewhere else.

    That's not a complaint that we aren't omnipresent, of course ... ;).

    On the bishop thing, it seems to me that they'vd got a more important role within Orthodoxy than in other episcopally organised churches.

    I bet most people at our Anglican parish church would be hard pressed to name more than one or two bishops and many wouldn't have a clue who the diocesan bishops are.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    No, we can't sort it out but it affects all of us. Indifference is not an option but then neither is acting as if it all depends on us.

    Why is indifference not an option? If the Lord wants "the church" to be One, then maybe we should leave him to get on with it.

    Patiently getting on with things and not deliberately looking to bait and attack others seems to me like a responsible position to take.
  • Sure, I wasn't suggesting we should deliberately look to bait and attack others. Where did I suggest that?

    By 'indifference' I meant a lack of concern about the divisions within Christendom. Of course, mithering about that isn't going to get us anywhere, but it may lead us to connect with people we wouldn't normally fellowship with or connect with.

    I don't know about you, but I've certainly benefited from interaction with people here who represent different traditions / Traditions to the ones I'm used to. Same in real life.

    I'm not on about baiting and attacking anyone. I'm on about finding common ground as much as possible.

  • I'm not on about baiting and attacking anyone. I'm on about finding common ground as much as possible.

    I didn't say you were - I'm still talking about those (including conservative Evangelicals) who seem to be so against anything ecumenical.
  • Which is to say that there are several other positions other than "ecumenicalism is evil" vs "we should all be one".

    A church or a person or whatever who is not focussed on "making the church One" is not necessarily therefore characterised as being "against ecumenicalism". They might just be quietly getting on with their thing.
Sign In or Register to comment.