The "Oneness" of the Church
Mark Betts
Shipmate
in Kerygmania
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.
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.
Comments
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
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.
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!)
Multiply this many times over across the UK.
Diverse gifts and abilities, yes, diverse cultures, yes, but diverse doctrines?
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.
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,
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As they both originate from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, you could argue that in this they are both right.
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?)
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.
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.
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 didn't say you were - I'm still talking about those (including conservative Evangelicals) who seem to be so against anything ecumenical.
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.