The "Oneness" of the Church

2»

Comments

  • Sure, I get that.
  • fineline wrote: »
    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.
    The church I serve (founded 1967) is very much the same. The initiative first came from the local Council of Churches, but things never got off the ground. It was therefore founded as a daughter church from a Baptist congregation, although with the aim (which it retains) of being ecumenical. Quite a few members think that it is an LEP but legally it's entirely Baptist. However one Minister was criticised for - it was thought- trying to take the church in too Baptist a direction, while I'm being criticised by some for not being Baptist enough!

  • mousethief wrote: »
    ….(Or is this going to make certain persons say I don't give a f*** 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?)

    Far be it from me...….
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    fineline wrote: »
    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.
    The church I serve (founded 1967) is very much the same. The initiative first came from the local Council of Churches, but things never got off the ground. It was therefore founded as a daughter church from a Baptist congregation, although with the aim (which it retains) of being ecumenical. Quite a few members think that it is an LEP but legally it's entirely Baptist. However one Minister was criticised for - it was thought- trying to take the church in too Baptist a direction, while I'm being criticised by some for not being Baptist enough!

    That's interesting, Baptist Trainfan. There is one minister from a neighbouring C of E church who is being criticised for trying to take this ecumenical church in too C of E a direction. (I suspect this may be true - he's quite a controlling guy, from my observations.) The congregation see themselves as fighting for it to be completely ecumenical. Thing is, though, each pastor is based at another church and so has their own denomination, and at the moment most pastors who preach there are C of E.

    I guess it is a bit of a difficult thing to balance. Also, I find some of the congregation see themselves as a particular denomination, valuing the tradition of that, while others see themselves as purely ecumenical, not identifying with any denomination. And then there is a woman who became Catholic from C of E around the time the ecumenical church was new, and then wrote to the Pope to complain that an ecumencial church had been built where Catholics, C of E, Baptists, Methodists could all come together, and yet the Catholics still have to have a separate communion. I guess she thought the building of an ecumenical church would somehow abolish the rules about the different communions!

  • We are in communion if we all love God and love one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. Why some think it is OK to exclude family members from the communion table, I still don't understand.
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    fineline wrote: »
    I find some of the congregation see themselves as a particular denomination, valuing the tradition of that, while others see themselves as purely ecumenical, not identifying with any denomination.
    So the first group will expect their tradition to be respected and included in worship and polity, at least some of the time (e.g. they'll want a "proper" Anglican, Methodist or Baptist style of Communion); the others will be more interested in the customs that have become the norm in that particular congregation.

  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    fineline wrote: »
    I find some of the congregation see themselves as a particular denomination, valuing the tradition of that, while others see themselves as purely ecumenical, not identifying with any denomination.
    So the first group will expect their tradition to be respected and included in worship and polity, at least some of the time (e.g. they'll want a "proper" Anglican, Methodist or Baptist style of Communion); the others will be more interested in the customs that have become the norm in that particular congregation.

    In theory, but in reality, everyone seems fine with the services the way they are. People there don't tend to get uptight about stuff. The main thing they don't like is the C of E guy trying to make some fundamental changes to the way the church operates - more behind the scenes stuff. And in general how he treats people - a bit intrusive.
  • .....the others will be more interested in the customs that have become the norm in that particular congregation.
    As an aside, that's what we mean by "tradition" with a small "t". Well, at least I see it that way.

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    I think it is a mistake to interpret John 17: 20-23 in institutional terms, however desirable it might be that Christians should get on ecumenically. To my mind the words conjure a state of transcendent spiritual intimacy: “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us”, existing at a depth or in a dimension of being which defies linguistic description and metaphor, let alone all-encompassing ecclesiastical structures, agreed liturgies, creeds and scriptural canons. Rather we are drawn into the spirituality of gnosticism and mystical unity with the divine.
  • Having been involved in churches together events a few years ago, the expectations from different groups/churches were the hardest to handle. Trying to explain why a joint communion service would exclude the RC church to non-conformist church attendees was challenging; it was a real effort to persuade that group that if they wanted a joint service that all churches would attend, a communion service was not it.
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    Having been involved in churches together events a few years ago, the expectations from different groups/churches were the hardest to handle. Trying to explain why a joint communion service would exclude the RC church to non-conformist church attendees was challenging; it was a real effort to persuade that group that if they wanted a joint service that all churches would attend, a communion service was not it.

    Why? Nonconformists are being nice to Anglicans when they suggest a communion service.

    My experience was that in the Churches Together the Anglican insisted it was communion (we had no RC members) as it replaced timewise the parish Eucharist. They then insisted it was done in certain forms being followed (second time around I was on the eldership and knew the actual form; we got away with a lot more) and then the majority of Anglicans including the very liberal vicar did not partake because the celebrant was Nonconformist.
  • These things cut both ways. I've known Baptist ministers go out of their way to upset the RCs and annoy the Anglicans at interchurch events and then play the martyr card when representatives of those bodies cut up rough afterwards.

    I'm sure there are plenty of instances too of the flak going the other way.

    Whatever else it illustrates it illustrates how tricky these things are on all sides.

  • Well you know, I think part of this is because of this "we all should be One" language. A significant number of people (yes, they're often Anglicans) seem to think this means that all Christians need to partake together in the Eucharist. I have also witnessed the difficulties of getting people to understand that the differences are significant and can't just be waved away as church politics.

    In my experience joint ecumenical events usually become Anglican services that other people uncomfortably participate in as the only thing everyone can stomach. Cue moaning from everyone.

    I'm not sure how formal ecumenical projects manage to avoid this pitfall.
  • It's also the case that those historic Churches who might be 'accused' (if that's the right word) of being highly 'institutional' do emphasise the kind of 'mystical unity with the divine' that Kwesi alludes to - although not, perhaps, in the Gnostic sense to which he refers.

    The Orthodox and I'm sure the RCs too, place a strong emphasis on union with the divine through the Eucharist, other sacraments and the 'life of the Church'. Which, one could argue, is one of the reasons why they are big on the 'Oneness of the Church'.

    As for ecumenical services becoming Anglican in feel and tone. That's not been my experience. Hereabouts they tend to have more of a Methodist feel as the Methodists tend to host them. In fairness, they do try to ring the changes by moving the annual Churchest Together servive around to a different church each year and they do seem to have come up with a format that suits most people and which allows each congregation to have a 'say' and to share news and views. It seems to work quite well.
  • Fair enough - it is encouraging to hear that my experiences aren't replicated widely.

  • .....the annual Churches Together service around to a different church each year.....

    As an Orthodox in the UK, we use "Churches Together" a great deal. It doesn't mean ecumenical services, but it does mean we can (for a fee) use the buildings of other denominations. This does mean maintaining a good relationship with the other churches - and why shouldn't we want to do that? So I suppose I'm saying that ecumenism is best done in an informal, neighbourly way, rather than being a "movement" or a "project" with rules, regulations, moderators, mission statements et al.
    I remember reading something by a Russian Orthodox believer imprisoned in the Gulags who observed that genuine ecumenism occurred in the wastes of Siberia.

    That's what I mean (an extreme version to illustrate the point).
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    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.
    .

    Do you mean indifferent or disinterested? I rather think the latter.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Dear Host,

    It doesn't seem to me this discussion, instructive and enlightening though it is, should be discussed under Kerygmania because we are not exploring a scriptural text, certainly not John 17: 20-23. ISTM it would be better placed under Purgatory or Ecclesiantics.
  • Here the Churches Together services move around the different churches and the services are usually evening services, without communion, because the RC congregation is bound by Canon 844:
    According to the Code of Canon Law, receiving communion in a Protestant church is generally not permissible. According to canon 844, “Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments to Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and, likewise, the latter may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers.” The key term here is licit. If a Catholic receives communion from a Protestant minister, it is generally considered “illicit” or unlawful.
    And if the RC church is hosting the service they cannot offer communion to members of other churches.
  • These things cut both ways. I've known Baptist ministers go out of their way to upset the RCs and annoy the Anglicans at interchurch events and then play the martyr card when representatives of those bodies cut up rough afterwards.

    I'm sure there are plenty of instances too of the flak going the other way.

    Whatever else it illustrates it illustrates how tricky these things are on all sides.

    Yes but Gamaliel NonConformist do not necessarily see communion as essential to a service. We rather often when left on our own have joint services that are Noneucharistic. In other words, the suggestion of communion at the service is likely to have been them intending to be friendly towards the Anglicans.


  • DardaDarda Shipmate
    Here the Churches Together services move around the different churches

    In our town, "Churches Together" was renamed as "Christians Together". My understanding is that this was because one member considers itself the "One True Church".
  • Not sure. I know of one body that chose that name simply because it reflected the nature of what was happening on the ground; that it was Christians working together. This group was not renamed, they adopted that name right from the start.
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    These things cut both ways. I've known Baptist ministers go out of their way to upset the RCs and annoy the Anglicans at interchurch events and then play the martyr card when representatives of those bodies cut up rough afterwards.

    I'm sure there are plenty of instances too of the flak going the other way.

    Whatever else it illustrates it illustrates how tricky these things are on all sides.

    Yes but Gamaliel NonConformist do not necessarily see communion as essential to a service. We rather often when left on our own have joint services that are Noneucharistic. In other words, the suggestion of communion at the service is likely to have been them intending to be friendly towards the Anglicans.


    No, the incident I'm thinking of was clearly intended to annoy both the RCs to a large extent and the Anglicans to a lesser extent.

    You don't know the incident I'm referring to. I do. I was there. You weren't.
  • Besides, Anglicans don't necessarily see communion as necessary to a service either. No communion at Evensong or Compline, for instance. No communion at a snake-belly low 'Service of the Word.'

    Enough of this already.
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    These things cut both ways. I've known Baptist ministers go out of their way to upset the RCs and annoy the Anglicans at interchurch events and then play the martyr card when representatives of those bodies cut up rough afterwards.

    I'm sure there are plenty of instances too of the flak going the other way.

    Whatever else it illustrates it illustrates how tricky these things are on all sides.

    Yes but Gamaliel NonConformist do not necessarily see communion as essential to a service. We rather often when left on our own have joint services that are Noneucharistic. In other words, the suggestion of communion at the service is likely to have been them intending to be friendly towards the Anglicans.


    No, the incident I'm thinking of was clearly intended to annoy both the RCs to a large extent and the Anglicans to a lesser extent.

    You don't know the incident I'm referring to. I do. I was there. You weren't.

    But I am talking about what Curiosity Killed said....

    and that Nonconformists suggesting communion is likely to be them trying to be nice to others. If it was them deliberately trying to annoy RC then the vicar explaining that it does is not making the situation better either.
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    These things cut both ways. I've known Baptist ministers go out of their way to upset the RCs and annoy the Anglicans at interchurch events and then play the martyr card when representatives of those bodies cut up rough afterwards.

    I'm sure there are plenty of instances too of the flak going the other way.

    Whatever else it illustrates it illustrates how tricky these things are on all sides.

    Yes but Gamaliel NonConformist do not necessarily see communion as essential to a service. We rather often when left on our own have joint services that are Noneucharistic. In other words, the suggestion of communion at the service is likely to have been them intending to be friendly towards the Anglicans.


    No, the incident I'm thinking of was clearly intended to annoy both the RCs to a large extent and the Anglicans to a lesser extent.

    You don't know the incident I'm referring to. I do. I was there. You weren't.

    But I am talking about what Curiosity Killed said....
    But @Curiosity killed killed didn't say anything about Anglicans or about Nonconformists suggesting communion. And you quoted @Gamma Gamaliel, and addressed your post to him. :confused:

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    These things cut both ways. I've known Baptist ministers go out of their way to upset the RCs and annoy the Anglicans at interchurch events and then play the martyr card when representatives of those bodies cut up rough afterwards.

    I'm sure there are plenty of instances too of the flak going the other way.

    Whatever else it illustrates it illustrates how tricky these things are on all sides.

    Yes but Gamaliel NonConformist do not necessarily see communion as essential to a service. We rather often when left on our own have joint services that are Noneucharistic. In other words, the suggestion of communion at the service is likely to have been them intending to be friendly towards the Anglicans.


    No, the incident I'm thinking of was clearly intended to annoy both the RCs to a large extent and the Anglicans to a lesser extent.

    You don't know the incident I'm referring to. I do. I was there. You weren't.

    But I am talking about what Curiosity Killed said....
    But @Curiosity killed killed didn't say anything about Anglicans or about Nonconformists suggesting communion. And you quoted @Gamma Gamaliel, and addressed your post to him. :confused:

    This is the post my initial posting was in response to:
    Trying to explain why a joint communion service would exclude the RC church to non-conformist church attendees was challenging; it was a real effort to persuade that group that if they wanted a joint service that all churches would attend, a communion service was not it.


  • Ah. I follow now.
  • Actually I don't think the URC elder and Elim Pentacostal delegate were being nice, they started with a belief or understanding that the thing Christians did in common was share bread and wine. I had a long conversation trying to explain that this would automatically exclude the RC church congregation. Which still ended up with the URC elder saying that it was a shame, because that was something all Christians did in remembrance of Christ.
  • Actually I don't think the URC elder and Elim Pentacostal delegate were being nice, they started with a belief or understanding that the thing Christians did in common was share bread and wine.

    As I said such belief would be culturally anomalous. I have heard Nonconformists grumble
    "Why do Anglicans ALWAYS have to have communion"

  • I think you've misunderstood CK's point.
  • But Anglicans don't ALWAYS have to have communion ...

    They are making a value judgement that may not be borne out by fact.

    In the incident I was referring to, a non-conformist minister insisted on having a communion element at an inter-church gathering which he knew RCs would attend because he deliberately wanted to provoke them because they don't have an open communion policy.

    Rather than respect that or accept it regretfully and look for ways to conduct the service in a way that acknowledged difference, he wanted to rub their noses in it. I'm sure he wanted to be 'prophetic' or challenging in some way.

    Then he was all 'poor me, poor me' when the RCs, backed up by some Anglicans who wanted to respect their position, took him to task over it.

    That's not being polite.

    If a Muslim or Jewish family came to my house for tea would I be polite to offer them ham sandwiches knowing that it was against their principles?
  • The context I was thinking about was a planning meeting for one of the regular Churches Together joint services, which services hosted by each of the local churches in turn and involving ministers from all the churches. The suggestion was that instead of our usual bland service with hymns and a talk, why didn't we have a communion this time? And the rest of the conversation went as above.
  • Going back to the OP, I think that a good goal for the global Church would be to have all matters not related to worship, doctrine, devotional items like relics and icons, the ordination of clergy, etc., be placed in the hands of local councils of laypeople elected proportionally from all the churches of all denominations in an area. There would also be national councils and a global council. At every level, the council would appoint lay administrators who would see to finances, charities, schools (except for religious education), fundraising, building maintenance - all the more temporal aspects of the Church. The councils would be able to close churches and merge churches from multiple denominations together - not merging the congregations, but having them share one building - in places where low attendance and high building maintenance costs make the number of church locations unsustainable. However, in order to do so, the majority of the members of each of the denominations of the churches affected by the closings and mergers would need to approve. Efforts would be made to combine overlapping regional church charities and administrative offices.

    This plan would not work where there is an established church. In churches whose theology require bishops/popes to be the ultimate authority on all matters of church governance, bishops would need to delegate a portion of their authority to these councils (with the ability to take it back) - in a manner similar to the way a monarch delegates authority to a parliament in a constitutional monarchy with no written constitution (because, at least in some churches, the absolute authority of a bishop would not be able to be constrained by a written constitution). If a bishop rescinded the authority delegated to the councils, that bishop's denomination would be withdrawn from the ecumenical project - which would be almost as complicated as Brexit! A challenge would be dealing with churches, schools, universities, seminaries, and charities run by religious orders, which are used to enjoying a large amount of independence.

    Participating churches would need to pledge to not actively proselytize each other's members, although they may continue to offer a welcome to all converts and engage in softer forms of evangelism.

    I know it sounds impossible, but it's nice to dream!
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    ......but not to experience the NIGHTMARE your dream, stonespring, is for the rest of us.
  • Some one explained to me that the Gospel is like a moon shining on a lake. No matter where one stands, it seems the moon beam is shining directly on them.

    Seems like there is a growing division within the American Church. While there has been some coming together between Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Reformed, Anglican and Methodist traditions, there is even more entrenchment from Evangelicals and Fundamentals.

    But, even in the denominations that are coming together, for every action there seems to be an opposite but unequal reaction as well. Even in my denomination (ELCA), as we moved to the Concordant with the Episcopal church, there was a group that pulled away because of their understanding of the nature of the call. Likewise, when the ELCA opened up to clergy in same sex relationships, there was an even stronger reaction.

    Will the church ever be one? Where ever the Gospel is preached and the Sacraments are properly administered, there is oneness.

    Is it a goal that can be reached this side of eternity? Maybe not. But it is the process that counts.
  • I know it sounds impossible, but it's nice to dream!
    I’m afraid I fail to see why this is a dream worth dreaming. I’m with @Kwesi in thinking it sounds more like a nightmare.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I know it sounds impossible, but it's nice to dream!
    I’m afraid I fail to see why this is a dream worth dreaming. I’m with @Kwesi in thinking it sounds more like a nightmare.

    Why?
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I know it sounds impossible, but it's nice to dream!
    I’m afraid I fail to see why this is a dream worth dreaming. I’m with @Kwesi in thinking it sounds more like a nightmare.

    Why?
    Sorry, @stonespring. I’ve been traveling and am afraid I missed this until tonight.

    I guess mainly because it sounds very bureaucratic to me. That makes me wary for a number of related reasons:
    • That kind of bureaucracy takes a lot of energy to maintain—energy that I think could be better spent on other, more useful things.
    • It sounds really complicated.
    • It seems to harken back to a mid-Twentieth Century ecumenical mindset that may have been very optimistic but wasn’t necessarily very realistic.
    • I don’t see how it advances the unity, the “oneness,” of the church, or makes that unity more evident. To the contrary, it seems to focus on quasi-institutional pseudo-unity, while ignoring the places where I think we should be looking for unity.
    Why does it sound like a good idea to you? What am I missing?
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Thanks, Nick, your response to stonespring say it for me.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I know it sounds impossible, but it's nice to dream!
    I’m afraid I fail to see why this is a dream worth dreaming. I’m with @Kwesi in thinking it sounds more like a nightmare.

    Why?
    Sorry, @stonespring. I’ve been traveling and am afraid I missed this until tonight.

    I guess mainly because it sounds very bureaucratic to me. That makes me wary for a number of related reasons:
    • That kind of bureaucracy takes a lot of energy to maintain—energy that I think could be better spent on other, more useful things.
    • It sounds really complicated.
    • It seems to harken back to a mid-Twentieth Century ecumenical mindset that may have been very optimistic but wasn’t necessarily very realistic.
    • I don’t see how it advances the unity, the “oneness,” of the church, or makes that unity more evident. To the contrary, it seems to focus on quasi-institutional pseudo-unity, while ignoring the places where I think we should be looking for unity.
    Why does it sound like a good idea to you? What am I missing?

    Any union of all denominations into one church would involve a lot of bureaucracy and would be really complicated. Also, unless everyone manages to agree on issues of doctrine, sacraments, worship, church hierarchy, any form of ecumenism is going to need to focus mainly on the secular aspects of church. Anglicanism itself is a communion full of lots of people with mutually-exclusive beliefs who nonetheless (at least until recently) were in communion with each other and shared many bureaucratic and charitable institutions.

    As I said above, I am not really addressing established churches here since merging them with non-established churches involves a host of other issues, so I am focusing more on countries with no established church, and especially ones where no one church is overwhelmingly dominant.

    The reason I focus on an ecumenism of the secular aspects of the Church is because in many denominations there are way too many church buildings that are too expensive for shrinking congregations to maintain - although many of them have great value, not only aesthetically, historically, and potentially as sources of tourism revenue - but also as venues for weddings, funerals, and performances. Some of these buildings might get the government, charitable institutions, corporations, and the wealthy to prop them up but most are not able to. Combining management of church real estate in a way that consolidates congregations into the most value-for-maintenance-cost buildings (taking into account multiple types of value as I have listed above) while maintaining a strong enough building presence to serve people in each geographical area without making them travel too far is one goal of my plan. If a congregation can get together enough funding on its own from non-church institutions to save its own building, then it could keep an otherwise unaffordable building. Churches that are historical treasures that cannot be kept should become museums, although the value formula I suggest would place weight on the most historically and artistically significant churches because they are essential to the brand that many unchurched people have of the Church - insomuch as that brand is a positive thing. Providing utilitarian structures or repurposing of secular public spaces for people who hate churchy churches is another thing that such a consolidated church could focus on in a way that avoided redundancy among denominations.

    I admit that entrepreneurial (which I don't mean in an economic way or a negative way but in a massively pro-growth way) evangelicalism, the RCC, and Orthodoxy will be especially difficult to incorporate into such a project but I think it may be possible in places where one of those church groups is small in numbers, the government is not oppressive or preferential towards any one of them, etc.

    There also is an unnecessary redundancy of church charities, church offices, church hospitals, and the more secular aspects of church schools (math education, school maintenance, and the cleaning of schools may indeed be part of a church's sacred mission, but I think that they are a more ripe area for ecumenism than religious education).

    The Church would be able to go a lot farther in caring for the poor and marginalized if it wasn't spending so much money on redundant facilities and institutions. Those churches with one view on Dead Horses could group their dead-horse-related expenditures into subgroupings within the overall union - perhaps groupings that do not have the official sanction of the overall union but exist as their own while pooling their resources on non-dead-horse issues. A dead-horse related expenditure would be any charity, education, or healthcare services that have to do with those issues, in countries where the provision of those services is not mandated or prohibited.

    This is a thought exercise. I know it is impossible but I think it is closer to being possible than any other form of ecumenism today - aside from a small continuance of the 20th-century kind among largely like-minded denominations which except in the area of absorbing the smallest dying denominations into larger ones does not really address the large scale issue of the redundancies in church assets and expenditures.

    It would also empower laypeople much more than they currently in many denominations and forge connections among them that might help them teach their clergy a lesson. Minority rights would have to be protected through constitutional measures, of course.
  • Many thanks for your response, stonespring. Just a couple of thoughts of mine.
    Any union of all denominations into one church would involve a lot of bureaucracy and would be really complicated.
    I agree completely. But I also think it misses the point of the unity or “oneness” of the church.
    Also, unless everyone manages to agree on issues of doctrine, sacraments, worship, church hierarchy, any form of ecumenism is going to need to focus mainly on what you call the secular aspects of church.
    While I agree that reducing redundancy and competitiveness would be A Good Thing, I don’t believe that effective ecumenism can focus mainly on the secular aspects of the church. I think that, too, misses the oneness of the church.

    What I see at play is confusing the church as institution(s) with the church as the Body of Christ. In my view, the oneness of the church is not something we can work for or accomplish. It is a gift of God, which we can either acknowledge and gratefully live into or ignore and pretend isn’t there. As I understand Paul, Christ cannot be divided, and all who have have been baptized have been baptized into Christ. That means that all who have been baptized are already one—and that’s regardless of whether we have the same understandings of the Eucharist, or church government, or whatever.

    I’m not saying that differences between various parts of the church don’t matter or should just be shrugged off. They often do matter and deserve to be acknowledged and wrestled with. But in my view, that wrestling best takes place within a framework that recognizes we are already one because Christ is one, not a framework that assumes we will be one when we all agree.

    That’s why I have problems with focusing on the secular aspects of church as a path to unity. The unity is already there, but we need to be ready and willing to acknowledge it and live into it, and to explore the implications of it. That may or may not be union of church institutions, charitable cooperation or reduction of redundancies. But those things follow from the oneness we already have in Christ, rather than leading to a unity we hope to achieve.

    Much more relevant, I think, and much more the thing to focus on is how we, as people baptized into the Body of Christ, love one another and recognize each other as sisters and brothers in Christ. Unfortunately, as a group we have a pretty horrid track record on that. And my concern is that as long as we let ourselves be distracted by things like church bureaucracy, that bad track record is all too likely to continue.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    That’s why I have problems with focusing on the secular aspects of church as a path to unity. The unity is already there, but we need to be ready and willing to acknowledge it and live into it, and to explore the implications of it. That may or may not be union of church institutions, charitable cooperation or reduction of redundancies. But those things follow from the oneness we already have in Christ, rather than leading to a unity we hope to achieve.

    I guess I take the more Roman Catholic view that unity has to be visible (or tangible, as I would rather say). Now of course, for the RCC that means accepting Catholic doctrine and Papal authority (or some fudge to allow union with the Orthodox that means the same thing in different words (and which the Orthodox would never accept)). But I think Christians are supposed to do the work of the Church together, and in order to do so, there should be no distinctions regarding whose turf is whose. If all the resources of the Church were shared, the only thing to fight over would be souls, rather than property, and people may come to realize that most of the fighting over centuries has been over property, making the fighting over souls seem less important!

    The whole project would also help people to see the Church itself as being the people rather than the institutions. If the institutions were divorced from doctrine-defining bodies and from clerical hierarchies, people would understand more that they are merely means to allow the living of Christian missions rather than the mission itself.
  • I also think the Church really needs to sell off or put into the hands of the state or other nonprofit institutions/trusts most of its real estate and precious objects/art (that are not relics/icons/explicit objects of devotion, which I think should be kept) in order to survive and thrive. I'm not talking about having the Church be poor monetarily, but having it not be tied to as many places and things. Hopefully this can happen in a way in which the Church can continue to use many of the old buildings and precious things, but it would not need to own them.

    I think that the only way to make this possible is to take the control of these things out of the hands of the clergy, wealthy donors, and people whose main tie to a church or denomination is over buildings/art/music programs/coffee bars, etc. An ecumenical democratic body (one which I would propose excludes clergy from voting much as the monarchy cannot vote) might still worry about how to use such things to get the unchurched in and to keep the churched from leaving, but they would be less worried about doing so in a marketplace of churches. If it gets rid of (or hands over) a lot of the property - and if it divorces doctrine and worship style from money as well - it would also make the wealthy less influential in the Church overall. In the system I am discussing, donations to the Church would not go to any specific building, music program, or program for your kids - so the local wealthy warlords of each congregation would not be able to use their churches as basically the chapels of their little feudal estates. The Church might still be liable to being manipulated by very very large donors to the overall funds of the Church, but that money would not have anything to do with worship or doctrine - indeed, worship and doctrine would ideally stop having anything to do with money at all. Organs, choirs, rock bands, would, just like the pretty old buildings and art themselves, all be things that the government and non-Church trusts would have to run, and hopefully allow the Church to make use of, but if not, so be it.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    That’s why I have problems with focusing on the secular aspects of church as a path to unity. The unity is already there, but we need to be ready and willing to acknowledge it and live into it, and to explore the implications of it. That may or may not be union of church institutions, charitable cooperation or reduction of redundancies. But those things follow from the oneness we already have in Christ, rather than leading to a unity we hope to achieve.

    I guess I take the more Roman Catholic view that unity has to be visible (or tangible, as I would rather say).
    I have some sympathy for that view, but I would say that visible or tangible unity is not the same as institutional unity. I mean, the RC view recognizes that the “separated brethren” are baptized and part of the Body of Christ, even if imperfectly or incompletely so (in RC understanding).

    I probably take more of a, say, Taizé view of ecumenism, that starts from a belief that we’re already are one and seeks ways to live that out and make it more visible.
    I also think the Church really needs to sell off or put into the hands of the state or other nonprofit institutions/trusts most of its real estate and precious objects/art (that are not relics/icons/explicit objects of devotion, which I think should be kept) in order to survive and thrive. I'm not talking about having the Church be poor monetarily, but having it not be tied to as many places and things. Hopefully this can happen in a way in which the Church can continue to use many of the old buildings and precious things, but it would not need to own them.

    I think that the only way to make this possible is to take the control of these things out of the hands of the clergy, wealthy donors, and people whose main tie to a church or denomination is over buildings/art/music programs/coffee bars, etc.
    I’m afraid I can’t remember where you live or what your particular tradition is, but it seems to me that the problems you’re describing here aren’t the problems that all of us need to deal with. Perhaps your dream makes some sense in your context. But I have to say that in the context I’m familiar with, the solution you’re proposing wouldn’t solve many problems for us but would, I think, definitely create problems, or at least unnecessary complications.

  • Not exactly unity - I don't think that's likely to happen this side of the Second Coming - but it's noticeable, in the area where Our Place is situated (a rather poor and deprived town), that churches of most denominations - except, sadly the RCC - are now tentatively, from time to time, working and worshipping together.

    The Week Of Prayer For Christian Unity next month sees C of E (charismatic-evo, MOTR, and Anglo-Catholic), Baptist, Nazarene, URC, Salvation Army, King's Church, all holding services - in their own style/tradition! There aren't quite enough slots for everyone, but I have no doubt that the Methodists, and the other C of E parishes, will put in an appearance somewhere....

    Small things, but all conducive to a better understanding of each other's way of worshipping, and witnessing to, the same Lord.
  • 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? 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.

    This is really encouraging, Fineline.

    I think when the Christian Faith started out, is was primarily a Way of Life. It was the influence of Roman and Greek culture that made it more obsessed with Institution (Roman/Empire) and Doctrine (Greek/Philosophy). That the Schism divided the church into those two (one united under the power of the institution, the Pope’s authority; the other stressing Correct Teaching) is illustrative.

    There’s nothing wrong with Institution and nothing wrong with Doctrine. But we’ve made them both into a golden calf to the extent that so often we can’t envisage what Christianity looks like without them at the centre. I think it’s possible to resdiscover Faith in Christ primarily as Way, and it sounds like that's what your congregation is doing.
Sign In or Register to comment.