To come back to the original question posed by this thread ...
Yes, I think it has.
Does that mean that ecumenical interaction is on the wane?
Not necessarily. I think it is happening but in a different way.
No disrespect to joint services or inter-church prayer initiatives, but these things can be just as much token gestures as senior clergy signing forms and making declarations.
I'm not sure what form ecumenical dialogue and cooperation should take and imagine it will vary from place to place. I'm not convinced that labelling a particular week as a Week of Prayer for Christian Unity really helps bring that about.
Which isn't to say it's a waste of time. If people forge genuine relationships across traditions and denominations as a result then that's all to the good as it leads to mutual trust, respect and understanding.
Which is great.
But it depends on what we are expecting it to achieve.
I wonder if our local Methodists have taken the initiative in the hope that some Anglicans, or indeed any other Christians, though there is no other church in town, may take up the invitation, especially as the service will not clash with any others. Now that the Anglican Vicar has moved on, maybe Anglicans will feel freer to attend and re-forge relationships between the two churches.
I wonder if our local Methodists have taken the initiative in the hope that some Anglicans, or indeed any other Christians, though there is no other church in town, may take up the invitation, especially as the service will not clash with any others. Now that the Anglican Vicar has moved on, maybe Anglicans will feel freer to attend and re-forge relationships between the two churches.
The URCs are hosting the annual Unity Week service this year on wednesday. I expect my wife will go. I won't. I get very fidgety in church unless I am doing music. But she will report back on numbers. Holy Week is when the main shared services happen around here.
Was the previous vicar against joint services with the Methodists, @puzzler?
If so, that's unusual in my experience of Anglicans but you can find some sniffy types at both the snake-belly low end and the stratospheric end of the spectrum.
The Orthodox don't tend to go in for 'joint services' I'm afraid although individuals might. Our Holy Week doesn't always coincide with everyone else's - and some Protestant churches barely observe it at all. With the best will in the world our Holy Week is so full-on most of us wouldn't have time to join in with anything else.
Joint services and prayer are one aspect though, there are other ways of collaborating across theological or denominational boundaries.
It seems right to keep alive the prayer of Jesus that we might all be one. On typeface of it, the week of prayer for Christian unity does that. But I'm wondering whether it might be better to have a focussed activity which demonstrates something with Christians of different denominations might agree is a Good Thing.
Just as a couple of examples, how about fund raising for clean water needs, or medical help for children born with cleft palates? Loads of other examples come to mind so it would seem possible to have a different theme every year. Concrete examples might have more impetus than abstract hope.
I suppose it sounds a bit like the UK's annual Children in Need event which definitely catches the public imagination in this country and has raised loads of money over the decades it's been running. I don't see anything wrong with that.
There must have been unanimity on the necessity of that.
To be honest, I can't see that many Christians taking issue with that initiative but there're always some awkward-squadders.
Local initiatives are a lot easier to set up than regional or global ones, of course.
A week of prayer for Christian unity? Probably answering an aspiration which is no longer defined in the same terms it once was... so yes, it's probably run its course.
I can't help but wonder if the heyday of the ecumenism movement was in the 1970s- what has changed most since? Many ministers/vicars/pastors had just one church then, and so could work realistically in a local area & get to know their local ecumenical colleagues. Now we have several churches each often spread over a large area, and so our efforts are more driven by necessity of trying to get the our own multitudinous congregations to acknowledge one anothers' existence.
I can't help but wonder if the heyday of the ecumenism movement was in the 1970s- what has changed most since? Many ministers/vicars/pastors had just one church then, and so could work realistically in a local area & get to know their local ecumenical colleagues. Now we have several churches each often spread over a large area, and so our efforts are more driven by necessity of trying to get the our own multitudinous congregations to acknowledge one anothers' existence.
That certainly seems to be true of some C of E benefices, spread out over maybe 10 or 12 separate churches (between each of which is a great gulf fixed, as you imply), although it may be the case in rural areas that other denominations are conspicuous in any case by their sheer absence, their chapels having been closed over a period of many years.
I think you're right about the 1960s/1970s heyday. What happened to the vision of the coming 'Great Church'?
ISTM that the best any church can do, as the sea of faith recedes ever further, is to try to keep the 'rumour of God' alive on its own patch, working with others as far as it can.
Working across one of the most rural areas of Wales, I still find myself able to take a more positive view of the future. The 'failure' to achieve structural unity between denominations in the 60s/70s doesn't really feel like a failure, since even at the time I remember wondering whether the right goal was being aimed at.
The tide of faith has receded before, notably in the C18 when rural churches were allowed to tumble into ruin, while even Kilvert, in the 1870s heyday of rural church/chapel-going, records days when there were only three or four in his congregation.
I tell people that the Christian faith has been in these communities for pretty much 1500 years, and I don't see it disappearing any time soon.
Optimist, moi? Well, possibly, but I'm not sure I'm alone.
It seems to me that the high point of formal ecumenism was in the 1970s; and much of what was done then has enabled the more informal inter-church relationships of today. However the mainstream" churches that were ecumenically involved are much declined; many new churches have been formed; and the desire for structural unity has evaporated.
Is Christian Unity, at least in the traditional sense, (I speak from a British perspective) a dead duck, and the Week of Prayer a forlorn hope of fanning the embers?
(PS Please forgive the mixed metaphor!)
Unfortunately, my experience with Week of Prayer for Christian Unity (as well as Women's World Day of Prayer) is consistent with yours. It had been observed locally, in small town and urban settings, with a fair degree of enthusiasm which has waned or vanished.
I think the main driver is the decline in mainline denominations' congregations. Often they barely have energy to sustain themselves, let alone summon up the will to connect with other local churches, and even further off on the horizon are any thoughts of structural unity.
Was the previous vicar against joint services with the Methodists, @puzzler?
If so, that's unusual in my experience of Anglicans but you can find some sniffy types at both the snake-belly low end and the stratospheric end of the spectrum.
We need to do what we can.
Absolutely, @Gamma Gamaliel . He was so low, he was scarcely an Anglican. No robes, minimal liturgy. Ultra conservative evangelical, non-charismatic, anti most things except his own version of Christianity. 45 people left during his first year in post. He withdrew from all joint community work, eg services in care homes, council prayers, Remembrance day and Good Friday on the market square, children’s holiday club etc.
I watch and wait with interest but I guess the local covenant between the churches will not be reinstated whilst the Anglican church is in vacancy.
I'm just back from our Week of Prayer for Christian Unity service. Not that well attended about twenty to thirty of us, but nicely done and the homily from our assistant priest that I was dreading as he can ramble on for ours was concise and good. I could have done without the 'Jesus is my boyfriend' type hymns, but everyone else seemed OK so I guess it was just me.
Well, a service of unity surely needs to include a variety of music, not all of which will be to everyone's taste. Glad it went well - but did the congregation include more than the usual faithful ecumenical enthusiasts?
Was the previous vicar against joint services with the Methodists, @puzzler?
If so, that's unusual in my experience of Anglicans but you can find some sniffy types at both the snake-belly low end and the stratospheric end of the spectrum.
We need to do what we can.
Absolutely, @Gamma Gamaliel . He was so low, he was scarcely an Anglican. No robes, minimal liturgy. Ultra conservative evangelical, non-charismatic, anti most things except his own version of Christianity. 45 people left during his first year in post. He withdrew from all joint community work, eg services in care homes, council prayers, Remembrance day and Good Friday on the market square, children’s holiday club etc.
I watch and wait with interest but I guess the local covenant between the churches will not be reinstated whilst the Anglican church is in vacancy.
Having been a part of several conservative evangelical Anglican churches, what you describe sounds unusually anti-ecumenical even for conservative evangelicals - certainly none I know would want to withdraw from opportunities to be involved in civic events like Remembrance Day and council prayers, and would indeed see them as important evangelistic opportunities. I think it might be more of an, ahem, personal quirk in the case of this vicar.
I can't help but wonder if the heyday of the ecumenism movement was in the 1970s- what has changed most since? Many ministers/vicars/pastors had just one church then, and so could work realistically in a local area & get to know their local ecumenical colleagues. Now we have several churches each often spread over a large area, and so our efforts are more driven by necessity of trying to get the our own multitudinous congregations to acknowledge one anothers' existence.
People were also much more likely to be local to their church, rather than driving from sometimes quite far away to attend a specific denomination or flavour of church.
One giant step among mainline Protestants I associate with is the quiet dropping the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed. This was agreed to in dialogues with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. The people in the pew don't seem to notice it when we recite the original Nicene Creed.
I agree true unity will never be achieved this side of eternity, but it is still something to strive for.
One giant step among mainline Protestants I associate with is the quiet dropping the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed. This was agreed to in dialogues with our Orthodox brothers and sisters.
It is a noteworthy (and I think good) step in some mainline churches. It seems like a bit of an overstatement to say “mainline Protestants” generally. The only mainline Protestant church I’m aware of having an actual agreement with Eastern Orthodox Christians on the matter is the Episcopal Church. Does the ELCA, through the Lutheran World Federation or otherwise, have such an agreement?
The PC(USA) does not, and it gets complicated for us as the Nicene Creed—specifically the English Language Liturgical Consultation version with the Filioque—is contained in our Book of Confessions, which is part of our constitution. (Editorial material in the Book of Confessions does highlight the Filioque issue.) To change it would require General Assembly approval to proceed with study and creation of a committee to study and make recommendations on the proposed revision, approval of the proposed amendment by a later General Assembly, ratification by 2/3 of the presbyteries, and then a second approval of the amendment by the next General Assembly.
That’s not to say that couldn’t happen, nor is it to say that a congregation might not decide to use a version that doesn’t contain the Filioque. But the reality is that currently it is the Nicene Creed with the Filioque is what has officially status.
Gramps did say "mainline Protestants I associate with," which (for example) leaves out the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod. I mention it because our clergy etc. are bound to the Book of Concord as our confession--and that includes the Nicene Creed with filioque. I don't see that changing.
Although I don't believe for one nano-second what some strident Orthodox voices accuse the RCs, and other 'Western' Christians of doing when they recite the creed with the offending clause still in place.
An Orthodox friend said to me the other day that the 'West' had effectively said that the Holy Spirit did not exist by introducing the filioque.
She did back down when I pushed back on that.
Part of me thinks that even if every other church in Christendom, mainline, out-there, in-there or shake-it-all-about-there were to drop the offending clause tomorrow the Orthodox wouldn't be satisfied.
Indeed, I know they wouldn't.
'Great, you've dropped your heretical clause, now what about ...'
I s'pose my view of the filioque clause is that it's rather like our appendix. It serves no useful function and can be ignored unless it's really causing harm, then it needs taking out.
Taking it out as some kind of gesture or simply to please the Orthodox, who'd then find something else to find fault with, isn't going to take us very far - on both sides.
Take it out by all means - and I applaud thise who have done so - bring it on, but if anyime is going to do it then they should do so out of conviction and not simply as kind of ecumenical bargaining counter.
Can anyone link to a useful "filioque for dummies" type explanation as to why it would suggest to some Orthodox that the Holy Spirit does not exist, and/or why it would be considered heretical? Because I would consider the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and from the Son as being a natural outworking of the Trinity, and I'm very confused as to why a clause stating the existence of the Holy Spirit would be evidence in a lack of belief in the Holy Spirit.
I don't understand why removing the filioque has become the shibboleth that it has. Believing in the filioque does not mean a lack of respect for Christians who disagree, so why is its removal seemingly now expected as just being part and parcel of ecumenical relations with apparently no equivalent move from the Orthodox? It's not like the Orthodox are now being expected to believe in original sin in return or whatever.
The filoque clause simply says the Holy Spirit proceeds through the father and the son. It first appeared in Spain and was gradually accepted through the Western Church. But it was never approved in an ecumenical council that would have involved representatives from both the Eastern and Western Churches. Made for a very bad blow up in 1054.
Note to Nick Yes, the World Lutheran Federation, of which the ELCA is a member, formally accepted the Orthodox position just a few years ago, and a resolution to that affect was passed in a recent national assembly. We agreed to include the original Nicene Creed in our next published hymnal.
Other denominations that have or are moving to drop it are: The United Church of Christ; The World Methodist Council and the World Communion of Reformed Churches. Can't forget the Anglicans either.
By the way @Gamma Gamaliel since the Vatican document The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the Roman church has accepted the original 381 Creed without the filioque as fully orthodox. I would look for formal recognition of that very soon, considering Leo's ecumenical bent.
I don't understand why removing the filioque has become the shibboleth that it has. Believing in the filioque does not mean a lack of respect for Christians who disagree, so why is its removal seemingly now expected as just being part and parcel of ecumenical relations with apparently no equivalent move from the Orthodox? It's not like the Orthodox are now being expected to believe in original sin in return or whatever.
I think it has to do primarily with the Western Church having added to/altered the Creed as approved by the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople. In other words, what is being asked/done is not so much trying to meet in the middle as it is acknowledging that a creed adopted by Ecumenical Councils can/should only be altered by an Ecumenical Council, and that doctrinal issues aside, it was inappropriate for one part of the Church to unilaterally change the Creed.
By the way @Gamma Gamaliel since the Vatican document The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the Roman church has accepted the original 381 Creed without the filioque as fully orthodox. I would look for formal recognition of that very soon, considering Leo's ecumenical bent.
However--and this is a big "however"--
Saying that a shorter version of one's own accepted creed is ALSO fully orthodox, is not at all the same thing as saying that one's own accepted (longer) creed is wrong. I'm not aware of anyone (among the current contenders, I mean, not Arians etc) who thought it unorthodox. Why would they? You might as well think that the First Article all by itself is unorthodox. Of course it's not! It's incomplete, but not unorthodox.
The real question is whether 381 can and should replace the Nicene Creed-with-Filioque at all times and places. To the best of my knowledge, that has not been settled--certainly not in the affirmative. And THAT is the real issue between the churches.
I fear you are mistaking a minor point for real movement on the Filioque.
Note to Nick Yes, the World Lutheran Federation, of which the ELCA is a member, formally accepted the Orthodox position just a few years ago, and a resolution to that affect was passed in a recent national assembly. We agreed to include the original Nicene Creed in our next published hymnal.
Thank you.
Other denominations that have or are moving to drop it are: The United Church of Christ; The World Methodist Council and the World Communion of Reformed Churches.
The World Communion of Reformed Churches is not a “denomination,” and while I’m aware that the Filioque is a matter of discussion among some in the WCRC, I am aware of nothing that could accurately be described as the WCRC “moving toward dropping” the Filioque, nor can I find anything reflecting such a move at the WCRC’s website or elsewhere online. In any event, the WCRC could do nothing more than recommend removal of the Filioque to its member churches.
I don't believe I've ever actually read any neutral discussion of the clause: I've read some Orthodox theologians having a sideswipe at it in passing. I'm afraid I don't remember all the objections as they've struck me as looking for reasons to object to something that's rejected on other grounds.
I think the most common objection is that it turns the Trinity into a semi-gnostic hierarchy where the Son is closer to creation than the Father and the Spirit closer still.
I don't believe I've ever actually read any neutral discussion of the clause: I've read some Orthodox theologians having a sideswipe at it in passing. I'm afraid I don't remember all the objections as they've struck me as looking for reasons to object to something that's rejected on other grounds.
I think the most common objection is that it turns the Trinity into a semi-gnostic hierarchy where the Son is closer to creation than the Father and the Spirit closer still.
I'll admit the theological dispute is way over my head, but the ecclesiological dispute seems a simple one - the creed was adopted by an ecumenical council without the filioque. If there is a case for including it that is a matter for an ecumenical council, not a dictat from a single bishop, however senior.
Did the original text as agreed at Nicaea remain 100% unaltered in the East? I seem to remember that it was tinkered with at Constantinople despite it originally being cast in metaphoriacal concrete at Nicaea.
Pope Benedict was known to drop the offending word at ecumenical events when hosting Orthodox.
Did the original text as agreed at Nicaea remain 100% unaltered in the East? I seem to remember that it was tinkered with at Constantinople despite it originally being cast in metaphoriacal concrete at Nicaea.
Pope Benedict was known to drop the offending word at ecumenical events when hosting Orthodox.
The text widely used is indeed the "take 2" Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed rather than the original Nicene version.
But it throws up an interesting question: to what extent is "Christian Unity" predicated on shared doctrine, liturgy/worship style, serving the community ... or what?
But it throws up an interesting question: to what extent is "Christian Unity" predicated on shared doctrine, liturgy/worship style, serving the community ... or what?
I'd be inclined to say 'serving the community' (see Matthew 25 vv31-46).
The very term 'Christian unity' is an all-too-visible oxymoron. Perhaps it should be replaced by 'Christian Action Together' or something...
I could throw in a curved ball by asserting that many evangelicals are weak on the Trinity without realising that they are ...
But that would be naughty.
Just as it would be naughty to suggest that many are Modalists or Nestorians or ...
I could go on. You get the picture. Some Orthodox accuse the 'West' of every ancient Christian heresy under the sun.
I don't 'buy' that necessarily but it's certainly the case that all the old heresies re-emerged in one form or another after the Reformation. Arianism, Sabellianism, Apollinarianism, Socianianism ...
The list goes on. Indeed, the history of many Protestant churches and denominations is one of a constant tussle between orthodox (small o), and heterodox or heretical positions.
The late Douglas McBain whom @Baptist Trainfan knew was pretty good on that within a Baptist context. The Baptists were 'inconsistently orthodox' he averred.
Thankfully, small o orthodoxy prevailed in most settings but it was a close run thing, as indeed it was with the early Church Councils.
Do we need a new thread on the filioque? I'm sure there have been plenty before.
I think the objections to the insertion of the offending clause are primarily political/ecclesial. How dare the Pope ratify its insertion unilaterally? As @Nick Tamen rightly observes.
There are theological implications though, depending on how the clause is understood.
Very briefly, many (most?) Orthodox would say it diminishes and subordinates the Holy Spirit.
Some are less polemical than others on this point.
But no, we ain't going to bargain anything away in return for anyone or everyone else dropping it, I afraid. You can keep your overly Augustinian views on Original Son thank you very much ... 😊
More seriously, I really think it's high time we all sat round a table and thrashed this out once and for all. Same as the differences between the Eastern Orthodox and the Orientals.
Trouble is, once we'd settled those issues we'd only come up with something else to disagree about.
Incidentally, and apologies for the triple post (although I am nothing if not Trinitarian), I've met Orthodox who consider Tom Smail's The Forgotten Father to be a splendiferous work.
It's also the case that some pre-Schism Saints apparently didn't have any issue with the filioque. I think I'm right in thinking that Saint Theodore of Tarsus, a 7th century Archbishop of Canterbury was among them.
As I've said, I think this could all be sorted out if there was a will to do so.
As I've surmised before, theologians and leaders can agree as much as they want, but it means nothing as long as people in the pews think "But I don't like that lot." If it weren't filioque it would be something else. Tribalism is strong which is why joint enterprise is more important than joint agreements.
As I've surmised before, theologians and leaders can agree as much as they want, but it means nothing as long as people in the pews think "But I don't like that lot." If it weren't filioque it would be something else. Tribalism is strong which is why joint enterprise is more important than joint agreements.
This.
The filioque stuff is a dispute about pastry, anyway, isn't it?
From an Orthodox perspective the 'double-procession' implied by the offending clause undermines the 'Monarchy' of the Father as the 'source' of the Son and the Holy Spirit from eternity.
The argument runs that it effectively dilutes it and subverts the essential unity within the Godhead.
John 15:26 is a key text for the Orthodox here.
There is no problem in believing that the Son sends the Holy Spirit in a temporal sense, but not in the eternal sense.
From an Orthodox perspective the clause adds nothing to our understanding- if indeed we can understand these eternal mysteries - but rather confuses things. It can lead to a view of the Holy Spirit as a subservient 'faith force' - as in Star Wars - a view, alas, that I found all too common (not officially) on the charismatic scene, rather than co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Son, One God forever praised, Amen.
Obviously it doesn't necessarily lead to that kind of reductionist view, but it can do so.
Orthodox rigorists and polemicists - of which there are far too many online, stretch things to insist that the Holy Spirit 'withdrew' from the Western Church with all manner of nefarious results.
As you'd expect, I feel that's an extreme view and leads to my friend's assertion that the West forgot about the Holy Spirit entirely and it was as though he did not exist. Some Orthodox argue that the charismatic movement was an over-reaction to the neglect of the Holy Spirit in Western Christianity.
'The Holy Spirit left them but he's always been here with us,' they'd say.
I think this is overstating the case and over-egging the pudding - regardless of whatever pastry it's enclosed in.
I don't for a moment believe that the Holy Spirit took the huff and departed from Western Christianity. I do believe though that an overly Scholastic tendency developed within late medieval Roman Catholicism which in turn entered the DNA of the Reformed Churches and their offspring.
That doesn't mean that I believe the Spirit was entirely 'quenched' by Enlightenment rationalism, the illegitimate by-blow of the Reformation. There was light in the Enlightenment and we all share the benefits of that.
FWIW I do think the filioque clause can lead to theological confusion. It's unnecessary and doesn't help us.
That doesn't mean that I regard those who use it as wicked heretics nor that those independent evangelicals and charismatics who don't 'get' what all the fuss is about are way off beam.
But if we seek to understand these things within the trajectory of historic, creedal Christianity then it's important that we sort these things out.
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 is almost universally recognised by Christian groups which look back to early times of Christianity as a basic statement of Christian belief..The 'filioque' first appeared in official written form in 589A.D. at the Third council of Toledo. The present Catholic teaching,( for .Catholics of the Roman rite,Byzantine rite and others within the community led by the Bishop of Rome),is that the 'filioque' should be accepted but not necessarily recited in liturgical use as it remains a barrier to the profession of a common Christian faith. Pope Paul VI recited in meetings with Orthodox the Creed in its earlier form and of course whole communities of Byzantine rite Catholics and others regularly recite the Creed without the 'filioque'
Most Western Protestant churches deriving from the 16th Century Reformation officially accept the Creed with the 'filioque'.
German Lutheran communities change,however, 'eine heilige katholische Kirche' (one holy Catholic Church) to 'eine heilige christliche Kirche' (one holy Christian church). I don't know if American Lutherans do this
More modern Evangelical churches will generally have a statement of belief which has to be adhered to if one wishes to be a full member of the community. This 'What we believe' may be more rigorously imposed upon those desirous of membership than the ancient Creeds of both East and West.
People recite these words Sunday by Sunday. But do they know what they mean. And how many, I wonder actually believe what they say. This matters because the church is the totality of its members, not just the professionals, and if we are asserting that this is what the Church believes....... @Gamma Gamaliel I am reminded of an anecdote a priest friend used to tell about a man who under instruction with a view to joining the RCC. When it came to the session on God the chap said "I know about God the Father and Jesus his son. So tell me about this other gentleman."
More modern Evangelical churches will generally have a statement of belief which has to be adhered to if one wishes to be a full member of the community. This 'What we believe' may be more rigorously imposed upon those desirous of membership than the ancient Creeds of both East and West.
In view of what @Gamma Gamaliel said upthread, one of the issues facing British Baptists (of the majority Baptist Union) is that we quite specifically do not have a detailed common Statement of Faith, just a simple "Declaration of Principle". The point which is giving trouble today is the one which says, " ... each Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer [Christ's] laws". Quite a few churches have gone in for much more details Statements, many adopting the one promulgated by the Evangelical Alliance.
Incidentally many Baptist churches (and other Nonconformists) became Unitarian in the 18th century. Some but not all later reverted to Trinitarianism.
In one of my favourite books ,written,of course a long time ago, a priest is interviewing a prospective candidate to become a member of the RC Church and explaining to him about the Holy Trinity. He then asked if the prospective convert had understood what he had said. 'Everything' said the young man. '
'And so could you tell me what you mean by 'everything' asked the priest.
'All thon aboot the Holy Spurrit bein' a Greek' replied the young man who was anxious to marry a Catholic shopgirl.
Comments
Yes, I think it has.
Does that mean that ecumenical interaction is on the wane?
Not necessarily. I think it is happening but in a different way.
No disrespect to joint services or inter-church prayer initiatives, but these things can be just as much token gestures as senior clergy signing forms and making declarations.
I'm not sure what form ecumenical dialogue and cooperation should take and imagine it will vary from place to place. I'm not convinced that labelling a particular week as a Week of Prayer for Christian Unity really helps bring that about.
Which isn't to say it's a waste of time. If people forge genuine relationships across traditions and denominations as a result then that's all to the good as it leads to mutual trust, respect and understanding.
Which is great.
But it depends on what we are expecting it to achieve.
That's a possibility for next year, hopefully!
If so, that's unusual in my experience of Anglicans but you can find some sniffy types at both the snake-belly low end and the stratospheric end of the spectrum.
The Orthodox don't tend to go in for 'joint services' I'm afraid although individuals might. Our Holy Week doesn't always coincide with everyone else's - and some Protestant churches barely observe it at all. With the best will in the world our Holy Week is so full-on most of us wouldn't have time to join in with anything else.
Joint services and prayer are one aspect though, there are other ways of collaborating across theological or denominational boundaries.
We need to do what we can.
Nothing has appeared on the notice sheet this year..
Just as a couple of examples, how about fund raising for clean water needs, or medical help for children born with cleft palates? Loads of other examples come to mind so it would seem possible to have a different theme every year. Concrete examples might have more impetus than abstract hope.
I suppose it sounds a bit like the UK's annual Children in Need event which definitely catches the public imagination in this country and has raised loads of money over the decades it's been running. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Getting everyone to agree on what charitable cause or social initiative to support would be an enormous challenge, though.
I've met Christian climate-change deniers who wouldn't support anything environmental.
And full-on evangelicals who wouldn't support anything that wasn't directly to do with mission/evangelism in the 'converting people' sense.
So good luck with that...
There must have been unanimity on the necessity of that.
To be honest, I can't see that many Christians taking issue with that initiative but there're always some awkward-squadders.
Local initiatives are a lot easier to set up than regional or global ones, of course.
A week of prayer for Christian unity? Probably answering an aspiration which is no longer defined in the same terms it once was... so yes, it's probably run its course.
That certainly seems to be true of some C of E benefices, spread out over maybe 10 or 12 separate churches (between each of which is a great gulf fixed, as you imply), although it may be the case in rural areas that other denominations are conspicuous in any case by their sheer absence, their chapels having been closed over a period of many years.
I think you're right about the 1960s/1970s heyday. What happened to the vision of the coming 'Great Church'?
ISTM that the best any church can do, as the sea of faith recedes ever further, is to try to keep the 'rumour of God' alive on its own patch, working with others as far as it can.
The tide of faith has receded before, notably in the C18 when rural churches were allowed to tumble into ruin, while even Kilvert, in the 1870s heyday of rural church/chapel-going, records days when there were only three or four in his congregation.
I tell people that the Christian faith has been in these communities for pretty much 1500 years, and I don't see it disappearing any time soon.
Optimist, moi? Well, possibly, but I'm not sure I'm alone.
Unfortunately, my experience with Week of Prayer for Christian Unity (as well as Women's World Day of Prayer) is consistent with yours. It had been observed locally, in small town and urban settings, with a fair degree of enthusiasm which has waned or vanished.
I think the main driver is the decline in mainline denominations' congregations. Often they barely have energy to sustain themselves, let alone summon up the will to connect with other local churches, and even further off on the horizon are any thoughts of structural unity.
Absolutely, @Gamma Gamaliel . He was so low, he was scarcely an Anglican. No robes, minimal liturgy. Ultra conservative evangelical, non-charismatic, anti most things except his own version of Christianity. 45 people left during his first year in post. He withdrew from all joint community work, eg services in care homes, council prayers, Remembrance day and Good Friday on the market square, children’s holiday club etc.
I watch and wait with interest but I guess the local covenant between the churches will not be reinstated whilst the Anglican church is in vacancy.
Having been a part of several conservative evangelical Anglican churches, what you describe sounds unusually anti-ecumenical even for conservative evangelicals - certainly none I know would want to withdraw from opportunities to be involved in civic events like Remembrance Day and council prayers, and would indeed see them as important evangelistic opportunities. I think it might be more of an, ahem, personal quirk in the case of this vicar.
People were also much more likely to be local to their church, rather than driving from sometimes quite far away to attend a specific denomination or flavour of church.
I agree true unity will never be achieved this side of eternity, but it is still something to strive for.
The PC(USA) does not, and it gets complicated for us as the Nicene Creed—specifically the English Language Liturgical Consultation version with the Filioque—is contained in our Book of Confessions, which is part of our constitution. (Editorial material in the Book of Confessions does highlight the Filioque issue.) To change it would require General Assembly approval to proceed with study and creation of a committee to study and make recommendations on the proposed revision, approval of the proposed amendment by a later General Assembly, ratification by 2/3 of the presbyteries, and then a second approval of the amendment by the next General Assembly.
That’s not to say that couldn’t happen, nor is it to say that a congregation might not decide to use a version that doesn’t contain the Filioque. But the reality is that currently it is the Nicene Creed with the Filioque is what has officially status.
Although I don't believe for one nano-second what some strident Orthodox voices accuse the RCs, and other 'Western' Christians of doing when they recite the creed with the offending clause still in place.
An Orthodox friend said to me the other day that the 'West' had effectively said that the Holy Spirit did not exist by introducing the filioque.
She did back down when I pushed back on that.
Part of me thinks that even if every other church in Christendom, mainline, out-there, in-there or shake-it-all-about-there were to drop the offending clause tomorrow the Orthodox wouldn't be satisfied.
Indeed, I know they wouldn't.
'Great, you've dropped your heretical clause, now what about ...'
I s'pose my view of the filioque clause is that it's rather like our appendix. It serves no useful function and can be ignored unless it's really causing harm, then it needs taking out.
Taking it out as some kind of gesture or simply to please the Orthodox, who'd then find something else to find fault with, isn't going to take us very far - on both sides.
Take it out by all means - and I applaud thise who have done so - bring it on, but if anyime is going to do it then they should do so out of conviction and not simply as kind of ecumenical bargaining counter.
I don't understand why removing the filioque has become the shibboleth that it has. Believing in the filioque does not mean a lack of respect for Christians who disagree, so why is its removal seemingly now expected as just being part and parcel of ecumenical relations with apparently no equivalent move from the Orthodox? It's not like the Orthodox are now being expected to believe in original sin in return or whatever.
Note to Nick Yes, the World Lutheran Federation, of which the ELCA is a member, formally accepted the Orthodox position just a few years ago, and a resolution to that affect was passed in a recent national assembly. We agreed to include the original Nicene Creed in our next published hymnal.
Other denominations that have or are moving to drop it are: The United Church of Christ; The World Methodist Council and the World Communion of Reformed Churches. Can't forget the Anglicans either.
By the way @Gamma Gamaliel since the Vatican document The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the Roman church has accepted the original 381 Creed without the filioque as fully orthodox. I would look for formal recognition of that very soon, considering Leo's ecumenical bent.
However--and this is a big "however"--
Saying that a shorter version of one's own accepted creed is ALSO fully orthodox, is not at all the same thing as saying that one's own accepted (longer) creed is wrong. I'm not aware of anyone (among the current contenders, I mean, not Arians etc) who thought it unorthodox. Why would they? You might as well think that the First Article all by itself is unorthodox. Of course it's not! It's incomplete, but not unorthodox.
The real question is whether 381 can and should replace the Nicene Creed-with-Filioque at all times and places. To the best of my knowledge, that has not been settled--certainly not in the affirmative. And THAT is the real issue between the churches.
I fear you are mistaking a minor point for real movement on the Filioque.
The World Communion of Reformed Churches is not a “denomination,” and while I’m aware that the Filioque is a matter of discussion among some in the WCRC, I am aware of nothing that could accurately be described as the WCRC “moving toward dropping” the Filioque, nor can I find anything reflecting such a move at the WCRC’s website or elsewhere online. In any event, the WCRC could do nothing more than recommend removal of the Filioque to its member churches.
I think the most common objection is that it turns the Trinity into a semi-gnostic hierarchy where the Son is closer to creation than the Father and the Spirit closer still.
I'll admit the theological dispute is way over my head, but the ecclesiological dispute seems a simple one - the creed was adopted by an ecumenical council without the filioque. If there is a case for including it that is a matter for an ecumenical council, not a dictat from a single bishop, however senior.
This. (Although do you remember Tom Smail's book accusing Charismatics who had "rediscovered" the Spirit of then forgetting the Father?)
Pope Benedict was known to drop the offending word at ecumenical events when hosting Orthodox.
The text widely used is indeed the "take 2" Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed rather than the original Nicene version.
I'd be inclined to say 'serving the community' (see Matthew 25 vv31-46).
The very term 'Christian unity' is an all-too-visible oxymoron. Perhaps it should be replaced by 'Christian Action Together' or something...
But that would be naughty.
Just as it would be naughty to suggest that many are Modalists or Nestorians or ...
I could go on. You get the picture. Some Orthodox accuse the 'West' of every ancient Christian heresy under the sun.
I don't 'buy' that necessarily but it's certainly the case that all the old heresies re-emerged in one form or another after the Reformation. Arianism, Sabellianism, Apollinarianism, Socianianism ...
The list goes on. Indeed, the history of many Protestant churches and denominations is one of a constant tussle between orthodox (small o), and heterodox or heretical positions.
The late Douglas McBain whom @Baptist Trainfan knew was pretty good on that within a Baptist context. The Baptists were 'inconsistently orthodox' he averred.
Thankfully, small o orthodoxy prevailed in most settings but it was a close run thing, as indeed it was with the early Church Councils.
Do we need a new thread on the filioque? I'm sure there have been plenty before.
I think the objections to the insertion of the offending clause are primarily political/ecclesial. How dare the Pope ratify its insertion unilaterally? As @Nick Tamen rightly observes.
There are theological implications though, depending on how the clause is understood.
Very briefly, many (most?) Orthodox would say it diminishes and subordinates the Holy Spirit.
Some are less polemical than others on this point.
But no, we ain't going to bargain anything away in return for anyone or everyone else dropping it, I afraid. You can keep your overly Augustinian views on Original Son thank you very much ... 😊
More seriously, I really think it's high time we all sat round a table and thrashed this out once and for all. Same as the differences between the Eastern Orthodox and the Orientals.
Trouble is, once we'd settled those issues we'd only come up with something else to disagree about.
Lord have mercy!
It's also the case that some pre-Schism Saints apparently didn't have any issue with the filioque. I think I'm right in thinking that Saint Theodore of Tarsus, a 7th century Archbishop of Canterbury was among them.
As I've said, I think this could all be sorted out if there was a will to do so.
But what do I know?
This.
The filioque stuff is a dispute about pastry, anyway, isn't it?
But other varieties are available...
From an Orthodox perspective the 'double-procession' implied by the offending clause undermines the 'Monarchy' of the Father as the 'source' of the Son and the Holy Spirit from eternity.
The argument runs that it effectively dilutes it and subverts the essential unity within the Godhead.
John 15:26 is a key text for the Orthodox here.
There is no problem in believing that the Son sends the Holy Spirit in a temporal sense, but not in the eternal sense.
From an Orthodox perspective the clause adds nothing to our understanding- if indeed we can understand these eternal mysteries - but rather confuses things. It can lead to a view of the Holy Spirit as a subservient 'faith force' - as in Star Wars - a view, alas, that I found all too common (not officially) on the charismatic scene, rather than co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Son, One God forever praised, Amen.
Obviously it doesn't necessarily lead to that kind of reductionist view, but it can do so.
Orthodox rigorists and polemicists - of which there are far too many online, stretch things to insist that the Holy Spirit 'withdrew' from the Western Church with all manner of nefarious results.
As you'd expect, I feel that's an extreme view and leads to my friend's assertion that the West forgot about the Holy Spirit entirely and it was as though he did not exist. Some Orthodox argue that the charismatic movement was an over-reaction to the neglect of the Holy Spirit in Western Christianity.
'The Holy Spirit left them but he's always been here with us,' they'd say.
I think this is overstating the case and over-egging the pudding - regardless of whatever pastry it's enclosed in.
I don't for a moment believe that the Holy Spirit took the huff and departed from Western Christianity. I do believe though that an overly Scholastic tendency developed within late medieval Roman Catholicism which in turn entered the DNA of the Reformed Churches and their offspring.
That doesn't mean that I believe the Spirit was entirely 'quenched' by Enlightenment rationalism, the illegitimate by-blow of the Reformation. There was light in the Enlightenment and we all share the benefits of that.
FWIW I do think the filioque clause can lead to theological confusion. It's unnecessary and doesn't help us.
That doesn't mean that I regard those who use it as wicked heretics nor that those independent evangelicals and charismatics who don't 'get' what all the fuss is about are way off beam.
But if we seek to understand these things within the trajectory of historic, creedal Christianity then it's important that we sort these things out.
Just sayin'.
Most Western Protestant churches deriving from the 16th Century Reformation officially accept the Creed with the 'filioque'.
German Lutheran communities change,however, 'eine heilige katholische Kirche' (one holy Catholic Church) to 'eine heilige christliche Kirche' (one holy Christian church). I don't know if American Lutherans do this
More modern Evangelical churches will generally have a statement of belief which has to be adhered to if one wishes to be a full member of the community. This 'What we believe' may be more rigorously imposed upon those desirous of membership than the ancient Creeds of both East and West.
@Gamma Gamaliel I am reminded of an anecdote a priest friend used to tell about a man who under instruction with a view to joining the RCC. When it came to the session on God the chap said "I know about God the Father and Jesus his son. So tell me about this other gentleman."
Incidentally many Baptist churches (and other Nonconformists) became Unitarian in the 18th century. Some but not all later reverted to Trinitarianism.
'And so could you tell me what you mean by 'everything' asked the priest.
'All thon aboot the Holy Spurrit bein' a Greek' replied the young man who was anxious to marry a Catholic shopgirl.
A monk once told me he'd come across rural Greeks who thought you couldn't be a Christian at all unless you were Greek.