the singularity of being and nothingness
Thoughts on Christian Ecumenism
Well, Ive been back in the blogosphere for about a full month now following my extended leave of absence. Over this month, I have visited a lot of blogs and have had many interesting conversations with individuals of varying theological backgrounds.
I would have to say that one of the most disturbing things I have seen is the tremendous ferocity with which many reject ecumenism within Christianity. This experience has corroborated other encounters I have had outside of cyberspace, as well.
To begin, I am not Roman Catholic, nor do I consider myself to be an apologist for Roman Catholocism. I say this because what I am about to say will be a bit harsh toward Protestants (which I am) and Orthodox. While I know that my personal experiences on this issue are not an exhaustive nor completely accurate rendering of all the issues involved, my experience is what I would like to talk about. Since this is my blog, here we go.
Concerning Protestantism, my experience has been that particularly in the non-mainline traditions, there is a deep-seated distrust of Roman Catholicism and a virtual ignorance about the very existence of Eastern Orthodoxy. The vitriol against RCism is, of course, complicated. For example, in many non-mainline Protestant traditions, there is a uneasiness and often complete disavowal of anything liturgical (in a ritualistic sense). Therefore, as RCism embodies liturgical worship to the Nth degree, the entire tradition is branded with the abhorrence these traditions hold for ritual and liturgy. Another example might be the significant clash in sacramental theology between the two. RCism has a very definite, salvific understanding of the sacraments while most non-mainline do not, preferring a Zwinglian, symbolic view. This difference, fostered by misunderstanding, is often construed by the Protestants as a clash between faith and works, and the former is dismissively rejected on the basis of what amounts to mostly rhetoric, rather than a meaningful attempt to understand. These are just two examples of the incredible divide: there are hundreds of others. But what occurs in the multiplication of these reasons is that Christian unity is fractured, if not irrevocably destroyed.
Now for awhile, I had hopes for Eastern Orthodoxy. During my conversations on christianforums.com, I met many Eastern Orthodox who seemed very open to the idea of ecumenism in general. However, in my own backyard I have met individuals who, upon being cathechized in the Orthodox church, speak very strenuously against the Roman Catholic Church and giggle under their breath about Protestantism.
Now in opposition to both of these perspectives, I must say that my experience with Roman Catholicism is that it seems the most open to Christian ecumenism. A quick perusal of the literature being produced within Catholicism today will reveal this openness as Catholic scholars engage in meaningful ways with Protestant (and Orthodox) literature. Concerning the Eucharist, the Catholic Church will allow those chrismated in the Orthodox Church to partake of the consecrated host (even though the Orthodox will not allow their members to participate). And in practice, there have been significant works of collaboration and mutual discussion between the Catholic Church and several mainline Protestant denominations, particularly the Anglican communion. Obviously, the move towards ecumenism, on Catholicisms part, is no blind rush to homogeneity, nor is it without condition. However, it has been my experience that Roman Catholicism seems to be the most open to an ecumenical alliance with the rest of Christendom.
All right, so there is a brief recounting of my understanding of issues involved. I realize that it is probably inaccurate at points, and is certainly not an exhaustive treatment of all the nuances and considerations that must be taken into account when analyzing the state of ecumenism throughout the Christian faith. So the reader may take my tentative conclusions for whatever they deem such experiences to be worth.
As I think about those that reject ecumenism outright, I become very disturbed. Throughout the history of the Christian faith, the slogan of old has been one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Underlying this simple phrase is a rich and profound theological affirmation of the unity of Christian faith. Notice it does not say, one Lord, one organization, one baptism. No, as Christian faith is based upon a shared commitment to the Lordship of Christ, the unity proscribed is not political; it is composed of spirit. Therefore, I do not have a problem with different political/structural arrangements within the Christian church. Given the differences in social circumstances, geographical considerations, cultural understandings, etc., these differences in politico/social arrangement might actually be helpful.
However, if one listens to the rhetoric which has become the currency of the three legs of Christianity, it is clear that the differences run much deeper than politics. Rather, the divide occurs on the level of spirit. But if this is true, it is possible to maintain the one Lord, one faith, one baptism philosophy of the ancient church? I would argue that the answer is no. Each side insists on preserving its share of exclusivity, cordoning itself off from the others through the rhetoric of true church. However, given the divide in spirit that exists, the deployment of this type of language is no mere rhetoric. Rather, it draws power from the exclusivism and elitism that is propogated, embodying the underlying belief that there are not actually 3 legs to Christianity at all. Rather, the language of exclusivism and elitism merely reveals that its promulgators believe that Christianity is encumbered by two wooden legs that should be rightly cut off and thrown into the fire so that the true leg might be untainted from their wooden influence.
Growing up, I remember having the distinct impression that Roman Catholics were objects of missionary activity, that they, like all other unbelievers, were somehow separated from relationship with Christ and in need of conversion. But upon what basis is this audacious claim made? Do not all 3 legs hold to the orthodoxy of the ancient, ecumenical church? Yet if this orthodoxy is not precise enough of a threshold determiner, then what become the further criteria? If unity cannot be found rooted in the ancient spirit of the Church embodied in the ecumenical creeds and councils, the determination must proceed from ever narrower qualifications which eventually terminate in the personal subjectivities of individual denominations, parishes, or even individuals.
I realize that many will not agree. I know that opinions are strong, and many feel very strongly about the exclusivism of the traditions to which they belong. However, there must come a point when we deliberately move beyond the personal prejudices which have been ingrained in us. I use the word deliberately because change and ecumenism do not come automatically, nor easily. There are many who have very strong vested interests in maintaining the divide to the destruction of the unity of the church. Yet unity is what we must seek, it must become that for which we fervently and incessantly pursue. Until then, the churchs mission in the world will remain in the nascent, nearly abortive stage of the contemporary situation. Without unity, the church will perpetually delay the fullness of the revelation of the kingdom of God in its midst.
As participation within the history of Gods salvation is the churchs ultimate goal, the only way forward is deliberate movements of ecumenism. True enough, the change will be slow, hard and will involve the setting aside of deeply rooted, yet misapplied beliefs. The beauty of ecumenism, however, is that in this movement of change, growth, pain and loss, healing, restoration and redemption are waiting in the wing
s. When the bride is matured and fully restored, her lover shall receiver her with rapture, mending all wounds, ushering her into the Shalom of the Father. In this eschatological fantasy, all theological difference and discord shall fall aside as we stand together, one body, united in embrace as we are ourselves embraced by the salvation and eternal love of the Trinue God.
Print article | This entry was posted by existdissolve on June 17, 2007 at 12:06 pm, and is filed under Theology. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about -1917 years ago
Are you promulgating that the Roman Catholic church is part of the Body of Christ, Exist?
about -1917 years ago
Yes, of course.
about -1917 years ago
I guess we will have to agree to disagree…
about -1917 years ago
Do you have an instant messenger, Exist?
about -1917 years ago
Yes–
depthdeception@hotmail.com
about -1917 years ago
Yahoo or what?
about -1917 years ago
sorry–
MSN Messenger
about -1917 years ago
Blasted..ok I have that too…
about -1917 years ago
Scribe- what reasons would there be to assert that the RCC is not a part of the Body of Christ? It seems that the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate that it is not- Exist has given some compelling reasons to think that they are. After all, as Exist mentioned, if they affirm the same creedal beliefs that Protestants do (i.e., the Ecumenical Councils) then your line of demarcation drifts perilously into the realm of personal subjectivity.
Think about it- Protestants, as loathe as they generally seem to be to affirm the authority of anything other than the Bible, actually do, by virtue of maintaining historic beliefs such as the Trinity, the nature of Christ, etc., which are not explicitly taught in the Bible but rather laid out by the councils, and thus assent to an over-arching authority of at least the first seven ecumenical councils to codify what constitutes essential Christian beliefs; that is, what makes a Christan a Christian. The RCC vigourously holds to these very same beliefs, thus at least historically falling under the definition of what a Christian, and by extension, the Body of Christ is.
You may object that the RCC has ‘added’ other dogmas to what is held in common- however, the same charge could be levied against Protestantism. After all, ‘sola fide’ is not explicitly taught in the Scriptures (in fact, James specifically denounces it.) and neither is ‘sola scriptura’; nor do these two ‘dogmas’ of Protestantism find their legitimacy through any ecumenical council, yet it is these two distinctives (amongst others) that Protestants feel constitutes what is a Christian and what is the Body of Christ, despite the fact that there is no historical mandate for either of them.
Lastly, since neither of these two distinctives are legitmatized by any ecumenical council, and by the very fact that most Protestants object to the authority of anything other than one’s personal subjectivity to interpret the scriptures and Christian tradition, to make either the beiginning of defining what makes a Christian and the body of Christ, as Protestantism does, is to relegate what Protestantism perceives to be the most important doctrines into the realm of personal opinion. It is obvious, however, that Protestantism in general realizes this, since almost every segment of Protestantism has developed its own creed or confession in an attempt to circumvent the obvious ramifications of its own philosophical approach to faith and belief, even though by doing so it undermines its very philosophical approach to faith and belief.
about -1917 years ago
Personal subjectivity, huh? I must have rubbed the “cat’s” fur the wrong way…I am not about to spam Exist’s blog you can e-mail your complaints to me.
“stands victorious over the bodies of his foes” *shakes his head, chuckles then yawns…*
about -1917 years ago
“Yet unity is what we must seek, it must become that for which we fervently and incessantly pursue.”
I agree unity is a commendable goal for the Church, but it must never usurp truth, in regards to core beliefs, as the prima facie objective.
about -1917 years ago
I agree unity is a commendable goal for the Church, but it must never usurp truth, in regards to core beliefs, as the prima facie objective.
You are right that unity must be pursued at the expense of the Church’s historic and fundamental beliefs. That is why I would suggest that the shared orthodoxy of Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox provides a criterion that is wide and inclusive enough for each without compromising the historic faith of the church.
about -1917 years ago
Scribe-
Personal subjectivity, huh? I must have rubbed the “cat’s” fur the wrong way…
I’m not sure what you mean or are getting at…I was simply making a point.
I am not about to spam Exist’s blog you can e-mail your complaints to me.
Again, I’m not sure what you mean. Knowing Exist as well as I do, I’m sure he’d have no problem with having the discussion here.
If I had your email, I would be happy to email you.
about -1917 years ago
Deviant Monk-
“I’m not sure what you mean or are getting at…I was simply making a point.”
I’ve put forth my point and you have done likewise-at this point we just disagree…
swordofjehu@hotmail.com
about -1917 years ago
exist-
I consider myself a protestant reformer to some degree (read my response to your “origin of evil” piece to perceive the measure of that degree), & therefore I am at odds with some your views. But I also agree with you that whilst we sort through such weighty matters of truth we should remember that the key to eternal life, a bond with Jesus Christ, is not inevitably relinquished if we retain a poor eschatological understanding of the lesser points.
For example, I would differ with anyone who considers the sacraments to be something more than a constant memorial of Christs saving work, but I would never consider a transubstantiationalist to be outside the fellowship for such a credo. This belief, though to me both fallacious & a bit fanciful in origin, does not of necessity differentiate saved from unsaved. Let us all thank God we dont have to perfect our doctrine in to receive eternal life, for none would make it were that a requirement.
about -1917 years ago
Well Exist, this will be a nice discussion for you all to have in Hell with everyone else who does not attend my church. I’m with scride, this is a waste of time!!! Harrumph!
about -1917 years ago
filthyfigleaf-
For example, I would differ with anyone who considers the sacraments to be something more than a constant memorial of Christs saving work, but I would never consider a transubstantiationalist to be outside the fellowship for such a credo.
It’s unfortunate that many other Protestants don’t share your sense of charity.