The Ecumenical Movement: Undoing Devision

[This Baron of Mora]

Most of you (or perhaps I am wrong) have heard of the Ecumenical Movement, though you may not know much about it. In short it is the movement to undo the Reformation and other schism and bring the Church back together, or rather, to attempt to reverse the intolerable division of Christianity into 'denominations'.

Now on to my main subject (in question answer dialogue format):

If I were to ask you what the biggest 'break' in doctrine between Catholic and Protestant in the Reformation was what would you say?

Why the answer is simple, stated by Luther himself: The Doctrine of the Justification of Faith.

Catholic/Orthodox Side: Justification by Good-works
Protestant Side: Justification by Faith Alone

But what if the issue was resolved?

It doesn't matter, it's impossible, the *insert Church here* will never compromise or see the Truth.

You are correct, the Church will not compromise what it says is the Truth (unless they are nihilists, but anyway), but what if the Church agreed on what they believed as being correct, not compromising but agreeing?

Impossible.

Wrong, in fact they already have.
In fact they did quite some time ago, though it only reached my ears fairly recently. Such an agreement (not a compromise) was openly declared in 1999, not only that, it was signed in Augsburg on Oct. 31 the date annually celebrated as Reformation Day in the various Protestant churches. .

Someone must have compromised, how can there be agreement on such different view as the nature of salvation itself, one by faith, one by works?

Because the two positions, though expressed quite differently on a base level, mean effectively the same thing, I quote this idea:
"the same truth may be expressed in different traditions in diverse forms without that necessarily implying diversity in faith. Differences in expression are not necessarily contradictory or mutually exclusive. Of course, the theological dialogue and then the churches concerned have to discern when this is the case. Diversity of expression may enrich faith understanding. It may also, however, wound unity and divide Christians. "

Alright, enough with that, here are the details:

The agreement is called the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, it was indeed signed in Augsburg to symbolically show then reunification in at least one of the things that separate us, the Church of Christ. On that day two parties signed, one was the Roman Catholic Church and the other was the World Lutheran Federation (the body the collectively represents all Lutheran Churches Ecumenically). Later in 2006 the World Methodist Council (the body collectively representing the Methodists) agreed to the document.

This document (to sum up) I quote:
"The joint declaration is not a new confessional statement nor is it a compromise document. It seeks to summarize the results of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue on this doctrine over a period of some 30 years by stating what each community holds as its faith in basic truths of this doctrine and showing that the two explications of these basic truths are not contrary one to the other."
I won't go further, you can read up on it either in summary or the full document (its fairly long).

So why does this matter?

A great deal of this can be assumed but in general it is quite simple, we here are Christians and that means that we were on one 'side' or another of this division and may alas still think we are, but the fact is that the two sides no longer take issue with each other. “It’s of enormous importance because it is the first point of conflict of the unfolding of the breakup of the Western church..." Thank God, the Church is one step closer to becoming one again.

Links:

Methodist Church article, possibly the best brief perspective with a video: www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=5502381&ct=7536733#.Um8cEPUlhHo

A good run-down of the whole thing, includes the events leading up to it and contents, written by the Catholic Cardinal who signed it in Augsburg: www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1334

The full document (bump! bump! bum!):
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Wikipedia (now a resource for theology apparently):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Declaration_on_the_Doctrine_of_Justification

[metalikhan]

Over the course of this last year, I attended the classes for confirmation in the Catholic faith, and some of the classes included discussions about the misconceptions that led to the Reformation division. Lively discussions -- some of us were coming from various Protestant denominations and non-denominations. (Added bonus: the priest conducting the instruction was not a cradle Catholic – he grew up attending Catholic Mass followed by Baptist Sunday School & services – so he knew where we were coming from in our discussions and questions.)

But what the division boiled down to was this: at the most basic level, each side argued from the point of disparate meaning or senses of terms rather true doctrinal differences.

Justification by Faith – when Luther said we are saved by faith alone, he used salvation as the initial step of being put right with God. When the Catholic Church said we are saved by good works as well as faith, the usage of salvation encompassed the whole process of God bringing us to our eternal destiny: being put right with Him, growing in our walk with Him, and the outpouring of good works reflecting what He is accomplishing within us. I found it interesting that this was often referred to as "on-going conversion" but it's simply another way of describing the daily renewal and growth in our life, the application and expression of faith.

Oversimplified, one was arguing about how to enter heaven and God's presence, the other about how to grow and live in Him as well as accepting Christ's atonement for us.

Yes, there are Catholics who don't understand works alone can't get anyone to heaven; I've seen variations on that theme among the Protestants, too. (Possibly the most insidious version is that in which a person's salvation and faith is called into question by the amount of stuff they have and the trials they face -- prosperity gospel.)

But the foundational beliefs of Protestant and Catholic alike are that Christ died and resurrected, atoned for our sin, brought us back into relationship with the Father, and sent the Holy Spirit to comfort and guide us in this life.

[Christian Soldier]

If I may weigh in here. We don't want the church to be one again. No, no Protestants or Catholics, but Christians. Simply put, when the dark times come, it will be easy to eliminate or subvert a single church, but thousands of independent churches can never be stamped out. It's the difference between the starfish and the spider. To take out a Spider type organization, just kill the spider. With a starfish.. well... you cut off an arm, and now you have two starfish. Cut off the "head", and now your have another one. You must completely eradicate the entire body in order to kill just one. Oh, and there's a whole bunch more.

Should we stand as one, together? Absolutely. Should be bond into a single church. No.

[fluke]

I'm in complete agreement with CS. I hadn't thought of it that way, but he's correct.

I was also discussing reunification with a dear catholic friend of mine a few years back. He's solidly against it. "Because people are different. There are people who would never respond to God's call in a Catholic church, but if they were in a Methodist church, and heard the Gospel presented the way Methodists do, they'd respond and get saved."

[Christian Soldier]

That's a great point, Frank! WHen we try and cram the gospel into the trappings of a single denomination, you run into the problem that the people that that denomination serves would not respond to teh Gospel as presented by the Catholic Church, or Southern Baptist Convention, or any other denomination. In addition, some people do not respond to rituals and dogma very well, thus preventing them from being able to truly worship in denominations that practice them.

[This Baron of Mora]

Nov 8, 2013 1:32:22 GMT -5 Christian Soldier said:

If I may weigh in here. We don't want the church to be one again. No, no Protestants or Catholics, but Christians. Simply put, when the dark times come, it will be easy to eliminate or subvert a single church, but thousands of independent churches can never be stamped out. It's the difference between the starfish and the spider. To take out a Spider type organization, just kill the spider. With a starfish.. well... you cut off an arm, and now you have two starfish. Cut off the "head", and now your have another one. You must completely eradicate the entire body in order to kill just one. Oh, and there's a whole bunch more.

Should we stand as one, together? Absolutely. Should be bond into a single church. No.

I fervently disagree, while your analogy is technically true that doesn't necessarily mean that it is true in context. Rather, and I think this is more realistic, a thousand different churches is like a terrible weakness, each can be individually attacked and defeated and it they can also be attacked as a single group in a general anti-Christian way. The idea of a single Church is the way of strength, one united organization, a united front. Moreover, the idea of a divided Church is not Biblical, the New Testament and the works of the early Church fathers show a clearly united Christendom. Whether the Apostles working together and the founding of the Church from the day of Pentecost, the councils, the creeds, the organization, etc. and the title given to the Church by Jesus 'the bride of Christ' (or before hand in Song of Songs).
Your reasoning behind the starfish/spider is also flawed in my opinion, the covenant God has given the world is that so long as we remain faithful to Him He will keep up his end of the deal, the spider will not be crushed. Those who remain faithful to the end will be saved and a single rock will stay firm on its foundation, the sand will blow away. This also simplifies what a unified Church would be like, though it is committed to God and a common mission, the Church is a dynamic union of paradoxical sides, you cannot kill off the Church. The early Church (which was one) suffered great persecution, they survived the ordeal, you can kill a hundred Peters but they just become maryrs, the Church is so complex it is impossible to be squashed. Even divided this is true, when Napoleon captured either the Pope or a Cardinal (I'm not sure) from Rome he said something to the affect of "I will destroy the Church" to which the other responded: "Hah! The Priest and Bishops have been trying to do that for centuries, if we cannot do so, surely you cannot either." So the Church can be a 'starfish' even better when unified since though each part may be different, it makes up a united whole. If divided the 'part' would not actually regrow the Church it would remain a part and it would be weaker than the whole. So then, the divided Church is like a forest of saplings each easily severed from the forest, the united Church is the forest, or rather, a tree the size of the whole forest.

Fluke naturally makes a good point, it ruffly runs along the lines of something you are hearing more frequently (which is part of the Ecumenical Movement) along the lines of "I've found I have a lot more in common with a hard-nose ______ than a wishy-washy _______." Whether Anglicans, Catholics, or whomever there is often some formal/informal statement concerning how there are great God-fearing people everywhere, in the end though it is about proximity to the truth, obviously opposing views of the same theology means someone is wrong, and the goal of the Ecumenical Movement and the ideal of a reunified Church is that all Christians will be as close as our sinful nature allows.
In the end, a Christian should not go 'shopping' for a denomination (of which I am somewhat guilty), he should see the truth before him as a single option. But I never spoke about what a reunified Church would look like, indeed I doubt anyone could imagine quite how it would look, but I think perhaps the best real world example is the 'Uniate' Churches, or Eastern Catholic Churches, these help show the great diversity in Christendom that can sit under one roof (so to speak), one would hardily think a Maronite was at all like a Latin, nearly as far as a Methodist from a Calvinist or a Pentecostal, they seem very different in how they worship God, but they can both do so while proclaiming themselves in full communion and brothers in faith with no errors of doctrine on either side. As said the Church is very dynamic, crusaders and monks seem nothing alike, but both have won over the hearts of men to God, the Church does not need to be divided to guide vastly different men to the same Origo.
Remember, the Church is universal.

[This Baron of Mora]

Or, to address you last comment better, if we ask the question WWJD? to the question of the Gospel there is really only one answer about what i truly means. Naturally it can be presented in different ways, but that requires different people, not different Churches (crusader, monk example).

Also, your comment about some people not excepting dogma is true, but is remains an essential component of Christianity, God is a dogma, or rather all dogmas, since God is the Truth and is unwavering to the ways of man. To deny dogma from Christianity is to end up with Unitarians, who are no longer Christians technically, and, simply put, these people do accept one dogma in all things, themselves.

[rjj7]

The division of the church has had one very detrimental effect which is frequently overlooked: No one knows what is meant by "Christian" anymore. Walk up to an unbeliever and say "I am a Christian", and he won't know whether you mean "I believe in helping the poor" or "I don't like homosexuals" or "I like getting emotional every Sunday".

I also agree with Baron of Mora, with respect to the unification of the church in the New Testament. It most certainly was unified, and one could make the argument that Paul's rebuke of following men in the early chapters of I Corinthians could be extended to denominations. If it is a sin to say "I am a follower of Paul", is it not also a sin to say "I am a [insert denomination here]"?

Because people are different. There are people who would never respond to God's call in a Catholic church, but if they were in a Methodist church, and heard the Gospel presented the way Methodists do, they'd respond and get saved.

If I may cite I Corinthians again, Paul makes it very clear that our skill with words is completely irrelevant to our effectiveness as a preacher. It is God, and God alone, who can change hearts. The argument presented here is saying that if we can just present the gospel in the right way to a person, that they will be saved. To which I say that the power of the gospel is inherent in the gospel, and that the only way we can improve our presentation is to continue to strip away our own ideas and simply present Jesus Christ, and him crucified. Different denominations should have nothing to do with it.

In addition, some people do not respond to rituals and dogma very well, thus preventing them from being able to truly worship in denominations that practice them.

Off-topic, but worship is not one of the purposes of the weekly gathering. The purpose of the gathering is the edification of the saints; not a single Bible verse commands believers to gather in order to worship.


Also, with the spread of different denominations, you run into a certain problem.

[Christian Soldier]

I'm sorry, but the epistles of Paul were written precisely due to the numerous churches expressing themselves differently and, in some cases, wrongly. After all, the churches in Jerusalem didn't want to even speak to the churches from the outlying areas for a protracted period of time because they were uncircumcised. This division wasn't so much healed as it was forced closed by the surviving disciples, Peter among them. In later years, the church in Jerusalem's importance would fade and the church or Rome gained prominence. However, none of them considered themselves to be a single church until many years later, when the first Bishop was appointed, and even then, splinter churches were everywhere. It wasn't until Constantine that the decrees from Rome became enforced, both by Roman centurions and the Church itself. Mind you, there were all sorts of heresies going on at this time, and many of the outlying churches were practicing these, worship of the saints, Mary, and other figures, gnosticism, etc, but not all by any means.

Back to the first argument. Size and strength are not the same. Christians tend to bond together when we need to to protect each other. And, because of this, multiple churches will, in the end, be stronger than a single church, as there will not be a single place to strike. When I was a soldier, I would have loved it if my enemy had put on a single uniform and fought me as one, but they didn't, and it made stomping them out altogether impossible. This is what made Christianity strong during the bad times prior to Constantine. We stood on our own, but together, too, becoming stronger in our individuality than we could ever have been as a single whole.

This is what makes our God incredible: He isn't the god of one thing, or another, of one country, one nationality, one church. He is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Geary, of Frank, of you, and of me. He is our God both together and individually. He is the one who spread us so, using the trials of life to force His children to spread us out, spread the word, and start their own churches, in their own communities, each with the message tailored, by Him, to the specific area. And you lose that when you force everyone to sing the same song(metaphorically).

Yes, we end up with different standards, more standards, and new standards to replace the old ones while leaving the old ones in place. I get that, but the difference between what the comic refers to and Christianity is that we have a single standard that the others are based on or added to. This is the framework of how the churches interlink together and provide one major faiths set to which all agree.

We all agree that Jesus Christ is the only way into Heaven, that faith is how you obtain salvation, and it is through His sacrifice that we are able to do all this. And, perhaps, this is where the disconnect is. In that way, we already are one Church, regardless of worship, preaching styles, and church structure. Sure, some churches aren't in the fold and disagree with that statement. They aren't Christian, and that is fine.

One final point concerning message. Yes, many different people have different views of what Christian is. You can't blame the church structure for how people view Christians. We are the only ones to blame for that, and who can blame them for it? Look at how we treat outsides? We expect a person to be perfect before they even set foot in the church. If they aren't we tend to run them off. The pressure to be perfect is so high that most Christians put on false face when going to Church or being around their Church friends, creating an atmosphere of distrust and an inability to share the real trials that plague us.

It's easy to share what is happening to us, but not what is happening inside of us.

So yeah, most people see Christians as being unloving, intolerant, vicious, and cruel. Sadly, they are right. This view typically comes from the few Christians that they encounter. Christians hurt too, Christians have issues and problems, addictions and worries. Christians struggle to love just like everyone else, but we try so hard to be perfect, and to hide ourselves. No wonder we seem so fake.. we are!

So rather than a single church, we should be moving for a Faith movement. Maybe we should be encouraging our brethren to drop the masks and be genuine, to own up to our struggles and worries and share our sins with each other and the world, just as Jesus told us to. Perhaps we should stop being Sunday Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, etc, and be Christians all the time who attend those styles of church and worship. You want a single church, but let's concentrate our energies on being a single faith with many outlets, expressions, ways of looking at the world.

[This Baron of Mora]

Thank you rjj7 for a much less convoluted back-up to my statement and the excellent points.

Overall Christian Soldier I think your desire for a 'common Faith' is awfully close to a single Church, so I am not sure why you are so against a unified Church. The Church is the Bride of Christ, thus a 'single Faith' is what the Church is meant to be, a single Church is a single faith.

the epistles of Paul were written precisely due to the numerous churches expressing themselves differently and, in some cases, wrongly

Concerning the Epistles of Paul, these are proof of Church unity. Now, naturally since the Classical World was much more 'spread out', in that travel was much lengthier, it was a looser unity, but it was still united. A good comparison might be the Old West/the Frontier. The 'new settlements' (communities of believers) were isolated but that doesn't mean they weren't 'American' (Christians), naturally being distant however they might drift from 'the law' (the Word and law of God) but a string letter will sure set them straight.

none of them considered themselves to be a single church until many years later, when the first Bishop was appointed

Not sure where you get the first part of this, but Bishops were an early occurrence meant for the very reason to strengthen unity as the successors of the Apostles. James was the leader of Jerusalem (the term Bishop only would appear after the deaths of the Apostles just after 100 AD but for convenience we will extend the term to the early fathers). Mark was Bishop of Alexandria (and the Pope of the Coptic Church is the continuation of this position today), Peter was held to be the Bishop of Antioch and later of Rome, more and more. This eventually relates back to the previous section since Timothy is made an overseer (Bishop, in effect) at Ephesus, Titus in Crete, etc. thus there is a clearly established system of overseeing each congregation (or there would have been WAY more Epistles) to make sure they remain true to the faith/Church.

Christians tend to bond together when we need to to protect each other.

Hence the Ecumenical Movement.

And, because of this, multiple churches will, in the end, be stronger than a single church, as there will not be a single place to strike.

But a unified Church is not like one giant city and the divided Church hundreds of villages. The Church is everywhere (even when divided), when the Communists attacked the Eastern Catholic Churches they retreated their 'hierarchy' outside of the country, where, protected by the Western brethren and followers elsewhere, they eventually reentered the country. Besides you proposed 'single Faith' is just as susceptible to a 'united attack' since it is all Christian. Just look at secularization, the divided Church cannot withstand this as well as a united one would, hence why only 1.5% of the population of the UK attend a Anglican Church on Sunday (2% attend a Catholic Church), hence why the Ecumenical Movement seeks to resolve this.

This is what made Christianity strong during the bad times prior to Constantine. We stood on our own, but together, too, becoming stronger in our individuality than we could ever have been as a single whole.

Have you ever read the book Things Fall Apart? It actually a fictional story taking place in Nigeria during colonization but the efforts of the Church (embracing outcasts, rescuing abandoned children, taking an unwavering stand) is how I picture the early Church. In both instances they are facing Pagans/hostile religions who want to kill them but somehow (God's grace) they manage to remain strong and even strengthen. Mr. Kanga (I think) is a Nigerian who leads the local Church and his efforts greatly parallel Paul's, it is clear that unity is the most important.

We all agree that Jesus Christ is the only way into Heaven, that faith is how you obtain salvation, and it is through His sacrifice that we are able to do all this.

So basically the Apostles Creed which was formed to prevent heresy and create unity.

And, perhaps, this is where the disconnect is. In that way, we already are one Church, regardless of worship, preaching styles, and church structure. Sure, some churches aren't in the fold and disagree with that statement. They aren't Christian, and that is fine.

This is ruffly what I said with the "I find I have a lot more in common with a hard-nose ___ than a wishy-washy _____" but I also said proximity to truth crucial. There are great God-fearing people in many denominations, and most honest Christians accept this (i.e. Catholics acknowledge baptisms but consider them estranged brethren of sorts, Calvinist critiques the Anglican Church but admits there are good Christians in it, Methodist Church recognizes the Eucharist of Lutherans). I'll stop there.

many different people have different views of what Christian is...So yeah, most people see Christians as being unloving, intolerant, vicious, and cruel. Sadly, they are right.

This section somewhat confused me since I think you might have missed a word in one of the sentences to contradict itself, but anyway. To be fully honest, I am sort of sick of the standard (and general Evangelical, hence why I cringe when my pastors bring it up sometimes) "I can tell you have been hurt by a Christian before but they weren't a very good Christian". I admit I shouldn't dislike that, it is technically true, but lets face Christians have always been skrew-ups because we are sinners to, in fact this proves our dogma that the world is fallen,, like the Pardoner in Canterbury Tales. (Well I said just about nothing here, but for the interest of time I am cutting off).

So rather than a single church, we should be moving for a Faith movement... let's concentrate our energies on being a single faith with many outlets, expressions, ways of looking at the world.

You are right in a general sense, but how in the world would you reunite a Faith without reuniting a Church? Being divided means division, division means mean incompatibility, incompatibility means disunity and fighting. A single Church is essential to a single and united faith. Recall my previous statement about how a reunified Church would look, we have no good idea, but the closest thing I can imagine is (as was the early Church with the different rites) not a single uniform thing but a complex, intricate, unparalleled organization that is the Bride of Christ.

But my main curiosity is this, what is so wrong about a unified Church (a complex one of course, as stated)? Do you think that a single body would restrict yourself?

All the best, and God bless,

[lexkx]

There is a big difference between the unity of the spirit and the unity of an organization. Faith is such a personal thing, which tends to grow out of personal experiences with God, that to pull people with different thoughts together into a "unified church" isn't something that would last long. The moment another person had a thought, and a strong enough one to pull any weight, there would be divisions. God is big enough to handle people who love and follow Him where they don't get along with each other. To think that any group of two or more people can do that without the Holy Spirit doing the unity is...short-sighted, perhaps, would be a good word for it. And because God calls different people to different ministries and/or understandings--because, let's face it, we can't handle the complete scope of Him--a unified church is unlikely to be productive for him. Be unified in the spirit, and let the headship of Christ govern how we work together and separately. We're not called "the body of Christ" for nothing. The hand does not understand the heart's job, nor could the heart do what the foot must, and there is even a place and a need for our private and less noble parts. But if we're truly under Christ's rule, we should first serve Him, and then celebrate working with other Christians, and then trust that He will sort out other people's wrong ideology just as He is straightening out mine.

[rjj7]

I think there has been a certain amount of miscommunication in this thread; rereading some of the comments, I feel that I am guilty, at any rate, of taking a few statements out of their speaker's context and applying them to my own.

When I speak of unifying the church, I do not mean unifying everyone under the complete and entire Catholic doctrines (for example). I am not a Catholic myself, and have severe disagreements with many teachings of the Catholic church. What I want is more akin to what has been described (by lexkx most recently) as unity of the spirit. Obviously, there must be some level of unity of teaching (Christian Soldier acknowledges this when he says that "We all agree that Jesus Christ is the only way into Heaven, that faith is how you obtain salvation, and it is through His sacrifice that we are able to do all this"), but we do not need to be united in all teaching to be united in spirit. Anyone can stay united when there is nothing to disagree over; the true test is whether Christians can stay united despite their differences.


Regarding the early church, the churches in the New Testament were divided by geographic location, not by differences in doctrine (although Christian Soldier correctly points out that with differences of geography come differences in doctrine). Paul always distinguished churches by location, for example. The fact that these churches were still communicating with each other despite the great difficulty involved is a testament to their unity. In our modern world, if all the churches within a single city are communicating, it's probably because the town is small enough that it only has one.


The result is that we no longer have 'the church of city X'. It was quite simple for Paul to write "could the church at Corinth please make a gathering for the church at Jerusalem" . Imagine if, back when Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana, Christians had been able to collect offerings and send it to the church at New Orleans. It would have been a powerful testimony, and that is the sort of unity that I, at least, am arguing for. I don't mean to imply that Christians sat and did nothing in the wake of Katrina (I know for a fact that this is not the case), but so far as I am aware, most of the aid was funneled through large charity and relief organizations, rather than the church itself. Christians have been reduced to using the secular framework for our interactions with each other.

Maybe we should be encouraging our brethren to drop the masks and be genuine, to own up to our struggles and worries and share our sins with each other and the world, just as Jesus told us to.

A sentiment very close to what I would express. I think it is vital that Christians start taking the metaphors of being brothers and one body seriously. Even within individual churches, there can frequently be a sense of isolation.


P.S. The comic was included simply because I find it funny, and it was (remotely) related to what we were talking about. I apologize if it came across as more of a rhetorical jab.

[metalikhan]

Yes, the Church (as in The Body of Christ) is already a single unit even when we, as the individual parts of the Body, aren't in agreement about everything/anything except the foundational truth of Christ's redemption for us. The church (note lower case) can't unify under a single organizational unit because of so many levels of experiences, personalities, and understanding.

Just think of how many in-house (among Christian) debates go on over the meaning and/or application of even the simplest Scriptures, never mind the tougher ones (such as the end times debates – pre-Tribulation, mid-Trib, post-Trib rapture, or some of Revelation has already happened, or...).

But even in very small towns, some with no more than 10-20 citizens, you'll either find 2-3 denominations or the people (if they go to church at all) will drive to the next town or the closest big city (maybe 30 minutes or an hour or two away) rather than gather with their neighbors just because this person sometimes drinks wine or that person thinks someone else is too rigid about speaking in tongues.

Unity in Spirit -- we are saved sinners, saints in training. We've got a long way to go, a long way to grow, before we can love our brothers & sisters in Christ (and beyond that, the world) even in our differences as unconditionally as He loves us.

[Bainespal]

Nov 9, 2013 13:05:49 GMT -5 rjj7 said:

Also, with the spread of different denominations, you run into a certain problem.

I think the comic is extremely relevant.

Too often, a movement sweeps across a Christian culture, and those Christians try to define once and for all what true Christianity is. After all, we all know that not everyone who called Jesus "Lord" will be received by Him, so why not settle the issue once and for all by defining the True Church and/or the True Believers? But when we do so, the new denomination/movement becomes yet another competing "standard," and a lot of Christians get left out in the dark, trying to puzzle out how failed humans could have possibly stumbled upon ecclesiastical perfection.

Thus, I see the claim of hardcore Catholics that their Church is the true Church of Christ the same way I see the Evangelical certainty about salvation as a definable experience. I am critical of both.

But I respect both. For all the bad press Catholicism has gotten in the cultural dialog over the generations, I think this world would be tremendously darker without Catholicism's steadfast reverence. All of Christianity would be poorer without Catholicism's historical continuity, and even the most hardcore local-church-only non-denominationalists should acknowledge that.

I'm critical of Evangelicalism. But for all its emotionalism and too-easy outward certainty, Evangelicalism really isn't about religious bickering. Evangelicals understand that faith is a relationship. At their best, Evangelicals really don't see the world in terms of a right religion and lots of wrong religions, despite the fact that secular people insist on viewing Evangelicalism that way. Evangelicalism simply sees a world in need, and that is important and sacred.

So, I see the need for unity. But we can't create perfect unity. A new and improved Ecumenical Church would become what Evangelicalism is now -- it might do many great things, but it would have blindnesses that would need to be balanced by other kinds of Christians. I'm just as skeptical of CS's "faith movement." Being real and honest is important, but outward emotionalism can become forced and artificial, and when it does, it is even more dangerous than coldly ritualistic liturgy. There's nothing we can do to fix Christianity. The true revival will only come when Christ returns.

[This Baron of Mora]

Perhaps I was approaching this all from the wrong angle, as I learned from Peter Kreeft the 'Golden Key' to Ecumenicalism is Christ, the reason a Protestant is a Protestant is because he loves God, the reason a Catholic is a Catholic is because he loves God. I remain hopeful that because of this powerful union that when both sides become more 'Saintly' so to speak that they will discover (without compromise) that they are one and then will become one Church and denominationalism can end. I really believe that can happen (with God anything is possible), when Christ returns He will see his Bride and Body as one with Him at the head, and the Holy Spirit at the heart.