Ship of Fools: What is Christian unity?

Thread: What is Christian unity? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025293

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Reading some of the comments on the 'anti-Catholic' hell thread has stirred me to ask this question, as I think it needs a proper debate.

I can't understand how true spiritual unity can be based primarily on conformity to an outward institutional structure. There are all sorts of reasons why people may submit to this authority structure, but they may be seething with resentment in their hearts. They may feel compelled through fear and guilt to conform. Is this really the kind of 'unity' Jesus prayed for?

On the other hand, two Christians may have all sorts of theological differences, but may be in fellowship and spiritual unity on the basis of a shared love for God and for each other. No back stabbing as could be the case if they were manoeuvring themselves in a monolithic hierarchical organisation, but love freely given and received as they each respect each other's slightly different convictions.

Over to you...

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Unity begins and ends with the Holy Spirit. I suppose that goes without saying but I thought I'd get it out of the way. Yet that presupposes a number of common elements such as confessing the same faith, sharing the same sacraments etc. under an orthodox bishop. But then I believe in a visible Church whose spiritual unity is expressed visibly by those aforementioned elements.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

EE ... this is complicated. I know it shouldn't be, but it is.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I can't understand how true spiritual unity can be based primarily on conformity to an outward institutional structure. There are all sorts of reasons why people may submit to this authority structure, but they may be seething with resentment in their hearts. They may feel compelled through fear and guilt to conform. Is this really the kind of 'unity' Jesus prayed for?

My upbringing taught me to regard Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy with suspicion. 'They' were into 'dead religion': my team, the born-again evangelicals, had the 'real deal'. I am much wiser than that now. I know better now. I have since met Roman Catholics who exhibit the same kind of passionate closeness to Jesus that many evangelicals profess. I am also wiser about the apostolic credentials of both the Western and the Eastern churches. This doesn't mean I have turned my back on my evangelical heritage. Far from it, in fact I appreciate it more than ever. Evangelicals, in their various streams, bring many crucial contributions to the table.

quote:
No back stabbing as could be the case if they were manoeuvring themselves in a monolithic hierarchical organisation, but love freely given and received as they each respect each other's slightly different convictions.

EE ... you don't think that back-stabbing goes on in conservative evangelical, born-again evangelical and charismatic evangelical circles? [Frown]

I've seen it. And other unlovely stuff too. [Frown]

Just because we non-magisterial Protestants are descended from the Anabaptists and the radical Nonconformists doesn't mean we have some kind of magical insurance against indulging in destructive, unregenerate behaviour. [Frown]

I agree that disunity in the Church is a terrible scandal and I fear that Christ will have some really stern things to say to His beloved Church on the Day. Eeek. As things stand, I believe it is crucial that we love and respect each other despite our differences. As to the institutional logistics ... I don't have a clue. But surely love will carry us a long way. Unity in the Holy Spirit doesn't necessarily mean we all have to sing from the same hymn sheet. At least, in this present time.

In Syria, the churches have apparently been working together. Denominational differences have disappeared, obliterated by the horror that has descended on their country.

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But then I believe in a visible Church whose spiritual unity is expressed visibly ...

So do I.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Unity begins and ends with the Holy Spirit. I suppose that goes without saying but I thought I'd get it out of the way. Yet that presupposes a number of common elements such as confessing the same faith...

Yes, I'd agree with this - but defining 'the same faith' in quite loose terms.

quote:
...sharing the same sacraments etc...

Hmm, maybe yeah. But then Christians disagree on what is / isn't a sacrament. Do we all have to agree on the list of sacraments in order to be in 'Christian unity'?

quote:
...under an orthodox bishop

I don't agree with this one because it begs the question of whether 'Christian unity' means unity of institution. I disagree with this meaning so, of course, I'll reject any sense of coming under the authority of a specific person as the representative of a specific, allegedly God-approved institution.

I think 'Christian unity' is much better defined as unity of purpose and mission, not unity of method. IMO, one great way Christians can demonstrate unity is by doing things together; things like town-wide mission activities or social action projects. Then the world at large will see us putting aside our doctrinal differences in order to work together at a practical level. That's a worthy and realistic aim, isn't it?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
IMO, one great way Christians can demonstrate unity is by doing things together; things like town-wide mission activities or social action projects. Then the world at large will see us putting aside our doctrinal differences in order to work together at a practical level. That's a worthy and realistic aim, isn't it?

Yep. And it's a far more meaningful "unity" than simply all kowtowing to the same bloke in a fancy hat.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Christian unity was a prayer of Jesus. To date it can be seen in part. Rather like the kingdom of God. Now and not yet.

It cannot be enforced. It can be attempted. It is good to make such attempts.

I used to think our disunity was a particular scandal. Now I think it is no more of a scandal than any other example of our knowing in part and following in part.

We don'r really seem to be "getting there". Rather the reverse. But maybe that's just a human perspective about our muddle?

We don't appear to be burning one another as much as we did. I guess that's a sign of progress.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
IMO, one great way Christians can demonstrate unity is by doing things together; things like town-wide mission activities or social action projects. Then the world at large will see us putting aside our doctrinal differences in order to work together at a practical level. That's a worthy and realistic aim, isn't it?
Yep. And it's a far more meaningful "unity" than simply all kowtowing to the same bloke in a fancy hat.

Setting aside Marvin's gratuitous insult, this pretty much sums up the problem. We do not agree what meaningful unity means, hence we cannot even start working towards it.

For me, what Kevin and Marvin suggest is meaningless. Not that charitable actions are meaningless in themselves, of course. But I am happy to join any group of people in truly charitable activity. It does not matter if they are Christian, Hindu, Muslim, atheist, or whatever... In consequence, joining other Christians in such activities means very little to me for Christian unity.

Even if one were to argue that certain forms of charity require an inspiration of the Holy Spirit only really available to Christians, then this still would not mean that I would consider such charity as a proper sign of Christian unity. The ability to laugh "unites" all of mankind, and is not really available to other animals. That does not mean however that laughing can replace the United Nations. I hence do not believe that basic Christian functioning already establishes the sort of unity that the Lord intended for us.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I suspect it depends who you ask. For some, possibly for many, Christian Unity will mean thinking like me and having the same religious opinions and the same view of faith history. Personally, I don't see that anywhere in scripture or in the tradition of the church from the earliest of periods. So that leaves a bit of a problem. There are other ideas - often proffered by those of a reformed tradition.
Barth - unity is in the 'word' as revelation; both the interaction with scripture and an understanding of the Trinity
Bonnhoeffer - unity is not in the church structure, but in the personhood and divinity of Christ as the ultimate revelation of God.
Kung - unity is in 'being Christian', sometimes with the possibility of not even knowingly being so. A slightly controversial idea in some quarters.
Some say unity is in subjection to scripture alone (not an idea I can stomache much because it seems to set scripture as a revelation above the incarnation), others say unity should be sought in the ongoing 'tradition' of the church. Personally I'm a bit of a mixture between Barth and Bonhoeffer and particularly Barth in not seeing unity as meaning uniformity.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

We are united in Christ if we follow him. We don't perceive that we're united as we spend so much time and effort arguing our differences and trying to impose our views on each other.

If we really can get to the point of loving God with our all and loving one another as ourselves, we might start to see ourselves as the body of Christ.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin
EE ... you don't think that back-stabbing goes on in conservative evangelical, born-again evangelical and charismatic evangelical circles? I've seen it. And other unlovely stuff too. Just because we non-magisterial Protestants are descended from the Anabaptists and the radical Nonconformists doesn't mean we have some kind of magical insurance against indulging in destructive, unregenerate behaviour.

Oh certainly it goes on!

It goes on in institutions, including conservative evangelical ones. But I was drawing a distinction between imposed outward institutional 'unity' - of whatever theological stripe - and unity of the heart, irrespective of denomination.

Wherever there is a power structure, which provides an opportunity for those in leadership to exercise control over other people's lives, there is the danger of backstabbing. The formal doctrinal position of that institution is pretty irrelevant when it comes to counteracting this kind of behaviour.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I hence do not believe that basic Christian functioning already establishes the sort of unity that the Lord intended for us.

Perhaps you could elaborate on what you think the sort of unity the Lord intended for us is?

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
And it's a far more meaningful "unity" than simply all kowtowing to the same bloke in a fancy hat.

I agree.

In some ways I can understand the need for an organisation to have someone "in charge", and for there to be some kind of hierarchical authority structure emanating from him (or her). If this structure exists to "keep the peace" and protect the freedom of the flock from petty despots rising up and manipulating and controlling people, then fine. Authority thus exists to protect against authoritarianism.

But what I cannot understand is the idea of accepting ideas as true purely on the basis of the pronouncements of the man with the fancy hat. If he should tell me that 2+2=4, then I will agree with him. I will submit to that. But why? Because he has said so? Of course not. I believe that 2+2=4 because logic tells me that it is so. It fits reality. It works. It's internally consistent.

But suppose the man in the fancy hat should authoritatively require me to believe that 2+2=5. I could be the most submissive, obsequious, grovelling willing slave of this man, and I could lick his feet and cross the Atlantic in a bath tub at his command, but I could not truly accept his pronouncement that 2+2=5. Why? Because the idea doesn't fit reality. It's an inherently useless concept. I could tattoo the idea on my forehead, to show my loyalty to the man in the fancy hat, but I could never apply it to the real world.

This is why submission of one's mind to unquestioned authority is so artificial and contrived. It can never be a basis for unity of any kind, unless that 'unity' exists on the understanding that it should have no relationship to the real world (which is frankly how a lot of people see the Church anyway).

The same goes for moral pronouncements that do not fit reality (I could give some examples here, but it's DH stuff, I'm afraid. Hint: a recent death in Ireland).

If the Church is to have a united voice in the world, then its voice must contain ideas which make logical sense, and which are clearly applicable to the real world. And therefore those ideas are accepted, not on the authority of some bishop, archbishop or pope, but on the proper authority by which any ideas are accepted: reason and evidence.

That is why there will always be a constant to and fro of debate in the Christian world, because we all need to work at our understanding of truth. In fact, I would suggest that real unity is achieved as a result of the long haul and the hard slog, and not because of some dictatorial pronouncement from the top dog in a hierarchy.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Even from the very earliest of times we see that visible unity happens through the bishop who governs the local Church in the name of Christ. Both Ss. Clement and Ignatius, for instance, insist that we do nothing in the Church without the bishop and these were two men who conversed with the Apostles.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Even from the very earliest of times we see that visible unity happens through the bishop who governs the local Church in the name of Christ. Both Ss. Clement and Ignatius, for instance, insist that we do nothing in the Church without the bishop and these were two men who conversed with the Apostles.

It's possible Ignatius and Clement knew some apostles, but they would probably have been rather young to discuss ecclesiology with them.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Well, St. Irenaeus seemed to suggest that St. Clement when bishop still had the doctrine of the Apostles ringing in his ears and their tradition before his eyes.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Well, St. Irenaeus seemed to suggest that St. Clement when bishop still had the doctrine of the Apostles ringing in his ears and their tradition before his eyes.

Irenaeus was born 30 years after Clement died, so it seems unlikely he is the best source to intimate Clement's relationships to modern times.

As a strong supporter of bishops myself, I am more than happy to affirm the apostolicity of the episcopacy, but distressingly the earliest writings of the Church refuse to formulate Christian leadership and unity in quite the same way we would.

[ 26. April 2013, 14:41: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Christian unity was a prayer of Jesus. To date it can be seen in part. Rather like the kingdom of God. Now and not yet.

It cannot be enforced. It can be attempted. It is good to make such attempts.

I used to think our disunity was a particular scandal. Now I think it is no more of a scandal than any other example of our knowing in part and following in part.

We don'r really seem to be "getting there". Rather the reverse. But maybe that's just a human perspective about our muddle?

We don't appear to be burning one another as much as we did. I guess that's a sign of progress.

Given the way religious types of all persuasions behave across the world when they have political power, I think it's probably a sign of secularisation more than anything else.

Sorry.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Well, St. Irenaeus seemed to suggest that St. Clement when bishop still had the doctrine of the Apostles ringing in his ears and their tradition before his eyes.
Irenaeus was born 30 years after Clement died, so it seems unlikely he is the best source to intimate Clement's relationships to modern times.

As a strong supporter of bishops myself, I am more than happy to affirm the apostolicity of the episcopacy, but distressingly the earliest writings of the Church refuse to formulate Christian leadership and unity in quite the same way we would.

I'm fairly certain, given what we know from their various writings, that if one is not in communion with the bishop then they were schismatic or in other words, had broken with unity and outside the Church. Wasn't this the argument of Blessed Jerome, for instance, concerning Tertullian in his tract against Helvidius?

[ 26. April 2013, 15:10: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
For me, what Kevin and Marvin suggest is meaningless. Not that charitable actions are meaningless in themselves, of course. But I am happy to join any group of people in truly charitable activity. It does not matter if they are Christian, Hindu, Muslim, atheist, or whatever... In consequence, joining other Christians in such activities means very little to me for Christian unity.

What I had in mind was activities with a deliberate evangelistic / missional element. For social projects, I was thinking of organisations like Christians Against Poverty, who deliberately don't accept funds from public bodies in order to retain the freedom to be upfront about the Christian basis of their work.

Otherwise, I agree with you, IngoB, that Christians getting involved in secular charitable work doesn't demonstrate Christian unity.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

For me, as a former Chair and Vice Chair of Churches Together there is credal unity - the basis of union in CT is that member churches form a:

"fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the scriptures, and therefore seek to fulfil together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

I reject the WCC assertion that this is eucharistic unity.

I also like this maxim:

In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm fairly certain, given what we know from their various writings, that if one is not in communion with the bishop then they were schismatic or in other words, had broken with unity and outside the Church. Wasn't this the argument of Blessed Jerome, for instance, concerning Tertullian in his tract against Helvidius?

Jerome? He was born 250 years after Clement died!

I am NOT questioning the place of the bishops. I am not saying Ignatius or Clement just made up the episcopacy, but the connection between the apostles and these ideas is more tenuous and complicated than you are seeming to say.

[ 26. April 2013, 15:28: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally Posted by IngoB: I hence do not believe that basic Christian functioning already establishes the sort of unity that the Lord intended for us.

I wonder how you would feel with the reformulation "basic Christian functioning hardly exhausts the sort of unity the Lord intended for us."

After all, we share a common baptism and common Lord, so charitable cooperation between Christians can hardly be put on the same level as cooperation between Christians and Hindus. It seems to me your general all-or-nothing line would make baptism and the Scriptures basically meaningless.

[ 26. April 2013, 15:40: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm fairly certain, given what we know from their various writings, that if one is not in communion with the bishop then they were schismatic or in other words, had broken with unity and outside the Church. Wasn't this the argument of Blessed Jerome, for instance, concerning Tertullian in his tract against Helvidius?
Jerome? He was born 250 years after Clement died!

I am NOT questioning the place of the bishops. I am not saying Ignatius or Clement just made up the episcopacy, but the connection between the apostles and these ideas is more tenuous and complicated than you are seeming to say.

I would argue that the connection is beyond reasonable doubt (ok, obvious coming from me). When St. Irenaeus writes about Ss. Clement and Ignatius, for instance, he did so among those for whom they were still a living memory, thus they would have known Clement was instructed by Ss. Peter and Paul and Ignatius by St. John. Then there is also St. Polycarp.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

And I would argue that there is a great deal of difference between believing it's there, and actually having evidence that it's there.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

This post is on behalf of my late partner...
Q What is Christian unity?
A Something none of us will ever see.

(Called us all "God-botherers", bless)

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
And I would argue that there is a great deal of difference between believing it's there, and actually having evidence that it's there.

Ok. What kind of evidence would satisfy you? A certificate of instruction? A diploma signed by the Apostles themselves? Or one could just accept, quite reasonably, that the accounts are reliable because because they come from those who saw these things first hand?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I think that if you want the apostles to not only express the fullness of the Christian faith, but to also express it precisely as we do, you are setting yourself up to be sorely disappointed.

[ 26. April 2013, 17:29: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Christian unity was a prayer of Jesus. To date it can be seen in part. Rather like the kingdom of God. Now and not yet.

It cannot be enforced. It can be attempted. It is good to make such attempts.

I used to think our disunity was a particular scandal. Now I think it is no more of a scandal than any other example of our knowing in part and following in part.

We don'r really seem to be "getting there". Rather the reverse. But maybe that's just a human perspective about our muddle?

We don't appear to be burning one another as much as we did. I guess that's a sign of progress.
Given the way religious types of all persuasions behave across the world when they have political power, I think it's probably a sign of secularisation more than anything else.

Sorry.

No need to apologise, Karl. It's a good point.

Personally, I'm not bothered about why the burning has been reduced. There is this universal problem of the corrupting and corrosive influence of temporal power.

The "not so among you" mandatory requirement for Christians gets lost in the rationalisation. And is a big obstacle to any moves to unity.

I'm still hopeful ..

[ 26. April 2013, 18:30: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

It seems to me that both Marvin and EE are arguing that because institutional unity is not sufficient to produce the kind of unity Christ wants for us, it is therefore not necessary.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems to me that both Marvin and EE are arguing that because institutional unity is not sufficient to produce the kind of unity Christ wants for us, it is therefore not necessary.

The desire of some to unite all Christians under their own institutional banner is one of the leading factors preventing unity, as far as I'm concerned.

Fuck the labels, and fuck all the bullshit. If you're seeking to follow Christ, you're my brother/sister. End.Of.Story.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
It seems to me that both Marvin and EE are arguing that because institutional unity is not sufficient to produce the kind of unity Christ wants for us, it is therefore not necessary.

If it is necessary then how do we go about loving the bloke on the bridge?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

The best concept I've heard about is 'Unity in Diversity' where people respect each others' differences, while agreeing to work together on joint projects. 'Churches Together' is an example of this, as are practical efforts such as setting up a Food Bank.

Worshipping together always seems more problematic, as there is a risk of creating some sort of ecumenical mush - my preference is to commit to worshipping in each others' churches as they would worship, on particular days - so you get to learn about other Christians and what is meaningful to them. If nothing else, it can give you a renewed appreciation of your own tradition, but at best you can come away with an appreciation of someone else's as well.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

I, an Episcopalian, am affiliated with the one of the Catholic schools at the theological consortium where I'm studying. They know I'm Episcopalian, and are happy to share Communion with me. Once, I was attending a Taizé service there, and I happened to not only know all the chants used, but I also knew the alto part to them. I was the only one singing any harmony, and I thought, Wow, there's a metaphor for Christian unity! Here are all these Catholics singing in unison, singing their part, and me singing my part, harmonizing with them.

I'm sure that's completely unsatisfactory for anyone involved in the institutional side of the Church, but for those of us in the pews and out in the world, I think it's a good metaphor, at least. Institutional unity would be just a unison melody. But when we all work out of our own different traditions and understandings but work together for Christ and his kingdom, we harmonize, and that's an ancient definition of beauty: unity-in-diversity.

I think the conversation about Christian unity needs to use the language of aesthetics, but I would say that (it's my field).

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

Christian unity is something to strive for, an asperation, goal . Is it reachable ? One wonders , as this thread proves . blessings [Votive]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The desire of some to unite all Christians under their own institutional banner is one of the leading factors preventing unity, as far as I'm concerned.

Fuck the labels, and fuck all the bullshit. If you're seeking to follow Christ, you're my brother/sister. End.Of.Story.

I agree. And the more forcefully the opinion is expressed that I must join a certain institution in order to fulfil Christ's desire that we should be united, the less inclined I am to join that institution. Draw me by your Christlikeness (thinking of both the institution and individuals within it), don't browbeat me with labels like 'disobeyer of Christ' or 'schismatic'.

The above is a general point, not directly in response to any comments from Catholics or Othodoxen upthread.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I didn't know that the Roman Catholic Church is not a part of the World Council of Churches! That's a great example to set. Not.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

The Roman Catholic church doesn't have to be part of the World Council of Churches to be a World church.In a sense it is a world council of churches all on it own.(each diocese,over 4000 I think, makes uo a local church)
As far as I know it has representatives at the World council of Churches,just as it welcomes representatives of the World Council of Churches at many internal events of the RC church.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The RCC isn't part of the WCC because it believes itself to be THE church.

The rest are merely 'ecclesial communities' (which means 'churches'!)

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

One has to be also pragmatic.Were the Rc church to join the WCC,would it not absolutely dominate by force of numbers ?
Better to leave the other 'ecclesial communities' to have their own discussions minus big brother.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0