|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Christian Unity
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
I have frequently dreamed of and prayed for Christian unity, as I suppose many Christians do. (Perhaps what I really mean, if I’m honest, is “why can’t everyone agree with me?”.)
In his recent defence of his offensive tweet, Maajid Nawaz states:
quote:
Unity in faith is theocracy; unity in politics is fascism.
(speaking of Islam, not Christianity)
If he is right, should we pray for unity? Shouldn’t we rather pray for disunity, as the best earthly defence against totalitarianism?
Should unity wait until the Kingdom comes?
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Unity not uniformity. I'd like to see us all being able to take Communion in any church, without barriers. But I'd hate it if all church services became identical.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Unity not uniformity. I'd like to see us all being able to take Communion in any church, without barriers. But I'd hate it if all church services became identical.
Never mind the services. What if we all agreed on all the topics we read about on the DH board? And more. Would that be a Good Thing™?
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Should unity wait until the Kingdom comes?
Depends on your theology. If, like me, you understand the coming of the Kingdom as inaugurated eschatology then it has begun but is not yet complete.
That aside, I would stress unity as an important feature. This comes through in Acts (e.g. 2:42-47) and in Paul's letters (e.g. 1 Cor 1:1-15) especially. To quote from myself on a recent blog post:
I am happy to worship alongside conservatives, creationists, homophobes, misogynists and any other type of person who holds views contrary to my own. Yes, I think they are all wrong and would dearly love them to think through their views, but that should not be an obstacle to fellowship. Yes, it may cause difficulties and make us all assess what the tone should be that we use when univocally declare the gospel of the coming of kingdom of God through the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, but that doesn’t mean we should stay silent on the matter until we agree on every secondary or tertiary matter.
[ 17. February 2014, 16:36: Message edited by: TheAlethiophile ]
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Hairy Biker wrote:
quote:
Never mind the services. What if we all agreed on all the topics we read about on the DH board? And more. Would that be a Good Thing™?
I think that, almost by definition, everyone who holds a particular view would ultimately want it to be the unanimous one.
I'm against capital punishment. And, as much as I might enjoy debating the topic with supporters, I never honestly say to myself "Boy, I sure am glad that there are death-penalty supporters around. Variety is the spice of life, after all". In the final analysis, if I could foresee that in twenty years there would be no one in the world who supports the death penalty, I would conisder that to be a very good outcome.
Having said that, I do acknowledge that debate is fun, and is only possible because of the presence of people who hold views opposite mine. Roughly analagous, I suppose, to a dentist who really likes his work, but would ultimately prefer it if everyone had perfectly healthy teeth(thus rendering his job obsolete).
[ 17. February 2014, 16:46: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
The problem with Unity is that I have heard this used as a reason for STFU to those who disagree. That is dangerous, in my mind, as is a desire for uniformity, which is an insistence that everyone should be the same. Both of these are dangerous, because they squash disagreement and opposition, and enable leaders to say that "everyone is in agreement with this", when it is not, in fact, true.
What we should seek, I think, is acceptance and tolerance. That is, we don't need to agree, we need to accept that others will not agree with us. And then get TF on with life and living it.
I think concepts of agreement are too highly rated. In politics, it means that really good and passionate people have to shut up and conform, which is why they often are far better out of the political system. Similarly with the church, the suppression of dissent means that new and important ideas are squashed.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
I have two brothers by birth. We disagree on all sorts of things. They are my brothers because we have the same father and not because they agree with me about this or that. It is doubtful dad would be very happy if I disowned either of them. If anyone messes with one of my brothers, they are messing with me, too.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Schrodinger's cat wrote:
quote:
In politics, it means that really good and passionate people have to shut up and conform, which is why they often are far better out of the political system.
Here is a prominent Canadian right-winger(basically the Karl Rove of Canada) who refused to "shut up and conform"...
http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=LqS4qKkE_SY (Possibly NSFW)
(The opening question is barely coherent; the relevant comments start at about 1:30)
Within a few hourse of this going viral, the guy lost about three paying jobs, including a TV panel spot, been subjected to a passive-aggressive smackdown from his univeristy(who went out of their way to let everyone know he was retiring) and gotten denounced by several political leaders whose careers he had midwifed.
Suffice to say, old Tom had very few defenders, even among the kind of people who would nornally be saying stuff like "Enough with all this bland conformism in society, let's hear people speak their mind for once!!"
At the end of the day, whether they admit it or not, almost everyone implicity subscribes to "concepts of agreement". Admittedly, the parameters of what is and is not beyond the pale shift from time to time, but very few people really want a wild free-for-all.
[broke link. Click at your own risk]
[ 17. February 2014, 18:05: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I am not sure I understand either half of Nawaz's statement.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Both halves of the statement imply that a forced unity, whether by religious or political leadership is not a good thing.
If unity develops because we become able to deal with each other despite our differences, then we will have approached the Kingdom here on Earth.
Theocracy implies one religious set of rulers/rulings, regardless of personal beliefs; fascism implies the same in the political realm. There will be force applied to make everyone conform. We do have precedents for that, which is why we do not want a repeat.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I can't speak to Christian Unity, but I suspect the jury is biased. I doubt most people participate on Ship of Fools (at least in Purgatory) seeking bland agreement. And filtering out crusaders means most people are looking for different views from their own and have some willingness to hear proponents of disparate views.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The problem with Unity is that I have heard this used as a reason for STFU to those who disagree. That is dangerous, in my mind, as is a desire for uniformity, which is an insistence that everyone should be the same. Both of these are dangerous, because they squash disagreement and opposition, and enable leaders to say that "everyone is in agreement with this", when it is not, in fact, true.
Exactly this, in my former church. Trouble is, it leads to extra splits rather than unity. So it very obviously doesn't work.
Much better to have a welcoming open door and accept all those who come in.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The problem with Unity is that I have heard this used as a reason for STFU to those who disagree.
A thousand times this.
Also: "Unity means you all come over here and do it our way".
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For brothers to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious oil upon the head, Coming down upon the beard, Even Aaron's beard, Coming down upon the edge of his robes.
........now there's a thought!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For brothers to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious oil upon the head, Coming down upon the beard, Even Aaron's beard, Coming down upon the edge of his robes.
........now there's a thought!
Of course "unity" could be interpreted as "alone", so maybe this means they should dwell together, but in their own hermits cell - "in ones".
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A very holy old, gay man, now deceased, in my church, surveying the blackmail by GAFCON, said that he was praying for schism.
However much one might be able to see where he is coming from, and however holy he might be, that prayer must be wrong.
There's been far, far too much schism down the centuries. Once churches split, they go their separate ways. It's rare and very hard for them to repair the damage and get together again. Even in the rare cases where churches have re-united (e.g. Scotland 1929), there's usually some absolutist group that says, 'we must stand by our personal version of the truth' and stays outside. There's a deplorable history of individuals and groups saying 'I owe it to my vision of the truth to come out from among them'. We've got so used to living in a divided church that we don't realise how bad a thing it is to divide Christ and to split from one another.
I'd seriously ask whether any vision of the purity of the truth is ever legitimate grounds either for dividing Christ, or for throwing people out. If one looks at some of the 'great causes' people have disrupted over, a surprisingly large number look trivial 50 years later, yet alone 500.
We talk jokingly on the Ship of making baby Jesus cry, but I think he really does weep about this one.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I think that, almost by definition, everyone who holds a particular view would ultimately want it to be the unanimous one.
Not at all. For example, I hold the view that eating meat is a perfectly good thing but at the same time I have no problem with vegetarians, and I certainly don't want them to change into carnivores. Live and let live.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
This dude's thoughts on the matter might be food for thought. I know it helped me.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I think that, almost by definition, everyone who holds a particular view would ultimately want it to be the unanimous one.
Not at all. For example, I hold the view that eating meat is a perfectly good thing but at the same time I have no problem with vegetarians, and I certainly don't want them to change into carnivores. Live and let live.
But do you believe that it is an ethical imperative to eat meat, or just something that you think people should be free to do if they want?
If it's the latter, then that's not really what I meant by a "view". A better example would be an animal rights actvist in the mode of Peter Singer. He doesn't just think that eating farmed animals is a bad thing for him, he thinks it's morally wrong for anyone to do it, because of the harm he thinks it inflicts on animals. Hence, he campaigns to stop as many people as possible from doing it, and would be happiest with a 100% success rate.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
A better example would be an animal rights actvist in the mode of Peter Singer. He doesn't just think that eating farmed animals is a bad thing for him, he thinks it's morally wrong for anyone to do it, because of the harm he thinks it inflicts on animals. Hence, he campaigns to stop as many people as possible from doing it, and would be happiest with a 100% success rate.
Isn't Singer an atheist? Anyway, if he were to become a Christian it would be fine if he kept his beliefs about eating animals, keeping in mind Romans 14, and not disowning others over it.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But do you believe that it is an ethical imperative to eat meat, or just something that you think people should be free to do if they want?
I don't really 'do' ethical imperatives, beyond the obvious ones like "don't murder" and "don't steal". Like I said, live and let live.
That doesn't mean I don't have views, of course. For example, I'm very much a sacramentalist. The sacraments are a very important part of Christianity as far as I'm concerned. But that doesn't mean I can't have unity with those of my brothers and sisters in Christ who happen to differ on that point.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A very holy old, gay man, now deceased, in my church, surveying the blackmail by GAFCON, said that he was praying for schism.
However much one might be able to see where he is coming from, and however holy he might be, that prayer must be wrong.
There's been far, far too much schism down the centuries.
Disagreement seems to be built into the DNA of Christianity ever since its earliest days, so maybe we should just get on and live with it.
Disagreement is healthy and creative.
The only realistic alternative seems to be kow towing to the biggest extant church, which stifles dissent and believes that it has every minutiae of doctrine sewn up.
[ 19. February 2014, 14:15: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Disagreement seems to be built into the DNA of Christianity ever since its earliest days, so maybe we should just get on and live with it.
Disagreement is healthy and creative. ...
There's a fundamental and very important difference between living with disagreement - whether creative or just cantankerous - and schism. It's the notion that you can't do the first, and so irresistibly must do the second, that over so many centuries has been the cause of the problem.
Perhaps loving one another might even be more important than being right. Could this be part of what St Peter is getting at at 1 Pet 4:8 (WEB version to avoid copyright problems?
quote:
8 And above all things be earnest in your love among yourselves, for love covers a multitude of sins.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Perhaps loving one another might even be more important than being right.
Preach it!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Perhaps loving one another might even be more important than being right. Could this be part of what St Peter is getting at at 1 Pet 4:8 (WEB version to avoid copyright problems?
quote:
8 And above all things be earnest in your love among yourselves, for love covers a multitude of sins.
Well, if our bishops actually loved gay priests instead of demonizing them recently, then I might be tempted to stay in the church.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Perhaps loving one another might even be more important than being right. Could this be part of what St Peter is getting at at 1 Pet 4:8 (WEB version to avoid copyright problems?
quote:
8 And above all things be earnest in your love among yourselves, for love covers a multitude of sins.
Well, if our bishops actually loved gay priests instead of demonizing them recently, then I might be tempted to stay in the church.
Disagreeing with someone and/or their behaviour is not demonising them. It's saying that we're on different sides in this matter. Surely one is allowed to say that within the Anglican communion?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Perhaps loving one another might even be more important than being right. Could this be part of what St Peter is getting at at 1 Pet 4:8 (WEB version to avoid copyright problems?
quote:
8 And above all things be earnest in your love among yourselves, for love covers a multitude of sins.
Well, if our bishops actually loved gay priests instead of demonizing them recently, then I might be tempted to stay in the church.
Disagreeing with someone and/or their behaviour is not demonising them. It's saying that we're on different sides in this matter. Surely one is allowed to say that within the Anglican communion?
I don't believe the bishops where simply disagreeing with any kind of behaviour. They certainly didn't show love to those who behave in that way. Demonizing is perhaps a closer description, but I feel I shouldn't pursue any further as I smell a distinct whiff of dead horses.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Although we have more denominations and church groups around than ever before, we in the West also have more ecumenicalism. We sing each other's hymns and/or worship songs and read each other's devotional material. We face the same challenges regarding secularisation and popular culture, and we circulate the same arguments and propose similar solutions. The clergy of all traditions are increasingly expected to be well-educated, which means studying some of the same theological sources. And it's often said that members of one denomination frequently have more in common with members of another rather than with other factions in their own.
All this being the case, I'm not sure if it's more unity we need, exactly.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
