Your views on ecumenism

[A_Thinker]

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying.

Religious communities and churches are more than Bible interpretation mills working de novo every generation. Generally, Christians read the Scriptures within some type of tradition that shapes the kinds of hermeneutics they use to interpret the Scriptures. That's why I think confessionalism has more integrity, because it makes this mechanism more explicit, which makes us capable of more self-reflection. It isn't reduced to a pure social or personality-focused movement.

What is confessionalism ?

 

[amariselle]

What are your personal beliefs on ecumenism, even in Christian churches?

By “ecumenism”, are you referring to the “Ecumenical Movement”?

 

[amariselle]

Firstly that's redundant since ecumenism refers to the unity in churches to begin with.

Nextly, we were obviously never meant to be separate churches ideologically. The churches were separated by land and peoples and sooner or later differences of belief and customs grow about.

I think we will certainly be united completely when Christ returns but as for making efforts towards that I think we already have done an exceedingly good job.

The only thing that can unite our differences is the fullness of understanding which is required to explain those differences of doctrine. And that takes a very strong hand of authority in Christ much like an apostle's authority. So until we have apostles again and God multiplies visions, then we won't be seeing any of those efforts really stick. It requires apostle authority to unite two separate churches.

Many today believe we do indeed have “apostles” and also “prophets”. Are you aware of the “New Apostolic Reformation”? (NAR)

 

[Kevin Snow]

Many today believe we do indeed have “apostles” and also “prophets”. Are you aware of the “New Apostolic Reformation”? (NAR)

Maybe God is bringing about what I said. I read up on that movement and so far, there doesn't seem to be a focus on ecumenism with this movement. When apostleship is the very thing needed to do unite the churches you would think this would be their focus but rather they are focused on this:

So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church. ~1 Corinthians 14:12

There is a clear emphasis on manifestations of the spirit and this has nothing to do with the authority of apostleship but rather the working of a prophet. So in my judgment they are prophets, not apostles.

 

[PaulCyp1]

It is an effort to restore the will of God to the Christian faith. His clearly stated will concerning His followers was and still is "that they all may be ONE, even as I and my heavenly Father are ONE".

 

[Kevin Snow]

It is an effort to restore the will of God to the Christian faith. His clearly stated will concerning His followers was and still is "that they all may be ONE, even as I and my heavenly Father are ONE".

And when does this happen?

And Yahweh will be king over all the earth. On that day Yahweh will be one and his name one. ~Zechariah 14:9

We await that day O Lord.

 

[Yarddog]

What are your personal beliefs on ecumenism, even in Christian churches?

It is vital for all Christians to understand that, even though we may have some differences in teachings, that all Christian who share in God's Holy Spirit are One.

 

[hedrick]

Before answering the question in the OP, we have to ask what ecumenism means.

In the middle of the 20th Cent, there were thoughts of uniting all Protestant denominations into one. In sone countries this resulted in "united" churches e.g. Canada. In the US nothing came out of it. Catholics have historically wanted everyone to become Catholic.

At least in the US, that type of ecumenism more or less failed. Today it mostly means working together in areas where we can, recognizing each other as fellow Christians, and mutual recognition of sacraments.

I don't think a single large church organization is necessary, or even necessarily desirable. To me the basic unit of the Church is the congregation, and larger units are useful for common tasks and to provide a way to maintain accountability for clergy. So I think the second type of ecumenism is important. Particularly mutual recognition of sacraments. I consider closed communion to be sacrilege, because it turns Christ's table into the table of our own Church.

 

[mark46]

Yes, our church communities should retain their own traditions and differences.

I do find that that worshipping together helps Christianity and the community in many ways. After all, if all the unbeliever sees on the ark is lots of folks arguing, then he isn't likely to come on board, even when called.

I don't find Wesley's theology so different from that of Luther, Calvin and the Anglicans that they can't share alter and pulpit fellowship. I have always found that it is those in the local church leadership that finds such ecumenism most objectionable.

Personally, I would not have been shocked if the pope and WLF had declared some kind of alter fellowship last year. The 1986 joint declaration was a huge step. In the end, the folks in the pews (and the elder even more so) are not ready. I am reminded of Father Girzone's excellent fictional account of ecumenism with one bishop leading each area's Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox and Methodist churches.
=====
As an aside, I see the Methodist church as being almost two churches, one coming from Wesley well within the Anglican tradition, and US Southern Methodists who are very close to being Baptist, and view the eucharist as nothing but symbol.

I have misgivings about ecumenism at times. Our church agreeing to altar and pulpit fellowship with the UMC seems premature, for instance, given the extremely loose nature of UMC confessionalism, if it exists at all. Plus the pietist background potentially makes it at odds with Lutheranism (especially the doctrine of Christian perfection and a different understanding of sin). And some of our agreements with the Reformed likewise conceded too much confessionally (even if I think Catholics and Reformed are closest to us in theology), amounting to a shallow kind of ecumenism where we simply sweep real disagreements aside in favor of idealism.

 

[mark46]

I agree. And in the middle of the 20th Century, evangelical Protestants didn't consider Catholics to be Christians.

For the Catholic Church, this changed in the 60's. In many Protestant churches, this changed somewhat after that (I believe that many followed Billy Graham's lead in the 80's).

In the US nothing came out of it. Catholics have historically wanted everyone to become Catholic.

 

[amariselle]

Maybe God is bringing about what I said. I read up on that movement and so far, there doesn't seem to be a focus on ecumenism with this movement. When apostleship is the very thing needed to do unite the churches you would think this would be their focus but rather they are focused on this:

So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church. ~1 Corinthians 14:12

There is a clear emphasis on manifestations of the spirit and this has nothing to do with the authority of apostleship but rather the working of a prophet. So in my judgment they are prophets, not apostles.

There are both “prophets” and “apostles” in this movement. You are correct that many of them are focused on “manifestations” or “signs & wonders”, but there are also many who are focused on “ecumenism”. Do a search on how many of these leaders have united with the Pope.

The thing is, the unity they are calling for is at the expense of doctrine, period. It’s a false unity and Christians would do well to stay far away from it. Unfortunately, I have family and friends caught up in it.

Scripture plainly tells us many times to beware of false peace and lying signs and wonders, and also false prophets. We also know from the word of God that doctrine is in fact extremely important.

Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. - 1 Timothy 4:16

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. - Jude 3

 

[Kevin Snow]

There are both “prophets” and “apostles” in this movement. You are correct that many of them are focused on “manifestations” or “signs & wonders”, but there are also many who are focused on “ecumenism”. Do a search on how many of these leaders have united with the Pope.

The thing is, the unity they are calling for is at the expense of doctrine, period. It’s a false unity and Christians would do well to stay far away from it. Unfortunately, I have family and friends caught up in it.

Scripture plainly tells us many times to beware of false peace and lying signs and wonders, and also false prophets. We also know from the word of God that doctrine is in fact extremely important.

Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. - 1 Timothy 4:16

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. - Jude 3

Ha yeah. If they are doing that then there is no substance behind them at all. We have nothing to fear or even consider from this movement. But God will bring about the revelation soon enough, which will unite the churches as much as they will be until his return.

 

[amariselle]

Ha yeah. If they are doing that then there is no substance behind them at all. We have nothing to fear or even consider from this movement. But God will bring about the revelation soon enough, which will unite the churches as much as they will be until his return.

Sure. I do believe we are all already united in Him though. All true believers who are born again have the same Holy Spirit indwelling them.

 

[Kevin Snow]

Sure. I do believe we are all already united in Him though. All true believers who are born again have the same Holy Spirit indwelling them.

But this has not been fulfilled still:

For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of Yahweh as the waters cover the sea. ~Habakkuk 2:14

They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Yahweh as the waters cover the sea. ~Isaiah 11:9

And it must be fulfilled before the coming of Christ for it says right after, this:

In that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant that remains of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea. ~Isaiah 11:11

And this regathering of the people of Israel is happening now even in our day. And this word goes on to describe what the people of Israel will accomplish against their enemies and this also has yet to be accomplished but is near.

 

[ubicaritas]

Before answering the question in the OP, we have to ask what ecumenism means.

In the middle of the 20th Cent, there were thoughts of uniting all Protestant denominations into one. In sone countries this resulted in "united" churches e.g. Canada. In the US nothing came out of it. Catholics have historically wanted everyone to become Catholic.

At least in the US, that type of ecumenism more or less failed. Today it mostly means working together in areas where we can, recognizing each other as fellow Christians, and mutual recognition of sacraments.

I don't think a single large church organization is necessary, or even necessarily desirable. To me the basic unit of the Church is the congregation, and larger units are useful for common tasks and to provide a way to maintain accountability for clergy. So I think the second type of ecumenism is important. Particularly mutual recognition of sacraments. I consider closed communion to be sacrilege, because it turns Christ's table into the table of our own Church.

Hedrick, I think sometimes ecumenically oriented statements can simply be sources of confusion. For instance, our joint document with the Reformed churches called Marburg Revisited (I'm not sure if it can be considered status confessionis exactly, but it's been referenced enough), where we suppossedly agree that our different views of the Eucharist are merely acceptable diversity. And what are the fruits of it? Our kids are continuing to be catechized the same way they always have . So what was really done with Marburg Revisited? It's mostly two things 1) a gesture of goodwill towards fellow Christians with whom we share a great deal of theological common ground 2) a potentially confusing message and witness to the outside world about what our churches really believe, teach, and confess.

Lets put it this way. In our congregation some people bow at the Words of Institution or the elevation of the bread because we really believe Christ is present there. Some Presbyterians, no doubt, consider that highly problematic, flirting with idolatry. And yet Marburg Revisited can give the false impression these differences are mere trivialities and obscure differences that still exist within our respective traditions.

A Reformed Christian might say, so what? After all, typically Reformed concede less in ecumenical dialogues like this. But from the Lutheran perspective this goes closer to the heart of a sacramental worldview that pervades our theology, hymns and our liturgy.

 

[amariselle]

But this has not been fulfilled still:

For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of Yahweh as the waters cover the sea. ~Habakkuk 2:14

They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Yahweh as the waters cover the sea. ~Isaiah 11:9

And it must be fulfilled before the coming of Christ for it says right after, this:

In that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant that remains of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea. ~Isaiah 11:11

And this regathering of the people of Israel is happening now even in our day. And this word goes on to describe what the people of Israel will accomplish against their enemies and this also has yet to be accomplished but is near.

Yes, well the prophecies concerning Israel are not something I know enough about at this point to comment.

I was simply referring to all true, born again believers, we are already one in Him.

 

[Kevin Snow]

Yes, well the prophecies concerning Israel are not something I know enough about at this point to comment.

I was simply referring to all true, born again believers, we are already one in Him.

We will be on that day. That's what Christ was praying for. So in faith you are right. We will be one in him so we are one in him in faith. But as it is, even born again believers have their disagreements. Just look at Paul and Barnabas. There disagreement was so sharp that they had to split ways.

 

[hedrick]

Hedrick, I think sometimes ecumenically oriented statements can simply be sources of confusion. For instance, our joint document with the Reformed churches called Marburg Revisited (I'm not sure if it can be considered status confessionis exactly, but it's been referenced enough), where we suppossedly agree that our different views of the Eucharist are merely acceptable diversity.

There are several levels of ecumenical relations. I was thinking of something less than what we have been PCUSA and ELCA. What we have is what we call "full communion." This means that are doctrine and practice is close enough that we can do things like exchange pastors. I don't think that level of unity is practical or necessary across Christendom.

On communion, it seems that we've agreed to what what many Episcopalians do, and what the latest UMC white paper seems to do: say that there are a number of theories of just how Christ is present, and we don't need to agree on those as long as we acknowledge that we are doing what Christ instituted, and that he is present as he promised.

Most of our full communion relationships are with other Reformed bodies. I do think it's a bit odd to think of a pastor leading a church where there would be a noticeable difference in what is taught to people. However I would point out that the Reformed tradition does actually believe in the real presence of Christ, although the traditional explanations are a bit different. Indeed I think a lot of people in the PCUSA take it a bit more literally than the tradition might suggest. I note that it seems to be most common when handing someone the bread to say "the body of Christ" thus suggesting a fairly strong type of presence. I wouldn't object to bowing. (Of course traditionally the bowing should occur at the epiclesis, not the Words of Institution. But the liturgical renewal movement hasn't reached enough people in either of our churches for that.)

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

My desire is That Everyone who believes The Nicene Creed / Apostles’ Creed be that We Are All One Church.

That We Are One as Jesus and The Father Are One.

 

[ubicaritas]

@hedrick, Lutherans don't always use an epiclesis, we follow the old Roman practice, since we basically are using the Mass as the template for worship, and our theology sees the Words of Institution as sufficient.

In our modern liturgies we do have an optional epiclesis but we only use it at our congregation on feast days.

I do believe Presbyterian sacraments are valid, but I don't agree with the sacramental theology of course. We have had guest pastors at our church that are Presbyterian, it seems to be the most common choice when the Pastor is out of town. And I really don't have a problem with it since I believe the presence of Christ is due to the Word alone, and as long as he's not there to "Set us straight", I don't think its a big deal (indeed, I believe our "full communion partnership" precludes this). But I do wonder about churches where we have both Presbyterian and Lutheran pastors present routinely - such a church would lose its Lutheran identity in time, and a unique witness would be lost.