Is ecumenism worth the effort?

[Aino]

Is it worth it, in your opinion, to work for ecumenism? Does the lack of unity between churches weaken the christian testimony or is it indifferent to the unbeliever?

 

[Ken Rank]

Is it worth it, in your opinion, to work for ecumenism? Does the lack of unity between churches weaken the christian testimony or is it indifferent to the unbeliever?

I think it weakens us greatly. It sends a divided and mixed message to those who don't know the gospel. Saying this, understand, I am NOT saying uniformity is the goal, it is not. We can have disagreement when it comes to doctrine that is non-essential... and by that I mean we would agree on core things like Jesus' sinless life, his resurrection, etc. But whether we agree on details like raptures, tribulations, and so forth... it just isn't important enough to keep us divided. We should be one in FUNCTION, having the ability to work together toward the common goal (the coming Kingdom) and not be one in form... i.e. looking, acting, thinking and sounding the same.

Ultimately messiah comes for one unified bride, not one scattered out in many thousands of denominations and sects. He is coming to restore all things... including us.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Isn't the purpose of ecumenism to turn us all into Catholics?

 

[Ken Rank]

Isn't the purpose of ecumenism to turn us all into Catholics?

If it is, reject for the same reason one would reject it if the purpose was to turn you into a Baptist, or Methodist or anyone else. We SHOULD be able to be who and what we are, who and what God allowed us to become... and yet find a way to work together toward the common goals we have before us. We WILL all become one in His hand, but until then, we need to work together AS IF ONE revealing the character and will of God through our actions and words. The world should SEE Him in us and when they don't... we are at fault, not Him.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The most obscure forum with one moderator is certainly the way to do that yup

 

[dzheremi]

Is it worth it, in your opinion, to work for ecumenism?

No. Ecumenism is 99.999% a waste of time.

Does the lack of unity between churches weaken the christian testimony or is it indifferent to the unbeliever?

No more so than false unity does or would.

Truthfully I don't think that non-believers care even slightly about the different Christian sects, denominations, or communions. Think about it -- do any of you care about the different sects of Islam or Hinduism or what have you? Or to put it another way, are the presence of those sects the thing that keeps you from becoming a Muslim or a Hindu? I wouldn't think so.

From an Orthodox perspective, anyway, the only possible use of ecumenism at all is to articulate our position to those of other traditions so as to dissuade them of any false notions they have about churches they do not belong to, and that they may see the truth and leave their own at least partially false, heterodox traditions for Orthodoxy. But that's not how most people involved in ecumenism in the modern era look at it, preferring instead a sort of 'race to the bottom' that affirms only the most general ways of articulating the faith, ignoring or minimizing all differences and the reasons for them and hence cheapening everything and reducing everyone involved to play acting at unity that we do not actually have.

You cannot have unity without shared faith, and to pretend that you have that when you don't is a great insult and reproach to the name of Christ. What accord has Christ with Belial?

 

[Paul Yohannan]

No. Ecumenism is 99.999% a waste of time.



No more so than false unity does or would.

Truthfully I don't think that non-believers care even slightly about the different Christian sects, denominations, or communions. Think about it -- do any of you care about the different sects of Islam or Hinduism or what have you? Or to put it another way, are the presence of those sects the thing that keeps you from becoming a Muslim or a Hindu? I wouldn't think so.

From an Orthodox perspective, anyway, the only possible use of ecumenism at all is to articulate our position to those of other traditions so as to dissuade them of any false notions they have about churches they do not belong to, and that they may see the truth and leave their own at least partially false, heterodox traditions for Orthodoxy. But that's not how most people involved in ecumenism in the modern era look at it, preferring instead a sort of 'race to the bottom' that affirms only the most general ways of articulating the faith, ignoring or minimizing all differences and the reasons for them and hence cheapening everything and reducing everyone involved to play acting at unity that we do not actually have.

You cannot have unity without shared faith, and to pretend that you have that when you don't is a great insult and reproach to the name of Christ. What accord has Christ with Belial?

Surely we should not resign ourselves to an indefinite perpetuation of the moronic schism with the EOs.

 

[dzheremi]

I would not call it moronic, though I also do not think that it should be maintained, no. Not at all. OO-EO dialogue is of a qualitatively different character than ecumenism with other churches, however. We can talk to EO and understand each other and see one another as speaking essentially the same or at least mutually intelligible 'languages', theologically and ecclesiologically speaking. This is certainly not true when looking at the RCC, Protestants, or whoever else is out there.

So for the majority of churches and organizations like the WCC, it's useless. They want a race to the bottom, and that is not acceptable. If we are going to dialogue with them, it should be to present out position clearly and consistently, not to play this 'we are all Christians/it's all Jesus' game with a bunch of people and denominations that believe and worship wrongly and want that to be put on the same level as Orthodoxy. It isn't.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Schism represents something that ought to be fixed. The current situation of Christendom, thousands of different churches each celebrating and refusing to recognise each other as full participants in the faith cannot and should not be acceptable for most.

Ecumenical efforts to seek understanding and avoid stereotypes or other ideas of other Churches is good and hopefully leads to some sort of reconciliation eventually. I am not convinced such a reconciliation will actually happen. As long as the Orthodox insist that the Pope is not who he claims to be, we cannot unite with Rome. As long as Protestants insist sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are essential Christian doctrines they cannot unite with each other nor can they unite with any pre-reformation Church.

We should all be striving towards eucharistic unity.

 

[Open Heart]

Is it worth it, in your opinion, to work for ecumenism? Does the lack of unity between churches weaken the christian testimony or is it indifferent to the unbeliever?

Good questions. Unity isn't an option. It's a demand from God. Paul berates lack of unity, thus we have no choice if we are Christ but to work ecumenically to seek a unity of the Body. And not just sing kumbayah shallow stuff, I mean a real unity of doctrine, the stuff that's hard to work for. Disunity is not simply a shame before our Lord and Savior, it is a scandal to unbelievers who ask, "They all believe different stuff; who's right? They're probably all wrong."

 

[Open Heart]

We should all be striving towards eucharistic unity.

I think this is the bare bones of it. If we can accomplish that, it will be only by the grace of God.

To unification.

 

[Open Heart]

As long as Protestants insist sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are essential Christian doctrines they cannot unite with each other nor can they unite with any pre-reformation Church.

This is not such a lost cause. I think if we sit down and really, really listen to each other with open hearts and open ears, we'll reconcile. Look what happened when Catholics and Lutherans got together. The Joint Declaration is amazing.

 

[Open Heart]

As long as the Orthodox insist that the Pope is not who he claims to be, we cannot unite with Rome.

We need to go back to the time of Pope Leo the Great, mid fifth century, a time when Catholics and EO's were united as one Church, and try to replicate that once again. Things weren't perfect between us -- lots of cultural differences -- but we managed to get along for another 500 years. I think we are much better at tolerating differences today -- look at how Rome has been open to Greek Catholics.

Did the Eastern Bishops accept the Tome when it first came out? Just curious. I do remember that the Eastern Emperor sided with the Monophysites and the Robber Synod took place in Ephesus. But that sure wasn't the entire Eastern Church, and they did approve the Tome during the Council of Chalcedon.

 

[dzheremi]

(I know such low-content posts are frowned upon, but what more is there to say, really?)

 

[Open Heart]

OO-EO dialogue is of a qualitatively different character than ecumenism with other churches, however.

My understanding is that all doctrinal differences have been worked out and the only thing holding up reunification is the signatures of a couple of curmudgeon patriarchs that just like things the way they are.

 

[Open Heart]

not to play this 'we are all Christians/it's all Jesus' game

Right. I call that fluff. It caters to the lowest common denominator,, and you end up with a Christianity that teaches nothing.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Is it worth it, in your opinion, to work for ecumenism? ,,,

According to GOD'S WORD, it is not worth it- it is sinful.(as things are today)

 

[Open Heart]

According to GOD'S WORD, it is not worth it- it is sinful.(as things are today)

Please explain how it is sinful to be one church (to have all christian churches be in unity). Please support with Scriptures.

Or are you confusing ecumenism (multiple Christian denominations like Baptists, Methodists, Non-denominationals, Catholics) with interfaith dialogue (multiple religions like Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.)? The goal of interfaith dialogue is NOT unity. The goal of interfaith dialogue is to stop harassing, torturing, and killing each other.

 

[shakewell]

Is it worth it, in your opinion, to work for ecumenism? Does the lack of unity between churches weaken the christian testimony or is it indifferent to the unbeliever?

If one church holds to the doctrine of A and another church holds to the doctrine of Not-A, they lack doctrinal unity. If your movement ecumenizes them; you've destroyed both of their identities and set yourself up as a new church that holds to the doctrine of B.
Ecumenism is just muscling your way to the top to the destruction of others. It can't be done without political and military force. That's not just foreign to New Testament ecclesiology, it's defiantly against it.

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

 

[Open Heart]

If one church holds to the doctrine of A and another church holds to the doctrine of Not-A, they lack doctrinal unity. If your movement ecumenizes them; you've destroyed both of their identities and set yourself up as a new church that holds to the doctrine of B.
Ecumenism is just muscling your way to the top to the destruction of others. It can't be done without political and military force. That's not just foreign to New Testament ecclesiology, it's defiantly against it.

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

OR, you could simply be getting them together so that they could be talking out their differences, and actually coming to the truth about A, whether it's true or not. Or something completely different could happen, such as that when talking they discover that it's a misunderstanding, which is what happened between the Catholics and Lutherans over the "Saved by faith alone" issue.