Oecumenical

[Philip_B]

Ugh, it isn't about the filioque. It is about the authority of Rome. It all comes down to obedience.

Matthew 20.25-34​

But Jesus called them to him and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.’

Yet in a way, the filioque is the glaring example. The Councils of 1 Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, affirm the Nicene Creed without it, and indeed Ephesus declares anathemas on those who add to or take away from the words. In 1014 the filioque was added to the Creed in Rome, and the East protested, and ultimately in 1054, we have the Great Schism. Did the Pope have the authority to overturn the councils? If he did then there seems little point in an œcumenical council.

Your response seems very much in the Islamic tradition I submit, rather than the great and holy tradition that affirms that the truth will set you free..

and, I'm sick and tired about all the whining that goes on about not being able to receive the Holy Eucharist. Get over yourselves. One faith, One Baptism, One communion. It ain't that complicated

I am not whining, as there is only one table, set in this world and the next. Pope Francis, in Laudato Si has a very good section f the Eucharist, and I commend it to all, whatever tradition of faith you find yourself walking in.

236. It is in the Eucharist that all that has been created finds its greatest exaltation. Grace, which tends to manifest itself tangibly, found unsurpassable expression when God himself became man and gave himself as food for his creatures. The Lord, in the culmination of the mystery of the Incarnation, chose to reach our intimate depths through a fragment of matter. He comes not from above, but from within, he comes that we might find him in this world of ours. In the Eucharist, fullness is already achieved; it is the living centre of the universe, the overflowing core of love and of inexhaustible life. Joined to the incarnate Son, present in the Eucharist, the whole cosmos gives thanks to God. Indeed the Eucharist is itself an act of cosmic love: “Yes, cosmic! Because even when it is celebrated on the humble altar of a country church, the Eucharist is always in some way celebrated on the altar of the world”. The Eucharist joins heaven and earth; it embraces and penetrates all creation. The world which came forth from God’s hands returns to him in blessed and undivided adoration: in the bread of the Eucharist, “creation is projected towards divinization, towards the holy wedding feast, towards unification with the Creator himself” Thus, the Eucharist is also a source of light and motivation for our concerns for the environment, directing us to be stewards of all creation.​

​

237. On Sunday, our participation in the Eucharist has special importance. Sunday, like the Jewish Sabbath, is meant to be a day which heals our relationships with God, with ourselves, with others and with the world. Sunday is the day of the Resurrection, the “first day” of the new creation, whose first fruits are the Lord’s risen humanity, the pledge of the final transfiguration of all created reality. It also proclaims “man’s eternal rest in God”. In this way, Christian spirituality incorporates the value of relaxation and festivity. We tend to demean contemplative rest as something unproductive and unnecessary, but this is to do away with the very thing which is most important about work: its meaning. We are called to include in our work a dimension of receptivity and gratuity, which is quite different from mere inactivity. Rather, it is another way of working, which forms part of our very essence. It protects human action from becoming empty activism; it also prevents that unfettered greed and sense of isolation which make us seek personal gain to the detriment of all else. The law of weekly rest forbade work on the seventh day, “so that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your maidservant, and the stranger, may be refreshed” (Ex 23:12). Rest opens our eyes to the larger picture and gives us renewed sensitivity to the rights of others. And so the day of rest, centred on the Eucharist, sheds it light on the whole week, and motivates us to greater concern for nature and the poor.​

 

[concretecamper]

Your response seems very much in the Islamic tradition I submit, rather than the great and holy tradition that affirms that the truth will set you free..

It seems you misinterpret what I write, much like you may misinterpret scripture.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The last few posts are not looking even a tiny but Oecumenical.

 

[Philip_B]

The last few posts are not looking even a tiny but Oecumenical.

If we are, to be honest, and œcumenical then we will have to address some of these issues. I thought quoting a living Pope was quite œcumenical.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Pope Francis, in Laudato Si, has a very good section f [on] the Eucharist, and I commend it to all, whatever tradition of faith you find yourself walking in.

236. It is in the Eucharist that all that has been created finds its greatest exaltation. Grace, which tends to manifest itself tangibly, found unsurpassable expression when God himself became man and gave himself as food for his creatures. The Lord, in the culmination of the mystery of the Incarnation, chose to reach our intimate depths through a fragment of matter. He comes not from above, but from within, he comes that we might find him in this world of ours. In the Eucharist, fullness is already achieved; it is the living centre of the universe, the overflowing core of love and of inexhaustible life. Joined to the incarnate Son, present in the Eucharist, the whole cosmos gives thanks to God. Indeed the Eucharist is itself an act of cosmic love: “Yes, cosmic! Because even when it is celebrated on the humble altar of a country church, the Eucharist is always in some way celebrated on the altar of the world”. The Eucharist joins heaven and earth; it embraces and penetrates all creation. The world which came forth from God’s hands returns to him in blessed and undivided adoration: in the bread of the Eucharist, “creation is projected towards divinization, towards the holy wedding feast, towards unification with the Creator himself” Thus, the Eucharist is also a source of light and motivation for our concerns for the environment, directing us to be stewards of all creation.237. On Sunday, our participation in the Eucharist has special importance. Sunday, like the Jewish Sabbath, is meant to be a day which heals our relationships with God, with ourselves, with others and with the world. Sunday is the day of the Resurrection, the “first day” of the new creation, whose first fruits are the Lord’s risen humanity, the pledge of the final transfiguration of all created reality. It also proclaims “man’s eternal rest in God”. In this way, Christian spirituality incorporates the value of relaxation and festivity. We tend to demean contemplative rest as something unproductive and unnecessary, but this is to do away with the very thing which is most important about work: its meaning. We are called to include in our work a dimension of receptivity and gratuity, which is quite different from mere inactivity. Rather, it is another way of working, which forms part of our very essence. It protects human action from becoming empty activism; it also prevents that unfettered greed and sense of isolation which make us seek personal gain to the detriment of all else. The law of weekly rest forbade work on the seventh day, “so that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your maidservant, and the stranger, may be refreshed” (Ex 23:12). Rest opens our eyes to the larger picture and gives us renewed sensitivity to the rights of others. And so the day of rest, centred on the Eucharist, sheds it light on the whole week, and motivates us to greater concern for nature and the poor.

If we are to be honest and oecumenical the will will have to address some of these issues. I thought quoting a living Pope was quite oecumenical.

That was good.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Consider this agenda for an oecumenical council for Christian churches that accept the Nicene Creed:

1. Reaffirmation of the Nicene Creed: To start, the council could affirm the Nicene Creed as the shared foundation of their faith, and the cornerstone of their unity.
2. Unity and Common Witness: The council could discuss the ways in which Christians can better work together to share the gospel and be a witness to the world.
3. Interfaith Relations: The council could address the importance of interfaith relations and the ways in which Christians can engage in dialogue with people of other faith traditions.
4. Social Justice and the Environment: The council could address the urgent need for action on social justice issues and environmental concerns.
5. Ecumenical Relations and Reconciliation: The council could work towards a deeper understanding of the differences between Christian churches, with the goal of fostering greater unity and reconciliation.
6. Mission and Evangelism: The council could discuss the role of mission and evangelism in the modern world and the ways in which Christians can collaborate to share the gospel.
7. Biblical Interpretation: The council could explore the importance of a shared understanding of the Bible and discuss the role of biblical interpretation in the life of the church.
8. Church Structure and Leadership: The council could address the need for a common understanding of the structure and leadership of the church, including the role of bishops, priests, and deacons.

This is just one potential agenda for an ecumenical council. The important thing is that the council focuses on the things that unite Christians, and works towards greater understanding, unity, and reconciliation.

Would you want your church to participate?

If so, why? If not then why not?

This seems awfully liberal, already, and socially 'woke'. It assumes importance of this and that, that are politically correct, rather than Biblically important. Even the terminology is 'woke', not Biblical.

It reminds me of the way some supposed 'scientific' studies are made, done by those who want some authority behind their agenda.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

This seems awfully liberal, already, and socially 'woke'. It assumes importance of this and that, that are politically correct, rather than Biblically important. Even the terminology is 'woke', not Biblical.

It reminds me of the way some supposed 'scientific' studies are made, done by those who want some authority behind their agenda.

What, specifically, would you leave out?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Xeno.of.athens said:
Consider this agenda for an oecumenical council for Christian churches that accept the Nicene Creed:

1. Reaffirmation of the Nicene Creed: To start, the council could affirm the Nicene Creed as the shared foundation of their faith, and the cornerstone of their unity.
2. Unity and Common Witness: The council could discuss the ways in which Christians can better work together to share the gospel and be a witness to the world.
3. Interfaith Relations: The council could address the importance of interfaith relations and the ways in which Christians can engage in dialogue with people of other faith traditions.
4. Social Justice and the Environment: The council could address the urgent need for action on social justice issues and environmental concerns.
5. Ecumenical Relations and Reconciliation: The council could work towards a deeper understanding of the differences between Christian churches, with the goal of fostering greater unity and reconciliation.
6. Mission and Evangelism: The council could discuss the role of mission and evangelism in the modern world and the ways in which Christians can collaborate to share the gospel.
7. Biblical Interpretation: The council could explore the importance of a shared understanding of the Bible and discuss the role of biblical interpretation in the life of the church.
8. Church Structure and Leadership: The council could address the need for a common understanding of the structure and leadership of the church, including the role of bishops, priests, and deacons.

This is just one potential agenda for an ecumenical council. The important thing is that the council focuses on the things that unite Christians, and works towards greater understanding, unity, and reconciliation.

Would you want your church to participate?

If so, why? If not then why not?

What, specifically, would you leave out?

Like @Paidiske and @DialecticSkeptic indicated, I would first have to know the purpose, and as narrow a statement of purpose at that, behind the council. I would very definitely not want to be, nor my church to be, involved in such a council that assumes facts as seem to me to be assumed for the formation of the points above.

And likely, I will seem excessively picky, to you, in what I say here, but:

1. Not even the Westminster is the foundation of my faith, nor is the Nicene Creed, whether I agree with them in totality or not. Here, you seem to place authority where it does not belong. The foundation of my faith is Christ himself, though I could agree that the Scriptures could be termed that, in a certain sense.

2. It would seem to me to be important that we share the same gospel, which apparently we do not, unless by the mere words of it, and not by the meaning of those words.

3. For all of these points, my first thought is generally, "WHY?" Why would we seek to be inclusive of other faiths, instead of being in opposition to false religions? Granted, there are discussions to be had, more on a one-to-one basis, I should think, with members of "other faiths", but that is debate.

4. "social justice issues and environmental concerns"? The very sound of the words make me feel sick to my stomach. This world we inhabit is replete with such 'woke' terminology, yet seeing the effects that the talk has produced belie the very words you use there. WHY even include this number?

5. "Ecumenical Relations and Reconciliation" Like any other these points you suggest, this one could take more time than any council has to spare for the purpose. But at least, to my mind, this one is somewhat noble in intent, at least, since all attendees are purportedly Christian. But, I think, it would necessarily have to begin with, as my #1 and #2 suggest, an agreed foundation of our faith, and an agreed derivation of the Gospel.

6. "Mission and Evangelism" Two thoughts come to mind here —one being, of course, an agreed-upon Gospel; the other being somewhat bothersome to me even since childhood as a missionary kid: The notion that whatever seems to be the most logically inclusive, or effective 'method' to accomplish the spreading of the gospel, always seems to me artificial. Somehow, to figure out how to accomplish the most converts, or at least, to spread the Gospel most uniformly, smacks of "the wisdom of man". I would, at least, hope that is not the manner in which this point was to be pursued.

But as for 'collaboration', there are several supposedly 'Christian' cults I would have nothing to do with, and no intention of working with them toward what I know is not a common goal, no matter how the words are phrased.

7. "Biblical Interpretation" I am, of course, skeptical of inclusive efforts, but I would be curious to watch this point and how it is introduced and dealt with by the council. Is it an attempt to agree with hermeneutics? How many "methods" would be included, and how many "assumptions" are allowed as foundational to hermeneutics, and interpretation and use of Scripture, for the sake of 'peace' between members of the council?

8. "Church Structure and Leadership" I don't think this could reach consensus.


I see a common thread throughout your agenda, of an assumed fact not in evidence, that Christianity, (current day), should be governed by an authoritative body. This, I disagree with.

But worse, and maybe even more dangerous, is the notion that all varieties that go by the name Christian, are to be accepted and validated.

(They say that an Orthodox Jew, a Catholic, and a Baptist were meeting one day at a conference center bordering a forest, and a bear waddled in, ate them all up, and returned to the woods. Several hours later, the bear produced rather a large ecumenical movement.)

 

[Paidiske]

And here we demonstrate how different some of our starting positions are. I, for example, see social justice and environmental concerns as intrinsic to the church's mission, and a natural point of ecumenical cooperation, and would be quite comfortable with those discussions being on the agenda.

 

[Mark Quayle]

And here we demonstrate how different some of our starting positions are. I, for example, see social justice and environmental concerns as intrinsic to the church's mission, and a natural point of ecumenical cooperation, and would be quite comfortable with those discussions being on the agenda.

Yes, I would expect that to be so.

I have no problem with true social justice. I would love to see it. But it is not getting better by making it an ecumenical matter. Already there is consensus as to what that means, how it displays, and what is necessarily not allowed to be said. The same goes for environmental concerns. I frankly hate political correctness, particularly when the Church becomes infatuated with it. I'm not just afraid of it; it is already running some churches, becoming more important than even their own doctrinal statements, which are some of them, from what I understand, changing to accommodate the 'woke' truisms.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

And here we demonstrate how different some of our starting positions are. I, for example, see social justice and environmental concerns as intrinsic to the church's mission, and a natural point of ecumenical cooperation, and would be quite comfortable with those discussions being on the agenda.

I agree with the environmental concerns part, at least. I think anyone with a biblical world-view informed by a Christ-centered creation theology—especially in covenantal terms (I’m looking at my Reformed brethren)—should be deeply concerned about ecological ethics and environmental stewardship. If you believe all of creation, especially the human sphere, belongs to God, and if you believe in the eschatological redemption of all things in Christ—as Middleton put it, “God’s saving work through Christ is as wide as creation”—then how could you not have environmental concerns? Two of my biggest influences in this area have been J. Richard Middleton and Gregory K. Beale. See also: Douglas Moo and Jonathan Moo, Creation Care: A Biblical Theology of the Natural World (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018); Richard Bauckham, Bible and Ecology: Recovering the Community of Creation (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010); Jonathan Wilson, God’s Good World: Reclaiming the Doctrine of Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013).

I used to have an abiding concern for social justice issues, especially as it relates to such abuses of capitalism as cronyism and its logical conclusion, fascism. But, ever since 2012, “social justice” has been so overtaken by the Everything Is Racist crowd, the Everything Is White Supremacy crowd, and the Everything Is Homophobic (or Transphobic) crowd that it has become a parody of itself and I’ve all but abandoned it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I agree with the environmental concerns part, at least. I think anyone with a biblical world-view informed by a Christ-centered creation theology—especially in covenantal terms (I’m looking at my Reformed brethren)—should be deeply concerned about ecological ethics and environmental stewardship.

I have no problem with this. My problem is when the prevailing noise of Man-Caused-Global-Warmi— er, Climate Change (y'know, since it might cool down instead), is assumed and not only in need of correction but of subjugation of members of the human race to do whatever the noise-makers demand, almost as penance. This is what is going on already, in pretense that Global Warming would not even be a good thing, and that there really is something we can do about it, in the face of the fact that one good burp of a volcano throws the whole equation out of whack.

Should Christians generally suppose that it is the duty of man to regulate the temperature of the planet? No.

I remember as a child the stinging eyes from driving into Los Angeles. I'm all for clean air and clean water. I don't like trash to line the highways. I like green grass and growing things. I've been in the tropical rain forest, and laugh at those who decry the cutting of the trees there. Even here in the USA, you cut down a few acres; within 5 years, heavy shrubbery has taken over. Within 20 or 30 years you can hardly tell it was cut. I believe what I hear, anymore, just about as much as I believe the Polar Bear on the iceberg was actually too far out for it to swim to safety, and that the picture was not from years earlier in the National Geographic. I refuse to live by appeal to feelings, instead of facts.

 

[Paidiske]

I would describe a Christian social justice concern as being about creating and supporting social systems and structures which promote human flourishing. So, making sure that all of us, and especially the most vulnerable, still have access to clean water; to food; to health care; to education; to the dignity of meaningful work without exploitation; and so on. It seems to me that this is a fair description of at least one aspect of the reign of God, so it's hard to see how this is a problem for so many Christians.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I would describe a Christian social justice concern as being about creating and supporting social systems and structures which promote human flourishing. So, making sure that all of us, and especially the most vulnerable, still have access to clean water; to food; to health care; to education; to the dignity of meaningful work without exploitation; and so on. It seems to me that this is a fair description of at least one aspect of the reign of God, so it's hard to see how this is a problem for so many Christians.

Do you see Christians as liking the substitution by Government instead of the Church, in the role of looking after the poor, the orphans and widows? Is it right to support the Government taking by edict the money earned by its subjects, in order to [supposedly] distribute it among the less fortunate?

 

[Paidiske]

Do you see Christians as liking the substitution by Government instead of the Church, in the role of looking after the poor, the orphans and widows?

I don't care who does it, as long as it's done. If the government can do it, and do it better than the church on its own (which I would say is clearly the case, since the government has much greater legislative and policy means at its disposal), then why not? What's the point of government, if it doesn't govern in such a way as to promote the flourishing of those within its borders?

Is it right to support the Government taking by edict the money earned by its subjects, in order to [supposedly] distribute it among the less fortunate?

Basically, yes. I see it as a social contract; we all contribute to the common good, and that ensures there's a safety net for us when we need it. I don't have a lot of patience for people who somehow seem to feel they shouldn't have to contribute in that way.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

My problem is when the prevailing noise of [anthropogenic global warming or climate change is so uncritically assumed and requires not only] correction but [the] subjugation of members of the human race to do whatever the noise-makers demand, almost as penance.

That is what the world is doing, but my concern is not driven by worldly values or motivations. The context of my concern is Christ, his church, and its mission. I'm talking about ecological ethics and environmental stewardship governed by “a biblical world-view informed by a Christ-centered creation theology—especially in covenantal terms.” Leave the world to do what it does. My desire is for the church to do what it has been called to do since the garden of Eden, to actively engage the eschatological redemption of all things in Christ, which at a minimum includes environmental stewardship (presupposing that all things belong to God). I think it is embarrassing that the unbelieving world is more concerned about man's stewardship of the natural world than the church is.

Should Christians generally suppose that it is the duty of man to regulate the temperature of the planet? No.

Should Christians generally suppose that it's their duty to care for God's creation? Yes. We are stewards of that which belongs to God—which is everything. In the Westminster Shorter Catechism we read that the chief end of man is “to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” What does it mean to glorify God? Along with J. Richard Middleton, I believe that it is “faithfulness to God (in all of life) that truly brings God glory.” And that includes being very concerned about and caring for his creation, working toward the eschatological redemption of all things in Christ. I strongly recommend two books: (1) Gregory K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004). (2) J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth: Reclaiming Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014).