taking a brief departure from my postings on becoming a government asset...
this is an excerpt from the online course i'm taking...it's all about how to "do church"...what is church? how do we define it and how can that definition be limited?
we have to post writings on contemporary issues...the question at hand: What is your vision of ecumenism and the unity of the church?
the bitterness grows with the thread.....
aric:
While conceptually I align with the intention of ecumenism and unity in the Church at large, I have consistently remained skeptical of its feasibility. If the third Assembly of the World Council of Churches has identified Pentecost as the ultimate manifestation of the Church’s unity, then I would argue that the further in time we move away from that event, the further away we pull from the reality of unity it brought about. The very nature of humans is to define our institutions and practices. As we define our idea of religion, we necessarily place it over and against others’ definitions of religion. And thus unity becomes less and less tangible.
I do agree with Karkkainen that a well-founded view of unity and ecumenism comes about by acknowledging the Spirit’s work and not human effort in the process (Karkkainen, 79). If I had an idealistic (and I do mean idealistic) vision of how to bring about unity in the Church, I would imagine a gathering of varying denominational backgrounds and leaders—but not for the purpose of discussion or issue resolution. As I noted above, I believe this only pits one side versus another. Instead, using Acts 2:1 as a simple model, I believe unity can be achieved only we are “all together in one place” praying towards the goal of unity, humility to put aside personal beliefs, and the empowering of the Spirit through a Pentecost-like experience which tears down the practical barriers blocking unity (in Acts it was language—for our modern-day context I imagine it is the particular theological beliefs we hold dear).
response from another student:
Interesting post Aric. This, in particular, stuck out to me: "the very nature of humans is to define our institutions and practices." I think I understand what you're getting at here. If you mean that we will necessarily develop different ways of being "the church" and we are, by nature, inclined to define these different ways, I'd agree. Some have critiqued the ecumenical movment as too hasty to do away with definitions and focus on praxis -- praxis over dogma. It seems to me that this simply sidesteps the inevitable. The only way to true unity is through the "definitions" (church tradition and their particular theological history) and this is where we get gummed up, as you note. Like you I want to believe that unity is possible and like you I'm sceptical. My sceptism troubles me though . . .
aric:
My skepticsim troubles me as well...I feel it grows as I see church upon church promote "spreading of the kingdom" but only by the means of the vision statement its denomination employs, or the popular books its congregation reads or the particular church tradition it inherited.
I get a little leery when I'm at one church and someone tells me "You should read this book by ABC, it explains how ministry is the act of God for the purpose of..." and I'm visiting with a friend from another church and I hear "You should really read this book from XYZ, it explains how ministry is the act of God for the purpose of..."
There's just so many ways to slice the issue of "how to do church" that I wonder if everyone one day can put down their books with lovely paperback covers of sunlight breaking through soft clouds, walk out of their church building and drive down the street to have coffee with another church-goer from another church.
Again...my skepticism troubles me as well. :)