Ecumenism
The final section on this work of systematic theology is ecumenism, which pertains to the conversation and actual practice put in place to attempt to unify the church, both outwardly and inwardly. It intends to participate fully in Christ’s prayer that all who follow him would be one as he and the Father are one (John 17:22). To place it at the very end is not intended to make it seem unimportant, but it is only once we have surveyed the breadth of Christian theology that we can begin to understand ecumenical dialogue in a proper way. First, we will discuss some of the problematic ways of thinking that the ecumenical movement has operated with over the last hundred years and then to attempt to draw attention to some people who have been pursuing the conversation in a different and more productive way.
Traditionally, the questions that have been at the forefront of ecumenical dialogue surround ecclesiological issues (that is, issues that we have discussed in this chapter), such as the sacraments, ordination, church government, and the like. Various documents have been drawn up outlining what people perceive needs to happen in order to bring about real unity and they have achieved wide-ranging acceptance, especially among the mainline denominations. Indeed, the problem with them lies precisely in that acceptance.
What is interesting is that to focus on issues like ordination, church government and the sacraments presumes that this is what is most important to each denomination. This is simply not true. Churches that have a low view of those issues, who treat them as peripheral, don’t care to have serious conversations about them, because they do not matter to them. This, however, does not mean that they are willing to concede the point to those who have a high view of them, as that, too, would betray their convictions. Often, Christians outside of the mainline do not tend to get excited about ecumenical dialogue because they perceive it to be a sacrificing of their integrity. If they believe in things like speaking in tongues or predestination, or any of a host of controversial issues, why would they want to join with people who thought those were not consistent with real Christian faith? If those are the things that are important to them, how could ecumenical dialogue of this kind not tend to make them give up their identity?
There has been much conversation along these lines over the past century and there has been some fruit. For example, it has prompted tremendous effort on the part of biblical scholars to try to understand what the Bible teaches about things like church order, ordination, and the sacraments. However, it does not seem to have actually healed breaches between traditions, just make them less hostile to one another (which is, however, an important victory nonetheless).
There have been a few others who have taken a radically different approach to ecumenical dialogue. For example, Thomas F. Torrance, a Scottish Reformed theologian who has influenced the content of this work tremendously, led a dialogue between the World Council of Reformed Churches and the Pan-Orthodox Communion. Everyone came in expecting to fight about bishops and communion and ordination. However, this was not the case. Torrance insisted that they begin by trying to find some common ground on the doctrine of God (the Trinity). After many years of discussion, this body eventually produced a statement on the Trinity that both sides could agree with. Agreement between East and West on the topic of the Trinity has not happened for a thousand years.
The basic insight of this approach is that the differences that most of ecumenical dialogue has focused on is the outworking of various presuppositions that lie deeper than those issues. By working hard to deal with the symptoms instead of the underlying causes, no real unity is achieved, there is just clarity as to the particular views. However, by working from the very center of the Christian faith by asking questions like, “Who is God?” “How should we understand the incarnation?” we enable ourselves to clear the way, to find a basis on which real unity can rest, and then proceed to other topics. Further, this way of thinking allows us to draw on the insights of those core doctrines to shed light on questions of ordination and the sacraments.
It seems that this approach is more consistent with the way that God has taken to interact with us and affect change. Jesus comes first to take our place, to be both our representative and our substitute. First, God changes who we are, then, and on the basis of that, he changes what we do. The attack on human evil launched by God is from the inside out. Perhaps this is how we should approach the issue of Christian unity.
No comments:
Post a Comment