A correspondent envisions a
“conservative ecumenism that would bring about a revival of Christendom, with Catholic, Orthodox, and even theologically conservative Lutherans and other Protestants finding some way to join as the reunified Body of Christ.”
I think my correspondent’s remark may have been prompted by a comment I made that
“it is important for Christianity to understand what it is in its integrity. That would include the creeds, sacraments, defined dogma, the Pope and so on.”
So which is it? Or is it somehow both? It certainly seems that in public life 95% of the truth is better than 0% of the truth. Also, an orthodox Catholic is likely to have more in common materially with an orthodox Orthodox than with Cardinal Keith O’Brien.
On the other hand, it also seems to me that the papacy is essential to Christianity. Part of the reason it’s essential is that in a struggle it’s important to have a practical way of resolving disputes among the allies, and if need be determine that someone isn’t an ally but an enemy or fifth columnist. The Church needs Peter, especially in hard times.
It seems the best one can do is to avoid fuzzing the importance of Catholic distinctives, while minimizing irritants and on particular issues working with whoever is willing and keeping relative degrees of agreement in mind. Not a brilliant suggestion, but I have nothing better to offer.
I generally agree with the
I generally agree with the thrust of these two Chronicles essays:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/May2002/0502Wolf.html
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Fleming/NewsTF100203.html
All of us Christians in our respective traditions need to recover our respective identities first (which we’ve lost through cultural homogenization); then we can form strategic *political* alliances – without compromising our doctrinal distinctives by attempting to find theological common ground, but merely working together pragmatically where our common interests intersect. As I see it, we have two main common enemies; one within (liberalism) and one without (Islam), which all traditionalist Christians, whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, or Reformed, can agree need to be combatted, to which end we should aim for some degree of political unity.
And unfortunately, I believe we can count out most evangelical Protestants, in terms of getting them on board. Because as the above essay by Wolf shows, they tend to be very anti-traditionalist, and part of the problem, both in terms of their being too beholden to “rock-and-roll-worship” and hence the cultural homogenization force of liberalism (despite any protestations they may make to the contrary); and in terms of their foreign policy interests, which are unduly influenced by an erroneous eschatology:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/April2003/0403Wolf.html
I believe this false belief has been highly detrimental to America and the west, in its political effects; traditionalist Christians of all stripes ought to fiercely oppose it whenever they see it arising in their own ranks, and should work together politically against it, and cultural liberalism, and to some extent in terms of geopolitics, against Islam (but not needlessly antagonizing Muslims, as knee-jerk, blind support for Israel no matter what Israel does, engenders; as also does militarily occupying Muslim territory and installing puppet regimes, as we’ve unfortunately seen).
The question is how? I have no brilliant suggestions to offer, either; I don’t hold much hope at present in terms of party politics or lobby groups. I guess the main thing is to look after our own flocks, speak our truths amongst ourselves and to our neighbours, and bide our time for a better day, one of God’s choosing.
Great posting Will,
Great posting Will, congratulations.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Thanks.
Thanks.
In the next piece of the
In the next piece of the series exposing early feminism (“Susan B. Anthony:…” MensNewsDaily.com), I’ll be writing about the popularization of mysticism and spiritualism in the more liberal US Protestant denominations of the 1800s. Many of them sought to distract from scripture and misguide churches by pushing such New Age concepts. It is likely that we are seeing the residual effects of that old campaign, to some extent, in religions of the left, today—also in ecumenical, charismatic, evangelical programs.
BTW, Susan B. and some of her friends said ugly things about Catholics, as did most of the Nativists.
I think Rome should stick to
I think Rome should stick to its doctrines, but at the same time recognize that while doctrine is not culturally conditioned, practices are.
There is, among ecumenically-minded Protestants and Orthodox, the perception that Rome is the all-assimilating Borg bent not only upon replacing their heresies with orthodoxy but also erasing their cultural affinities and mandating Latin European preferences. The latter, while seemingly trivial compared to the former, constitutes an issue of trust in the shepherd that is hard to overcome. Don’t misunderstand me—one should only become Catholic if one believes every doctrine Rome teaches—but people that want to be in communion with Rome don’t necessarily want to become Italians.
“If Christian Lutherans,
“If Christian Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians walked out of their liberal denominations to join churches that preserved the historic teachings of Luther, Cranmer, and Calvin, they could begin to work together for the goal of a reconstituted Christian America, and if Catholics could band together to remove homosexual bishops and priests and force the American Church to preach and teach the doctrine of the Catholic Church, they would be part of a Christian network of moral families that numbered tens, even hundreds of millions of people around the world.”
– from Tom Fleming’s latest piece:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/HardRight/HardRight112103.html
“I think Rome should stick
“I think Rome should stick to its doctrines, but at the same time recognize that while doctrine is not culturally conditioned, practices are.
There is, among ecumenically-minded Protestants and Orthodox, the perception that Rome is the all-assimilating Borg bent not only upon replacing their heresies with orthodoxy but also erasing their cultural affinities and mandating Latin European preferences. The latter, while seemingly trivial compared to the former, constitutes an issue of trust in the shepherd that is hard to overcome. Don’t misunderstand me—one should only become Catholic if one believes every doctrine Rome teaches—but people that want to be in communion with Rome don’t necessarily want to become Italians.”
But can a given religious tradition not end up reflecting to a large extent the cultural practices and biases of the majority of its practitioners? The Protestant churches reflect strongly the Germanic/Anglo-Saxon cultures associated with them, precisely because that’s where they historically were and are strongest; the Roman Catholic Church reflects most strongly the Latin / southern European element as mentioned, the Eastern Orthodox churches Eastern Europe, and so on. If we accept that the nations and ethnic groups correspond to divine design and are to be accepted:
http://jkalb.freeshell.org/tab/archives/001539.php
Then will not the various religious traditions, being made up of human followers (all of whom belong to specific ethnic groups and nations), thus end up invariably tied, to a great extent, to the cultures of their majorities? I’m not sure how we’d go about divorcing the two – or if we even ought to do so – see the first essay linked in my first posting in this thread ( http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/May2002/0502Wolf.html ); I think Wolf’s comments about identity and the importance of tradition are bang-on.
I know that some Native American activists of ostensibly Christian background have complained about Europeans linking European cultural practices to the faith when they delivered it to natives, yet I don’t see how that could have been avoided completely (even if it we all agree it could have been done better).
If Christians wanted to come
If Christians wanted to come together there is a good, consistent foundation to start: with the Catholic Church before the reformation. However, this foundation would be modified by the reformed parts of the Church; that is, the foundation would be Catholicism as practiced today.
Now I don’t think of myself as Latin because I am Roman Catholic. Perhaps I have an unperceived philosophical bent that is in fact Latin, but I don’t know that. I think of myself as being Western, or more specifically, an American of European descent.
Because of God’s unequivocal rejection of the tower of Babel, I am reluctant to insist on a common language for all the faithful. What might be acceptable is a common language of worship but not of everyday life. However, I suspect with universal communication upon us, we are going to end up with a common language of communication between Catholics; so let it be Latin or Aramaic or Greek. (It is probable our Lord spoke all three, if not many more languages.) These languages bring us closer to the Church fathers and help us to avoid misinterpreting their writings.
“But can a given religious
“But can a given religious tradition not end up reflecting to a large extent the cultural practices and biases of the majority of its practitioners? The Protestant churches reflect strongly the Germanic/Anglo-Saxon cultures associated with them, precisely because that’s where they historically were and are strongest; the Roman Catholic Church reflects most strongly the Latin / southern European element as mentioned, the Eastern Orthodox churches Eastern Europe, and so on.”
Culture does shape religious devotion. One culture can think its ways ordinary and all others melodramatic, even as another thinks its ways ordinary and all others stiff and frozen. Both may be right within the scope of their own culture.
My point was, the Byzantines, Maronites, and several other groups in communion with Rome are not Latin. Neither should the descendants of Anglo-Saxon culture (or African, German, Chinese, etc.) have to be Latin in order to be fully Catholic. The northern Europeans certainly didn’t consider themselves Latins before the Reformation.
Okay, I’ve been resisting
Okay, I’ve been resisting posting to this thread, but here goes.
“Conservative ecumenism” is certainly an oxymoron. When in any ideology or religion has there been any broad, encompassing, successful ecumenical movement? The Shiites and Sunnis kill each other in Iraq, and probably elsewhere. The history of Christianity puts them to shame.
“Conservative Lutherans and other Protestants” probably have more in common with Wahabi Islam, even theologically, so you should think twice before telling them about an ecumenical movement.
In many cases a conservative ecumenical movement would probably be easier to establish horizontally, that is among conservatives of different religions. A conservative Baptist would probably work together better with a conservative Jew than with a conservative Catholic. I’m not trying to be pessimistic here, just straightforward. Look at history.
If things stayed rather secular, then maybe there could be some form of ecumenism. If you established a society where people didn’t care about religion or theology, then Catholics and Protestants could work together; but then maybe they would work together with Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs as well.
One final note, think about the mind frame of conservative religionists; most of them are the exact type of people who would reject ecumenism out of deeply-held religious conviction. And that’s why “conservative ecumenism” is a little unrealistic.