I subscribe to the view that true Christian unity, the unity Christ prayed for, according to John 17, is unity-in-truth, in particular the truth of the gospel. But the idea of 'unity in the gospel' is challenging in certain ways. For example, it troubles me personally when 'gospel' is so narrowly defined that 'unity in the gospel' means 'our church and just a few others' can work together because, not to put too fine a point on the matter, the others (including a host of churches everyone else in the church views as 'evangelical') do not share the same gospel as us. But I am equally troubled by that widespread Anglican phenomenon in which 'gospel' as a slogan is scrutinized for actual content and found to include multiple versions of the gospel, not all of which are coherent with one another! In short, one challenge of 'unity in the gospel' is defining what the gospel is (and is not).
I think this is 'the' challenge of unity in the gospel. There are some other challenges but I will leave them for another day.
9 comments:
Here is a problem, Peter. For many Christians, "the truth of the Gospel" is equivalent to "the sum total of all our Christian beliefs", or something near that ... including all or most of the subsequent development of Christian doctrine, particular the strand leading in their own direction. This is encouraged, in English speaking places anyhow, by our expression "gospel truth" meaning the truth-status of any proposition thought to have God's backing.
My problem with this usage is that the beliefs, or belief structure, in question may have precious little grounding in the four Gospels as such, or even in the writings of Paul, who made such a strong point of resisting any changes to the one and only gospel as he proclaimed it. Exegesis might lead us a view that the good news proclaimed in the Synoptic gospels, focused on "the kingdom of God", included a divinely-engineered overthrow of the Roman empire, with an implied critique of all oppressive political regimes that have since replaced it. Paul's "gospel", especially in its expression in Galatians, seemed to have a non-negotiable inclusiveness at its heart, revolutionising the relations between Jew and Gentile.
This is my question for you: To what extent would our unity in the gospel be derived from such core convictions of the New Testament writers? My perception is that those who are most insistent on agreement with the gospel as they believe it are preoccupied with doctrinal systems that are far removed from the core convictions that drove the first Christians to proclaim God's transformation of their world.
Hi Howard,
The gospel is the gospel. There is only one, though it is expressed in different ways.
There is no division between what the New Testament says the gospel is and what the history of doctrine says the gospel is.
If there is a perception of division then one or other understanding has to go!
I think I agree with you, Peter! "The gospel is the gospel. There is only one, though it is expressed in different ways." Only problem, When do different expressions become irreconcilable differences over "the truth of the gospel"?
The history of Christian doctrine is hardly a picture of unity, surely? There have been numerous "perceptions of division" leading to ..."one or other has to go". As in, "You heretics are going to hell in a handcart", "We are showing you unbelievers the door, so get going" and other variants of schism. So how is your unity in the gospel different?
I don't have any problem with there only being one gospel, and right now I suspect I have a better grasp on it that you and many others :) If you agree with me on this, we have no problem about unity. If you perversely disagree, how do we decide whose understanding has to go?
Hi Howard,
I think there is a difference between (a) an intention to work towards a unified gospel, believing that it is unsatisfactory that difference and division continue among us, and (b) an acceptance of the current state of affairs as the best we can do (or, worse, in my view, pretending our differences are not even differences by deeming them to be 'diversity'!).
One of my aims while God permits me breathe and access to the internet is to work for unity in the gospel, in the Anglican Communion and then in the worlwide church.
Rightly, as you note, that raises a question or two about authority. Authority does need to be invoked from time to time. But better by far is Christians working towards unity, submitting to one another in Christ.
Maybe St Vincent of Lerins has some advice on this matter.
Catholic in this context means universal of course since in the days of St Vincent the Latin Church was not known as the Catholic Church. Its modern usage to describe that Church is a comparatively recent innovation.
I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.
Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
Maybe St Vincent of Lerins has some advice on this matter.
Catholic in this context means universal of course since in the days of St Vincent the Latin Church was not known as the Catholic Church. Its modern usage to describe that Church is a comparatively recent innovation.
'When do different expressions become irreconcilable differences over "the truth of the gospel"?'
It may take some time for this to be clear: remember the earlier thread using the navigational image of slight initial differences leading to totally different destinations; think of Arius and Athanasius.
Newman's answer, of course - and his reason for parting with Anglicanism - was the need for a final authority to adjudicate among rival truth claims. Newman even provocatively declared (was it his Biglietto speech?) that liberalism meant (in the final analysis) atheism because it put the human faculty of reason in the driving seat.
Not that doctrinal formulations are everything in fidelity to the Gospel (which is, after all, *a message* that can be put in words!), since the absence of prayer, purity and active love (including faith sharing) negates everything else. The Gospel is nothing if not holistic in its claims.
Al M.
Hi Andy S
St Vincent of Lerins is good as far as he goes. It is a useful definition of what constitutes 'catholic' or universal doctrine when he talks about what the church has always, everywhere, believed by all.
But there are a couple of problems he does not overcome!
E.g. (1) "the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation" begs questions about what that 'standard' definition. Not far outside our own lifetimes we have had the example of the Roman 'catholic' church heading in one direction when it was trying to suppress French 'modernist' biblical scholarship, and in another when it become reconciled to 'modernist' biblical scholarship!
(2) "consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors" raises a question or two about what constitutes 'almost all' (90% ... 95% ... 99.9%)? And what if on an issue the division of viewpoint is 50:50?! (As, for example, became the question of the Scriptural basis for (or not) the filioque clause, over which western catholic Christianity divided from eastern catholic Christianity!
Andy S or anyone:
what was the "Latin Church" called at the time of St Vincen?
& what documentation & date is there for the first use of "Catholic Church" for this "Latin Church"
Genuine Question.
Thanks
Post a Comment