Thursday, November 13, 2014

Give Up Your Small Ecumenical Ambitions - the Good News

Answering Jesus' prayer for the unity of his disciples is an immense challenge as previous posts here have indicated. But ever the optimist I suggest we do not descend into ecumenical gloom and doom.

One specific reason for not being gloomy about future prospects for one global communion of all Christians is the mighty power of the Holy Spirit. We should never act or think as though the Spirit is constrained by our own lack of ability to foresee better days to come. We could also contemplate all that we can see that the Spirit is achieving among us in our day.

Here I want to begin a list of the things which actually unite us. You could help by adding to the list in the comments. The list, I suggest, offers both reason for ecumenical thanksgiving as well as hope for the future.

In no particular order of significance ...

1. Christians accept the Apostles' Creed.

2. Only a few words of the Nicene Creed divide Christians who otherwise accept all the other words of this creed.

3. Without specific heads of churches agreement forcing the matter, from the ground up many churches are united in following a common lectionary. In itself this is a recognition that Scripture (noting 4 below) itself is a continuing matter of global commonality for Christians.

4. While acknowledging differences concerning the canon of the scriptures between Easter and Western Christianity, and within Western Christianity, all Christians are united on the canon of New Testament Scriptures.

5. Trinitarian baptism is practised by the vast majority of churches, and, with exceptions such as the Salvation Army, baptism remains the common initiation rite of those churches.

Can you add to this list? Do you disagree with one or more items on this list?

35 comments:

Jean said...

- Prayer is a component of the christian life in all parts of 'the body'

Otherwise, Amen!

carl jacobs said...

How about some definition of what the clauses in the Apostle's Creed mean. And the Nicene Creed for that matter.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Carl
Yes, there would be differences if we get down to discussing definitions of what clauses mean.

But it is nevertheless important that we are prepared to say the words together.

carl jacobs said...

Peter

But it is nevertheless important that we are prepared to say the words together.

No, it's not. That's the point.

carl

Michael Reddell said...

I was curious why Holy Communion did not make your list (again, with exceptions such as the Salvation Army)? Of course, there are considerable differences over the meaning of the sacrament but that is true of baptism.

It is an encouraging list in a way, but......even if, say, Baptists and Catholics relate more easily than they did 50 years ago, or someone can be a Baptist minister one year and Dean of an Anglican cathedral the next, we seem to have more institutional division within Protestantism (and perhaps evangelical/Pentecostal Protestantism in particular) than ever, with the ever-increasing number of congregations that are either independent or part of quite small networks.

I just checked the small town I grew up in. Back then it had one of each main Protestant denomination (including the Lutherans). Now the town has fewer people, more church congregations, and half are independents.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Michael
I am certainly open to communion making the list and your comment pushes the case. My reason for not initially including it is the fact that it is a cause of significant division re the exclusion at communion by the Romans of Protestants. Our baptism is acceptable but not our understanding of communion ...

As for the proliferation of denominations. That does make my grand ecumenical ambition very hard indeed!

Michael Reddell said...

Re baptism, there are still many Baptist churches (not sure about others) for which acceptance of the legitimacy of an infant baptism, even from a believing family is an issue. Even where it is not an insuperable barrier to church membership, it is often more a grudging practical acceptance than a full mutual recognition.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Michael
The 'top' issues in which ecumenically we are sharply divergent rather than converging include infant v believers' baptism.

Chris Spark said...

Perhaps it is worth adding that there are significant areas of working together across denom divides in many places (notably in my direct experience in evangelical circles, though no doubt in others too) - working together in training and evangelism in particular. Not totally universal, not interchangeable, but legit and significant expressions of oneness in Christ all the same. And I find it very encouraging!

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Chris
In broad terms 'mission' has been and is an area of great co-operation between Christians, and especially evangelism. But the common factor often peters out once (say) converts are made and then differing church disciplines over baptism, communion, ministry orders come into play.

Jean said...

I am with Chris on adding Joint Christian Initiatives that to the list. There are definitely examples of ecumenical mission/training activities, many of which accommodate different church disciplines as churches deliver them in their own context (e.g. Alpha initially instigated by a CofE parish, being run in a multiplicity of churches, including Catholic, Pentecostal etc...). Social Justice too - e.g. food banks run by a group of denominations.

Is our doing more important than our particular understanding so long as the core understanding aligns? (e.g. communion for all churches is the body and blood of christ given in remembrance of Him?). I would put it on the list.

I would say the same about Baptism. So biblically children and adults were baptised and us fallible human still contend which is the valid course of action. The most important aspect is Baptism itself. I belonged to an Anglican Church which practised infant baptism, adult baptism and shock horror even re-baptised a couple of people - please don't tell.

Me... encourage ecumenical co-operation... : ) ...

Peter Carrell said...

Indeed, Jean!

Anonymous said...

Did the Fathers at Nicea or those who subsequently received the Creed believe it in exactly the same way? Do we all say ,for example, "he will come again in glory" and mean the same thing?
Perry Butler. .now visiting Auckland!

liturgy said...

I think you are standing too close to the picture.

Step back and look at the whole image: a religion that claims it has the God-revealed truth cannot agree what that truth actually is to the point where there is not another world religion that fragments as much or as quickly. With each tiny, disagreeing splinter group saying that it has the correct reading of its canon.

Even in this thread of comments it is clear that there is not even agreement on initiation into this religion. To the point of it being taken as a joke that within a tiny splinter group its own understanding of initiation is mocked without consequence.

Standing back and looking at the fuller image, it is pretty clear where on this image the fragmentation is occurring and why.

Blessings

Bosco

Jean said...

If you are referring Bosco to the different ways of Baptism I mentioned, it is not mockery of the Anglican understanding at all but trying to make light of a division that need not be.

Acting with love and discernment in a church which although Anglican by association, contained people from other denominations, the Priest in this church honoured those who were genuinely convicted in regards to adult or infant Baptism. The congregation supported and respected the varying viewpoints held - it created no division, rather the sense of unity was strong. What was not questioned was the importance or significance of Batism.

Admittedly re-batism is very unorthodox and was rare. However, one parishoner was baptised after birth by non-christian parents as they thought he would die. He was not a christian growing up, and actively worked against his wife when she tried to take their children to church. However, later he started coming to church, and after about eight years of attending he committed himself to Jesus as Lord. He then sought re-baptism as he felt strongly the need for this personal initiation into the Christian faith for himself, as he felt his parents could not have 'legitimately' presented him as infant when they themselves held no Christian belief. Would you have turned him away?





Peter Carrell said...

Hi Bosco
Perhaps I am being obtuse but I do not understand the point you are making.

"Standing back and looking at the fuller image, it is pretty clear where on this image the fragmentation is occurring and why"

Are you referring to Scripture? the fallibility of fallen men (and women) claiming to understand the truth? the folly of Rome's authoritarian insistence that it and only it know the truth? Or to something else and I am really, really obtuse ...

liturgy said...

Jean, you have answered the question yourself: “re-baptism is very unorthodox”.

Baptism is God’s action, and to deny that a validly-baptised person is baptised, and “re-baptise” that person, is sacrilege against God’s action. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the man’s feelings about his parents – we dealt with that in the Donatist controversy (Article 26). For those of us committed to Christ’s sacraments there are plenty of pastoral responses available for someone like you describe – that situation is relatively common.

Priests need the very best possible training, study, and formation so that situations like this do not degenerate to the binary options you present, either “very unorthodox re-baptism” or “turning him away”. Hence, ask Peter the same question, Jean, and ask him what advice and training is given to our clergy to respond pastorally to this regular issue.

Blessings

Bosco

liturgy said...

Peter, rampant fragmentation happens uniquely, amongst the world’s religions, in Christianity, a religion that claims not merely deep insight, but revelation of truths from God Himself. It especially flourishes unchecked amongst the genuinely convicted in regards to their own individual interpretation of the Bible.

Blessings

Bosco

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Jean / Bosco

Trainees are regularly referred to, ahem, the authoritative website on these matters Liturgy etc :)

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Bosco
No doubt Christianity wins the award for 'rampant fragmentation' but it is not, surely, 'unique' among the world's religions in fragmenting: Islam has two major fragments, and on the Sunni side of things ISIS is showing the way in splintering to say nothing of various sects not so popular in news headlines; Hinduism has its sects and offshoots; one of which (some say) is Buddhism, on which I am no expert but seem to recall a variety of forms; and as for Judaism, perhaps we inherited some fissiparous tendencies from our Jewish forbears?

liturgy said...

Thanks, Peter.
I think your point of Christianity magnifying exponentially some fissiparous tendencies inherent in our inheritance from our Jewish older siblings may be very worthwhile exploring, and I hope that someone's future doctorate on that gives due credit to us both! I would love to explore that further, but I have one or two other tasks that are needing my focusing currently.

Blessings

Bosco

Peter Carrell said...

(Hi Jean, An infelicitous typo in spelling Bosco's name means I am editing your comment and thus publishing under my name. P)

Hi Bosco

True, it doesn't have a lot to do about the man's feelings re his parents but it does have a lot to do with his parents belief in, and following of, Christ.

If their is no 'belief in the heart' of those who promise to raise the child knowing the teachings of Christ only a (false) 'confession with the mouth' would God honour such an act?

All this is distraction from the central point of Peter's post which is to illustrate the unity between Christians.

Yes the number of christian groups and individual interpretations and convictions, and the understanding of the sacraments are wide and varied but are they bigger or more important than what unites, belief in the grace and forgiveness offered through the Son of God?

Is our commonality in following the one who is Head of the body and Cornerstone of the Church, who came to reconcile the whole world, not a more worthy focus?

Best Wishes
Jean

Jean said...

Thanks Peter I dare not imagine what the typo result was! : )

I think I am going to get linguistic lessons from yourself and Bosco, the words you two know.....

Cheers
Jean

liturgy said...

"If their is no 'belief in the heart' of those who promise to raise the child knowing the teachings of Christ only a (false) 'confession with the mouth' would God honour such an act?"

Yes, God is faithful to His promises even when we are not. Hence the sacrilege involved in the repudiation of this.

Blessings

Bosco

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Perry (welcome to NZ!)
Apologies for late posting of your comment of a few days ago. It slipped me by and my excuse is that I was visiting Auckland with limited internet device/access ...

Anyway,YES, you make a great point. Thank you.

Jean said...

Does not God's promise of salvation only come into full realisation upon belief, 'Believe and be baptised...'?

Kind Regards
Jean

Father Ron Smith said...

Jean said...
"If you are referring Bosco to the different ways of Baptism I mentioned, it is not mockery of the Anglican understanding at all but trying to make light of a division that need not be."

Dear Jean, there is only one Christian Baptism. It cannot be replicated. Once a baby or an adult is sacramentally committed to the guardianship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit; this cannot be either taken away or replicated.

The'deficiency' claimed by those who will not accept infant Baptism, merely questions God's intention in the life of the Baptized. Baptism is not so much about what we do, as what God is doing!

Another point worth thinking about is: Does every adult Baptizee fully understand the depth of what God does in the rite of Holy Baptism? And does the efficacy of God's action really depend on our complete comprehension?

Jean said...

Hi Fr Ron

I understand your points, however, the division that "need not be" was referring to an adversarial approach between those who hold to adult baptism and those to infant baptism; rather regardless of differing approaches re age unity lies inherent as both place the same significance and importance on Christian Baptism.

The mentioning of re-baptism is a side issue. I doubt it comes up often but no doubt clergy encounter it. In the case I mentioned I still hold there is on a scriptural level of justification for it. To my knowledge while in the bible parents who became believers baptised their children, there were no infants baptised in scripture by unbelieving parents.

I do not hold that every Baptizee or parent must fully comprehend the mystery of the sacrament, however, I do ascertain if one is acting either for oneself or vicariously on the behalf of a child, christian teaching is belief in Jesus be present in those seeking Baptism.

Many have been baptised historically by conquerors of countries as it was a requirement for receiving social recognition or social welfare. Can such an outward ritual performed without any internal belief be termed legitimate?

For me one beauty of Christianity lies in that, although there are many claims of Christians making people convert, God has made this impossible. For to be a Christian one must first believe in Jesus and no one can force anyone to do this. Just as no one can force anyone to love. And the genuine witness of Christianity is seen through how much stronger a force of true love given freely is than any other power.

Sermon anyone?

All the Best
Jean

liturgy said...

All you are doing with each of your comments, Jean, is underscoring the disunity within Christianity. You are highlighting that Christians cannot even agree on how one becomes a Christian. Your own position on baptism is well outside the majority position we have had at least since the Donatist controversy.

Blessings

Bosco

Father Ron Smith said...

"Many have been baptised historically by conquerors of countries as it was a requirement for receiving social recognition or social welfare. Can such an outward ritual performed without any internal belief be termed legitimate? "

Have you any concrete example of people being 'forced' into being baptized?

As to the second part of your statement here, Jean; you seem to be again questioning the 'legitimacy' of infant Baptism - by dint of the fact that an infant cannot be said to 'believe' in Jesus at the age of nil comprehensibility.

Obviously the Holy Spirit must have been active in the belief of someone involved in presenting the child for Baptism. Otherwise, what would be the point of bringing the child to such an occasion of God's gifting? Or, do you really think all such occasions - of Infant Baptism - as being, negatively, 'illegitimate'?

My question of you, here, is: Are you a Baptist? If so, I could understand your comments on this matter.

Peter Carrell said...

Dear Commenters,
Surely Anglicans (at least) always take care not to fall into the error of ex opere operato, that is, understanding that the act of baptism is sufficient in and of itself for salvation? (If we are wrong on that, then would we not have a moral obligation to get a fire truck full of holy water and systematically go around the streets spraying people in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?)

Conversely, our understanding of faith as the disposition of those presenting an infant, or themselves for baptism should be broad so that the merest smidgeon of faith is a delight to God as he blesses through the sacrament.

Speaking quite personally, I like what we have lost: confirmation as the confirming of baptism (rather than offering of service and commitment).

Speaking as an ordained minister, I have performed baptisms where I wonder in hindsight what the underlying dynamics were in respect of the presenters: was there a smidgeon of faith or a pushy grandparent in the background? (Does pushy grandparenting count as faith????)

Jean said...

Bosco I disagree, all my comments concur that all denominations agree Baptism is a rite of passage in becoming a Christian. It is my understanding that the Donatist controversy centred around the faith of the Priest performing the Baptism in that he needed to be free of sin in order for the Baptism to be considered legitimate .... My example, and once again I say this is likely a rare example and was not my main point, refers not to the Priest but the requirement of some belief in the one being Baptised or in the case of the infant, those who speak on their behalf.

Fr Ron there are many examples. One is when the Portuguese first invaded Sri Lanka and many of the mainly Buddhist converts did so in order to receive approval under colonial rule not faith in Jesus, and took on Portuguese surnames.

Re infant Baptism and belief; this is why I referred to Parents speaking vicariously (as if they were the child) on their child's behalf - as Christ vicariously did for us. It is my understanding their belief and commitment to raise the child in the christian faith that is a foundation of infant Baptism.

No I am not a Baptist but I have ministered with Christians Baptised as adults and infants and it appears as the bible states, that God shows no favouritism towards either. Just perhaps this is less of a stumbling block for God than us.

Peter I agree. I was Baptised as an infant but did not get confirmed - with the chance of publicly voicing and renewing my Baptismal vows as an adult, until much later in life when I had owned my own faith. There was a significant change in my journey after that point.

Cheers
Jean

Father Ron Smith said...

I agree with Peter. The minor sacrament of Confirmation gives an opportunity for an adult to affirm the faith into which s/he was Baptized.

Sadly, the emergence of the supposition that Infant Baptism is a sufficiently equal entry (with Confirmation) into the fullness of the Body of Christ - though securely Biblical - begs the question of the pastoral need for later Confirmation by the Baptized in adulthood.

The 'new' understanding came into being in the ACANZP with the establishment of Administration of Holy Communion to children not yet Confirmed. This, I believe, has led, almost inevitably, to the Church neglecting the charism of Confirmation - wherein the infant Baptized had the opportunity to affirm their personal belief in the power of Redemption they had already received in Baptism.

(n.b. I was glad to be at the ritual Confirmation of 4 adult Baptizees at St. Michael's Christchurch, by our Bishop Victoria, recently.)

Interestingly, the Orthodox infant is Baptized, Confirmed and fed with the Eucharist in one ceremony. Where this leaves the argument for adult affirmation may be the subject of another post.

Father Ron Smith said...

...Except to say that, at the traditional (catholic) Holy Saturday Vigil Service, the Blessing of the new Paschal Candle, and the Blessing of the Water of Baptism at the Font; offers an opportunity to ALL the Baptized to Renew the Baptismal Vows. This is the ideal (annual) Affirmation of one's Baptismal Vows (provided at St. Michael and All Angels, Christchurch).

Of course, there may be Anglican churches that do not offer this very practical opportunity for the public Affirmation of one's Baptismal Vows. For them to initiate such a ceremony might be helpful.

Incidentally, at last Sunday's service of Confirmation at St. Michael's, many parishioners came up to the altar rail for the 'Laying-on-of-hands' by Bishop Victoria, for the renewal of the gifts given to them in their Baptism.

liturgy said...

I don’t know, Jean, where you (and the re-baptising Anglican priest you are defending) are sourcing the teaching that the validity of baptism is dependent on the faith of the one presenting the child for baptism, but it is most certainly false.

The NZ Anglican baptism rite took great pains to not have parents speak ‘on behalf of the child’ (vicariously) as the composers thought it was not possible to do so. Like many others, I am not enamoured with that rite, but I have never heard the suggestion that just because some rites use ‘vicarious-like’ language while NZ Anglicanism does not, that the NZ rite’s baptism is invalid.

For baptism to be valid, it does not even need anyone to do the ‘presenting’ (NZPB p381). It does not even require faith to be present in the one administering baptism.

In baptism God declares God’s love, a love which is not dependent on us. To rebaptise is sacrilegious because it publicly repudiates God’s declaration of love.

It is worth exploring Bishop Colin Buchanan’s reflections on re-baptism. He teaches that people who have been re-baptised, when they are come to realise the seriousness of what they have done, formally write to the person who did the re-baptism disavowing the re-baptism and affirming God’s action at their first baptism. Priests re-baptising is a reason to have their licence removed – and I know some in that situation.

Your contention ‘that all denominations agree Baptism is a rite of passage in becoming a Christian’ is also false. There are denominations that do not practice baptism at all. And many do not see it as essential ‘in becoming a Christian’.

Blessings

Bosco