Christian Concord

I wish to propose a ground of commonality, a place of agreement in which Christian churches can attain harmony of Faith. No I am not smoking anything hallucinogenic in thinking there could be. This admittedly presents a challenge and concludes in failure.

 

Doctrinal positions that are deemed orthodox (correct, right) have been central to the Faith from Christianity’s inception. These are used to conclusively determine who can call themselves fellow Christians. 1^st Century Christianity started out what could be characterized as a Jewish sect. The early proselytizing was largely in the Jewish Diaspora.  There were early Christian sects that wanted adherents to remain as Jews and practice Jewish Law as well as circumcision, roundly criticized by St. Paul. And others like James, brother of our Lord, wanted to have “God fearers” adhere to some Jewish (Acts 15) observance and you can contrast this with Paul who saw Jewish Law as something superseded (Gal 3: 24, 25) and Jewish dietary laws obsolete including partaking of food sacrificed to idols (Col 2: 16), specifically prohibited in the Act 15 Jerusalem Council.     Later when Jews and Christians split, doctrine was essential to differentiate themselves from their fellow Jews in regards to circumcision, the Law, the Temple, the meaning and efficacy of Temple sacrifice. And central to this was the definition of who Jesus of Nazareth was whether God, man, prophet, teacher, Messiah or fake and known to us as our Lord and Savior and yet man. As necessary as these definitions might be, this need for doctrinal purity has also led to a great deal of division in the Faith throughout its history. This has weakened the impact of Christianity on society.

I think the theological conclusions that the Ancient Imperial Church (4^th century) acknowledged are the natural foundation of doctrinal conccord.  Here is the canon of the Bible and doctrine of the Trinity that all can agree on. The rest is largely quibbling.

 

One of all too numerous examples of quibbling among the 30,000 or so denominations is the split the Church of Christ due to a disagreement about the presence of musical instruments in worship or not. Wow! That seems substantive. The lamentable result was two separate denominations.

 

There is by far much more in commonality of doctrine in the Christian confessions than differences. For one, the God of All Perfections (omnipresent, omniscience, omnipotent, eternal, etc.)  is worshiped by all Christians of all stripes (Mormon’s excluded). Yet, this idea is in a very large sense a big act of faith… it contradicts the evidence from the fallen crazy world we live in. It’s a response in faith to the question: if God is perfect why is the world so imperfect? Hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, drought, disease and death. Is God even watching? Ancient Greeks didn’t think so and sought a spirituality that transcended the material and the earth was created by a Demiurge not our God.

The argument against the efficacy of our Almighty God is compelling and yet we believe, Praise be to God. We say God has a plan. What I believe about a God who is worthy of our worship is a giant leap faith and belief, by the Grace of God, and it is what all Christian faiths ascribe to: God of perfections: creator and sustainer of world.

Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox all share the most fundamental spiritual idea, the nature of God, an All Perfect God; a God who is not a head of a group of gods mind you or just simple a concept but a personal God.

Let me list the spiritual truths we can agree on.

We believe God is an idea greater than that which we can conceive. (Anselm) Or in other words an intelligence (far) greater than our own.

We believe God, the Father, who being an Omnibenevolent being, so loved the world, He sent Jesus of Nazareth, His Son to be our redeemer.

We believe in the Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

We share belief that Scripture is divinely inspired.

We believe in the Second Coming of the Christ, the King.

We believe in ministering angels.

We believe in an afterlife; an eternity in heaven.

We believe in the efficacy of prayer.

We believe that the best of us is eternal, our soul.

We believe in the existence of sin and our need to reconcile with the Trinitarian God of All Perfections,

We believe there will be a Judgment in which we will need to answer our God for our lives.

We believe those who fail this Judgment will justly be cast into eternal torment, whether physical or spiritual.

We believe the earth was created by God and is good and worthy of scientific research to discover its mysteries and the God who created it.

We believe there’s a self, with a personality, to save not to transcend or denigrate.

Virtually every one of these propositions is agreed upon by Christians.

Each one of these propositions is contradicted at least in some part by the “Seculars”.  Seculars believe all truth proceeds from scientific studies. They inhabit a universe of chance and necessity without designing purpose or intelligence, denying Our God being Supreme. They can recognize no greater intelligence than their own intellect.

***

The historical record shows Christians battling over doctrinal purity from the beginning. This includes the great conflict before, during and after the Nicene Council 325 C.E. over the nature of heavenly Father’s relationship with Son and Spirit, which concluded in the Trinitarian Doctrine.  Assumed to be a rock solid doctrine by everyone from the inception of the church it was actually hotly debated. After the establishment of the Imperial Church a semblance of agreement reigned for well over a thousand years; despite the split between East and West in 1054 and Orthodox and Oriental in 451 due to the Council of Chalcedon. Later this semblance shattered in the Protestant Reformation.

And even today I see this quibbling in my experience.  I’ve had many a discussion about the nature of God with fellow Orthodox regarding how the Romans Catholics have gotten the concept of Trinity fouled up; the procession of the Holy Spirit not being solely from the Father but the Son as well…and on and on… A doctrinal difference deemed by many in Orthodox circles sufficiently fundamental to exclude Romans from communion. And there are others who are replaying the historical conflicts of some several hundreds of years ago; the Romans are not coming to enslave us or burn us at the stake in the Twenty First century, despite past religious conflict.  

In light of the secular tsunami that questions the foundations of Christian world view a few doctrinal differences between confessions of faith seem bridgeable. When the all knowing, all powerful State, democratic or otherwise, has already begun to “benevolently” marginalize Christians, eventually Christians will begin to look at each other as very much more alike than different. And they already have. Issues that have divided Protestants through the some 500 hundred years since the Reformation have largely ceased to be energizing. There’s beginning to be a generic Protestant church with similar music and outlook no matter what denomination you visit.    

Unfortunately this proposal hangs up on some sexual behavior issues, specifically practicing homosexuality as an accepted life style and acceptance of abortion which I find not in holding with the Ancient Church whose adherence seem problematic to me. Some confessions see homosexual behavior and abortion as lifestyle choices. I do not. I would find it very difficult accept common confessional fellowship in these cases. These are modern innovations not in standing with the Ancient Church.

But here’s the real deal breaker, liberal no fault divorce laws and acceptance of contraception would likely not be compatible with Ancient Christianity either. These are widely accepted social practices, inside Christianity as well. These stances are part of a spectrum akin to the very hot button social issues secularists are promoting in redefinition of marriage and life. And stopping at issues we find comfortable on this spectrum is only a holding action has no consensus among the confessions.  I can dispense with certain lifestyles by quoting Bible against these more innovative lifestyles but we can’t meet at the Ancient Church as a commonality which rejects both stances as a matter of longstanding tradition. My foreboding is the transformation of the society using hedonistic or Epicurean premises. Ignoring these issues as a means to commonality voids the whole project. It’s the radical re-thinking of marriage and sexual relations that is having devastating social consequences: divorce and single parent households especially and children wounded psychologically.

The proposal that would provide a platform for Christianity to proclaim a uniform voice then falls still born. The question becomes how far do you roll back these innovations? Being aware that in the light of the Ancient Church liberal divorce and wide spread use of contraception are nearly as unacceptable as homosexual lifestyles and abortion. On the other hand those who insist on recognition of innovative lifestyles will not be content until these are pushed to their logical conclusions: parental rights, marriage and admission of practicing clergy.

And thus by my own admission concord for commonality sake is of little use except on some highly conceptual theological ground. There’s a slim chance that once the confessions are talking to each other that they can work in unison but in actuality churches are much influenced by the culture they inhabit in contrast to Christianity being the positive influence on society it needs to be; as transformative as it was in the Ancient world.