Recently someone suggested I drop in on an ecumenical conference held by conservative members of divided communions. I have participated in a number of these, and found them by and large to be good things, but the goodness in them is not something that can be planned or programmed. Rather, the conferences were given in hope and prayer, and the goodness was visited on them from beyond the operation itself, no thanks to some of the people involved.
As a rule I cannot get excited about ecumenical conferences, even conservative ones, because I am convinced that too many are given on the presumption that if only people get to understand each other (to eliminate prejudice born of ignorance) better relations will ensue. Not necessarily. Closer examination of other people’s thoughts and way of thinking, even though bathed in good will and high expectation, may well lead to stronger conviction than ever that they are fools, and probably damned fools at that–in wondering how anyone professing both faith and reason can be tempted to hold to the pernicious nonsense these people do, and the fleeting thought that the world would be better without them. I have seen this happen–in myself.
Of course, I am all for eliminating prejudice born of ignorance, and conferring can, if blessed, be good for that. But most of the conferences in which I have been most intimately involved are not places where much ignorance has been dispelled because there has been very little ignorance in them of the other Christians’ beliefs; indeed, many of the principals have been converts from the churches the others represent, and know them very well indeed. There is little chance, therefore, they are going to learn something they do not know, but a strong possibility that o. theologicum will raise its head to devour whom it can. I have seen more than one close call, for the beast always comes to the fair, and knows his way around the booths.
For this reason I am not much interested in dialogues between learned Christian conservatives with the ostensible purpose of improving understanding. There is less of this to be done than one might think. Rather, what has always interested me is meeting on the basis of agreement that we already have–or have good reason to believe we have–for purposes related to our common interests as Christians, in the house of what has been called “mere Christianity.”
Now granted, Catholics and Orthodox don’t think such a house really exists, at least in the way C. S. Lewis described it: Christians are Christians because they are sacramentally members of the True Church, which (no offense intended) c’est Nous. I leave the reasons they might wish to cooperate with members of mere ecclesial societies honored with the name of Christian to them, but am glad so many of them can see their way to doing it. Surely we have some things to do together before hell freezes over and two-thirds of us get straightened out.
“I have seen more than one close call, for the beast always comes to the fair, and knows his way around the booths.”
Aw c’mon Steve. Be honest. You know you secretly relish and enjoy the bloody sight of ex-Catholics, ex-Orthodox, and ex-Protestants duking it out amongst each other.
You’ve probably instigated and participated in a few skirmishes in your life too.
;-)
No, no–I hate it. I hate it beyond words, and if I loved it I would be a man whom God hated for stirring up strife among brethren. People who love to watch Christians fight each other and look for occasions for it to happen are children of the devil.
One of the great struggles of my life has been answering the call to take up arms when I would rather live at peace with everyone. But I find myself having received what (to my chagrin) turned out to be military training, the obligation to use it as such arising with the need and the occasion.
This is one of the reasons I am moved by Russell Crowe’s Gladiator, the depiction of Washington as Cincinnatus, the story of Gideon, Emerson’s Concord Hymn, and the soldiers in my own family. The farmer does not become a warrior because he loves war, but because there is a war he must fight.
“The farmer does not become a warrior because he loves war, but because there is a war he must fight.”
Understood. How about MereComments hosting a thread with a gentle, irenic “ecumenical conferring” about the topic of Justification?
;-)
Steve,
I absolutely believe you in your response to TUD re: seeking out conflict. It’s also just the dose of medicine I needed. It’s all too easy to keep a constant watch out on this corner of the internet or that blog just to see the latest shenanigans all the while neglecting our true work.
Kamilla
Thank you Steve. I feel like I have known this for awhile, but had never consciously considered it. Ecumenical dialogue for the sake of understanding one another is pretty useless among well read Christians. However, the vast majority of Christians out there do have misunderstandings about the other communions. I am always amazed, in this day and age of the internet, how much misunderstanding there is concerning each others’ beliefs. The utter lack of knowledge concerning Orthodoxy in particular is a dark stain on us. The fact that there are scores of Protestants (and even some Roman Catholics) who view us as the Eastern half of the RC Church is inexcusable.
Having said that, I do find that when I dialogue with conservative Protestants and Roman Catholics, I do so in order to clear up misunderstandings and to encourage our united stand against the relativist movement of the age, not in the hope of converting them. As the Bishop elect, and current Dean of St Tikhon’s Seminary, Fr Michael Dahulich, used to teach, “don’t try to convert happy Catholics and Protestants, we wouldn’t want them to do that to us.”
Of course I believe that the Orthodox Church has the fullness of the faith, or I would not have converted myself. But there will always be people who are not in the right place to make the decision to convert. In fact, I encourage people to take it very seriously, as I told a Protestant who commonly went back and forth between Protestant denominations, choosing to go to Rome or the East is a final decision. I believe that to make that decision and then go back on it without extenuating circumstances is actually detrimental, if not actually a sin. Sorry for the rambling post and potentially opening a huge can of worms.
“don’t try to convert happy Catholics and Protestants, we wouldn’t want them to do that to us.”
Yes, and besides that, it’s a waste of time. Unless a person is dissatisfied in some way or other with the tradition they’re currently a part of, odds are they’re not going to consider either the RCC or the EOC. For most Protestants these bodies are “last resorts.”
“I encourage people to take it very seriously, as I told a Protestant who commonly went back and forth between Protestant denominations, choosing to go to Rome or the East is a final decision. I believe that to make that decision and then go back on it without extenuating circumstances is actually detrimental, if not actually a sin.”
I fully agree. Although many Protestants see them as such, the EOC and RCC most definitely do not view themselves as “denominations,” (both communions antedate the very concept of “denominations”) and this must be taken seriously when “converting.” As Fr. Reardon told me when I was first looking at Orthodoxy, you shouldn’t become Orthodox because you find it attractive; you should become Orthodox because you have to.
Irenical discussion of contentious issues is possible, but there are few who can do it. This takes insight, discipline, patience, and knowing not only when to quit, but whether to start. And not every debater or his issue should be approached irenically. While the lambs should be handled gently, the wolves must be treated to hot steel–if only to identify them as such to the lambs. This, I think, should be clear from our Lord’s manner of teaching.
Theological argumentation is made especially difficult because the stakes are perceived to be so weighty. I have, however, never felt any more responsibility than to make my point as well as I can and leave it at that–never to engage so as to “win” an argument, for those who play by honest men’s rules can never simply “win” against those who use rhetorical methods to cheat–and their name is Legion. Our Lord’s method of dealing with the devil in the Temptation is our guide: the good man states his case in hope of eventual vindication, and is done with it. God knows those who are his, and nothing can take them from him, not even false teachers. This, however, does not remove the necessity of teaching true doctrine from those ordained to do it.
As a Protestant I must add this: I do not wish to find myself in a position where I have made in argumentation an absolute commitment to a position upon which Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism say I am wrong. While doubting, for example, their understandings of the Church’s identity, and much of their Marian doctrine, I respect those churches deeply enough, and am suspicious enough of “Protestantism,” to be very cautious not to deny those beliefs so as to make it spiritually impossible to receive correction.
The distinctive teachings of these churches have a privileged position in my own list of disputed questions that no Protestant theology enjoys–they are my elders, and while I doubt their infallibility, they are venerable and to be honored and carefully listened to. The doctrines which traditional Protestantism shares with them likewise are privileged: these are the credal hills I am willing to die upon, the visible frontiers of “mere Christianity.”
Well stated, Steve!
I hope you know that I was playfully joshing you in my comments above.
“While the lambs should be handled gently, the wolves must be treated to hot steel–if only to identify them as such to the lambs. This, I think, should be clear from our Lord’s manner of teaching.”
Indeed. I have seen you apply hot steel to the teachers and proponents of egalitarianism and women’s ordination, and truth be told, to the underpinnings of egalitarianism and WO which happens to be Liberal theology.
And as it just so happens to be, I’m wired the same way.
I ecumenically confer with the RCC’s and EO’s in strongly rebuking and correcting LibProts with the hopes of restoring them.
they are sacramentally members of the True Church, which (no offense intended) c’est Nous.
And, Dr. Hutchens, if you’re baptised according to the Trinitarian formula, c’est vous aussi!
After that, it’s just a question of authority…
Bonobo: “After that, it’s just a question of authority…”
And away we go….!
;-)
Most certainly, TUAD. No ecumenical conferring will get far without resolving the question of authority and how it is conferred.
As for these matters, my judgment is that in this place I “shall not start.” They are gravely important, and I have been considering them for years, but do not choose to engage them on these pages, since experience has given me no reason to believe that any good shall come of it.
For someone who’s becoming more cognizant of his or her faith and seeks to understand and research his or her faith, I think that if someone is thick-skinned (and cares more about substance than being Politically Correct or Christianly Correct about “tone”), then they should emerge none worse for the wear when re-fighting the Reformation or re-fighting the Great Schism. It will help them understand better the contours of their faith and other Christian faiths.
Occasional good does arise from it. (But perhaps not often enough!)
Anyways, here’s a new article titled “From Priest to Minister”.
Excerpts:
“How many other Catholic priests have left the church for another denomination in order to marry? Could Cutié’s conversion signal the beginning of another wave of men leaving the priesthood? Until November 2008, when I completed my dissertation on the transition of celibate Catholic priests into married Protestant ministry, it would have been impossible to address these questions. The data I collected over the course of a year allowed me to conduct the first-ever analysis in this field.
How many Catholic priests chose to become Protestant ministers? From which branch of the priesthood (diocesan or religious) did they originate? What Protestant churches did they choose to join?
When asked why they made the transition, six out of ten respondents cited celibacy.
Other respondents spoke about their dislike for specific tenets of Catholic dogma. Many pointed to the publication of Humanae Vitae as a major turning point in their lives.”
People who make vows should keep them.
Amen!
A word from one of the moderators. On two recent threads (this one and another), the blogger has clearly indicated that he does not want certain issues raised, as being irrelevant or divisive. But certain persons (one in particular) have willfully disregarded that request and insisted on trying to provoke discussion on that issue anyway. This is extremely rude, discourteous, and disrespectful, and falls under the category of hijacking a thread in violation of the site ground rules.
If it happens again, those guilty risked being banned. Readers who post comments should remember that they are guests, observe the house rules, and respect the wishes of their hosts.