The early history of the USA is replete with immigrants from the Radical Reformation who were seeking to escape the Continent and all those decadent churches, whether Catholic or Protestant, in order to finally set up a “church” that was true to what they perceived as being the New Testament model. We do not often realize that this beginning to our country has poisoned our view of Christianity. Whether one is a Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Protestant in this country, one has absorbed the prevailing cultural attitude, which is to regard one’s own viewpoint as the only correct one, and everyone else’s viewpoint as needing to be changed to the correct viewpoint. More than that, in the religious realm, the failure by others to follow one’s own viewpoint puts others in serious danger of hell itself.
But, as we have seen in the current political meltdown, that same attitude shows up in politics. Politics reflects that early beginning to our country. Currently, the two main parties, Democrat and Republican, are debating each other using the worst of the apocalyptic language. The end of the USA is coming if one does not agree with the viewpoint of the radical wing of [fill in the blank]. Thus, if one is a Republican, but socially minded, then it is obvious that one is a quisling who is hiding in the party with the idea of causing harm. If one is a Democrat but believes in the sanctity of pre-born life, then it is obvious that one is a quisling who is hiding in the party with the idea of causing harm. As with the early colonial USA, any deviation from the approved standard is punished every bit as harshly as the Puritans with their dunking booths, the Quakers with their “penitentiaries,” etc. Whether Republican or Democrat, one is excoriated for any deviation from the party line of the extremists in the party.
Thus, it is always worthwhile to read articles from other parts of world Christianity in order to see whether one’s own brothers and sisters have similar viewpoints. Below is an article from England. It may surprise you as to what it is saying, given what many Christian blogs in the USA tend to say. Perhaps the USA is not the measure of true Christianity for the whole world? Please note that the author, at the end, talks about transforming the whole world for Christianity (in other words, a fulfillment of our missionary call).
Moving towards a united Christianity
Meetings between high-ranking Orthodox, Anglican and Catholic clergy signal that old schisms might soon be healed
o Adrian Pabst
o guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 2 December 2009 11.00 GMT
In the past two months, relations between the three main Christian churches have moved in more promising directions than perhaps during the past 50 years of uninspiring liberal dialogue. By opening a new chapter of theological engagement and concrete co-operation with Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, Pope Benedict XVI is changing the terms of debate about church reunification. In time, we might witness the end of the Great Schism between east and west and a union of the main episcopally-based churches.
First there was the Rome visit in September by the Russian Orthodox Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Moscow’s man for ecumenical relations. In high-level meetings, both sides argued that their shared resistance to secularism and moral relativism calls forth a further rapprochement of Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Declaring that “More than ever, we Christians must stand together”, Hilarion insisted that each side can appeal to shared traditions and work towards greater closeness in a spirit of “mutual respect and love”.
That this was more than diplomatic protocol was confirmed by the Catholic Archbishop of Moscow, Monsignor Paolo Pezzi. In an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, he said that union between Catholics and Orthodox “is possible, indeed it has never been so close”. The formal end of the Great Schism of 1054, which has divided the two churches for a millennium, and the move towards full spiritual communion “could happen soon”.
Even on doctrinal matters, Roman Catholicism and Russian Orthodoxy are essentially in agreement. Hilarion acknowledged that the two have different ecclesiological models, with the former favouring a more centralised structure led by the pontiff while the latter emphasises the autonomy of provinces and local churches. “There remains the question of papal primacy and this will be a concern at the next meeting of the Catholic-Orthodox commission. But to me, it doesn’t seem impossible to reach an agreement”, said Pezzi.
Indeed, when Joseph Ratzinger was elected pope in 2005, one of his first acts was to drop the title of patriarch of the west. Rather than affirming absolutist papal supremacism, Benedict indicated with this act that he seeks to blend the historical primacy of the see of Rome and the pope’s universal jurisdiction with that of local churches in east and west. The next step for Rome is to incorporate the Orthodox emphasis on conciliarity as a counterweight to papal authority. Increasingly shrill attacks on Benedict by Catholic dissidents like Hans Küng represent little more than the angry expression of some liberals who are excluding themselves from pan-Christian reunification.
Meanwhile, closer church ties will be greatly helped by concrete co-operation. There’s already considerable convergence on social teaching, as evinced by Kirill’s preface to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone’s book The Ethics of the Common Good in Catholic Social Doctrine. Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy argue for a civil market economy embedded in communal relations and serving the public good rather than exclusively private profit, a prominent theme in Benedict’s recent social encyclical “Caritas in veritate”.
Similarly, last week’s Rome visit by the Archbishop of Canterbury has advanced Catholic-Anglican relations. Far from humiliating the primate of the Anglican Communion by parking papal tanks on the lawn at Lambeth, Benedict emphasised the importance of Anglicanism in promoting the unity of all episcopally-based Christian churches.
The presence of Anglicans within Catholicism might lead to a better appreciation of Anglicanism’s unique contribution to Christianity. It could also help Anglicans define an episcopal identity beyond the divide between liberals and evangelicals.
No less significant was the fact both the pope and the archbishop spoke in favour of a different model of socio-economic development that does not rely exclusively on the state or the market. Rather, it accentuates mutualist principles of reciprocity and gift-exchange and the absolute sanctity of human and natural life which is relational, not individualist or collectivist. This shared social teaching is key in further developing concrete links and bonds of trust among Christians of different traditions.
Moves towards church reunification are signs of a revivified Christian Europe, one which can use its shared faith to transform the continent and the whole world.
The early history of the USA is replete with immigrants from the Radical Reformation who were seeking to escape the Continent and all those decadent churches, whether Catholic or Protestant, in order to finally set up a “church” that was true to what they perceived as being the New Testament model.
Question, Fr Orthocuban: How does this differ from Salafi Muslims (such as the Taliban) and their Pure Islam As It Was In The Days Of The Prophet (PBUH)? And their goal of a Perpetual Year One of the Hegira?
The end of the USA is coming if one does not agree with the viewpoint of the radical wing of [fill in the blank]. Thus, if one is a Republican, but socially minded, then it is obvious that one is a quisling who is hiding in the party with the idea of causing harm. If one is a Democrat but believes in the sanctity of pre-born life, then it is obvious that one is a quisling who is hiding in the party with the idea of causing harm.
And how does this differ from “DEATH TO THE INFIDEL! JIHAD! JIHAD!”?
Or “ALL HERETICS *MUST* BE BURNED!”?
Well, there is a part of me that worries in the same way that you have said. The healthcare forums at different locations were utter failures because they were deliberately disrupted by right-wing “true believers” who were convinced that they were saving their country from tyranny. In other words, they were willing to trample on other people’s rights and disrupt the meeting to prevent “heretical” words from being spoken.
That same type of behavior was seen on some college campuses during the Bush years when conservative authors were kept from speaking by left-wing “true believers” who were convinced that they were saving their country from tyranny. In other words, they were willing to trample on other people’s rights and disrupt the meeting to prevent “heretical” words from being spoken.
Does it seem as though both extremes are using identical tactics? They are beginning by engaging in mildly illegal or inappropriate behavior. May God prevent them from going on to fully illegal behaviors.
Several years ago (and during the Bush years) Chris Hedges, author of the left-leaning “War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning”, was shouted off the stage by “conservative” graduates while he was trying to give a commencement speech and airing his views against the Iraq war. The college president tried to persuade the graduates that free speech was a not only a right but a courtesy to their guest, but in the end security guards had to usher Hedges out of there for his safety. There are fundamentalists on all sides.
BTW, were the right-wing disrupters at the health forums really “true believers”, or were they simply people with no jobs, nothing better to do and easily manipulated? It didn’t seem like grass-roots to me.
Once the first healthcare forum was disrupted and then reported on the news, the next was was set up to be shut down the same way. It is a type of fostered mob mentality which does not need much organization after this first time or so it happens.
At that point, had Religious Right leaders spoken out very strongly and said that such behavior was wrong, it is probable that this type of behavior could have been stopped. However, they joined in the general conservative chorus defending people who only wanted to express their strong opinion. That chorus was also notably present during the Bush years when the left was pulling the same type of inappropriate stunt. However, at that point, the conservative chorus, including the Religious Right, notably condemned such behavior.
The left has its own chorus, which has done the exact reverse of the conservative chorus. During the Bush years, they defended the right of students to express their opinion with only mild bleatings about the right of people to hear a speaker. This past summer, they strongly condemned the healthcare disruptions in a way in which they never condemned the students who disrupted the various conservative speeches during the Bush years.
Can we say the word hypocrisy on both sides?
“Can we say the word hypocrisy on both sides?”
Yes! It may have something to do with sin.
Blessings Father!
Worldwide Christian unity has been something of a dream of mine. But true unity must have with it full agreement in doctrine and church government. I am aware that Eastern and Oriental Orthodox communions are inching closer to a reunion but there are unfortunately hawks on both sides who reject the other’s Christological formula.
In other words, while the past century has seen greater movements toward unity than ever before, there is still a lot of work to be done; because of the actual differences AND because of the state of the human heart.
To Headless Unicorn guy:
He or I can provide you with an answer but not one that will be satisfying to your anti-religious prejudices. In the first case, yes, superficially both examples want to bring an ideal to what they consider the original and unaltered. This however breaks down when you do any kind of meaningful study of Islam or the beliefs of the Christian reformers.
However my answer is that our imperfect human nature is such that when we strive to be perfect, or even good, even our efforts can be subverted and be used for evil. If we examine ourselves, knowledge of our own faults is our check for false “righteousness.”
That said, the other extreme is to give up on even any sort of standards and live knowingly profligate lives. Such an ethos is only sustainable if humans lived in their own little universes.
Hmm, why must true unity “have with it full agreement in doctrine and church government?” The Orthodox appear to have muddled through centuries with separate but equal church governments that have variations in the canons, in titles, and in structure. We have an agreement on the essentials and arguments about a lot of other things. May I suggest that the dream of full agreement may actually harm the cause of Christian unity?
I would suggest, rather, full agreement on the dogmatic statements of the Ecumenical Councils, on the apostolic succession, and on the overall shape of Church government given to us by Holy Tradition and by the canons of the various jurisdictions. When I look at the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox discussions, I see way too many people who seem to be trying to prevent unity by the stipulations they put upon the other group. For instance, the most common stipulation is that the Oriental Orthodox must issue a full repentance for what happened back then. It is simply a “religious” replay of the modern insistence that people must issue full apologies worded in the way that the supposedly offended party insists. Of course, often the wording is so insulting and degrading that it insures that no apology will be issued. Hmm, and that is the whole purpose of those requirements.
I am Latino. If you research our cultures, you will find that our cultures are “saving face” cultures. To reach a diplomatic settlement in our cultures, one finds a way for both parties to save face rather than an insistence that one be acknowledged as correct and the other acknowledged as wrong. I would suggest that this may be a better approach for Church unity.
So, you are saying that the Bishop of Rome is first among equals and that the E.O. have to agree to R.C. doctrine. If the R.C. are to be true to their doctrine the the E.O. would have to yield, otherwise the whole thing is a farce.
That would be the position of some Roman Catholics. However, what Pope Benedict XVI is doing is trying to find ways to define first among equals in such a way that the Orthodox can accept it. On the Orthodox side, the problem is that some of our doctrines go counter to what Rome teaches. The question is, can they be considered as alternative emphases (which is what Rome is proposing) or must the be considered as true differences that must be worked through (which is what the Orthodox propose)?
(I wrote an long thing citing all sorts of thousand and two thousand year old church history which I will not post as it is easy to look up and inflames hearts and minds on both sides–think crusaders and Constantinople, children…..) Having said that, I am glad that I am neither His All Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople or His Holiness, the Pope. This is WAYYYYYYY above my humble pay grade, but I do not think that doctrinal differences should be swept under the rug and ignored which is what “alternative emphases” sounds like to me. If we had done that way back in the day, the church would have looked VERY different. The truth must be spoken in love not swept away in a rush to unity. If unity means giving up the Truth, then let there be schism. Nor would I like to see the Bishop of Rome as the Big Kahuna. I am not sure the RCs can define first among equals in a way that I or most Orthodox can accept, nor could a lot of very traditional RCs I know accept the concept that the Patriarch of Constantinople is called first among equals his own ALL Holy self (never mind what being first means–look at His Holiness and his schtick versus His All Holiness and his).
There is a HUGE difference in mind set. Saying the same words is not enough. Semantics again. There is a huge disconnect between the Western way of seeing certain things and the Eastern way (which was my biggest bugbear before I came to Orthodoxy–living in the west with more of an eastern way of thinking got me into lots of trouble as an RC as I got kicked out of catechism class at the tender age of 10 because I kept asking questions which Orthodoxy has answered for me–or not answered really as it is a Mystery and who can know God with a human mind after all?)
My prayer is pretty much–“Lord–We have shown our very human derrieres in this denominational church thing. We are prideful and resentful and like perceived power too much. We have forgotten that You told us to love each other. We have forgotten that the church is Yours and not ours, that You are its Head not us. We have arrogantly clung to our priviledges and our so-called rights not to mention flayed ourselves bloody with the historical wrongs done to us. Pour your love down upon us and heal our hearts so that we can be open to the Healing Touch of Your Holy Spirit on the churches that bear your name. Have mercy on us and forgive us for the wrongs we have done in Your Name and the hurts we have caused in our self-righteousness. Let us truly be seen as Yours because of the way we love each other. Lord, have mercy, Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. ”
In writing this, I have identified some of my own inner hurt places and my own resentments and pride and self-righteousness. Now the job that is NOT above my pay grade is to open my own heart to Him, to learn how to love and a little something about humility. “Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Alix
There is no easy answer. But, again, I come from a culture in which saving face is an important component. Americans come from a culture in which saving face is a null concept and only the truth is important (and fighting for it). I come from a culture in which the group is very important. Americans come from a culture in which they glory in their being Lone Rangers and standing alone regardless of what anyone else says.
Because of my freely admitted cultural viewpoints, the American insistence on the importance of absolute truth and on semantics being important does not seem to me to be as important. I am not sure which culture is the correct culture. I do not have an easy answer.
I am not suggesting that the unity of the group is not important. I think that human beings are essentially tribal/group oriented–therefore many of the troubles of the world as we know it when folks get too narrow in their definition of tribe or group. Many differences are cultural/traditional etc more on the order of potayto/potahto. Potayto/potahto doesn’t matter to me, but there are things that do.
Some doctrines of the RC Church seem to be widely at variance with those of the Orthodox church. I am not enough of a theologian to really know which are minor points of alternative emphases and which are things that should be nailed down–papal infallibility and the creed come to mind as things that should be agreed upon because without agreement on some level it would be a mess. There are other doctrinal differences that could very well be a matter of–I see it this way because I am a mystic and you see it that way because you are a lawyer. I can see no trouble with the sort of unity that says you wear a blue hat because in your town they only had blue hats and I wear a yellow hat because the first guy who wore a hat had an aunt who raised him who just loved yellow and those traditions are our traditions and important to each of us–but we all agree that you should wear a hat. Some other things that make up the very core understanding of Christianity might need to be sorted out a little more rigoriously. I am not of the mindset that in the interests of unity, one side gives up a very core belief just for the sake of unity. Face saving is important and for unity to really work there has to be enough comfortability on both sides that folks don’t keep on fussing and cause a new schism because the old one wasn’t healed enough.
Because I am a nurse, I can see it in very medical terms. If there is infection, a wound does not heal properly. You cannot join dead skin to live skin and expect healing. Without a good blood supply to the wound, you will not get good healing nor will you get good healing if there is not proper nourishment to the body as a whole. IT is not enough to willy-nilly sew things together. To have proper function, nerves/muscles/blood vessels and layers skin have to be properly aligned and sutured in some kind of meaningful order. So for a wound to heal, you have to debride the dead skin, control the infection, make sure there is an adequate blood supply and good general nutrition, and then mend the wound in some kind of order joining like to like for the best functionality of the whole when healing is complete. You may need some physical therapy or rehab as a part of the healing process and you might have to adjust some of your patterns of living to maintain the process.
Can it be done? Absolutely and it should be. Is it an easy task? Not in my opinion–When i worked in the Operating Room, when we had a bad trauma case, there were lots of tests and consulations done to make sure that the procedure we were doing made for the very best outcome–and often the surgery was lengthy with many disciplines working together to make sure that by healing one system another was not being put into jeopardy. The church is called the body of Christ…..and we need to bring healing to that body–but not without x-rays and CT scans and lots of disciplines helping decide how to best proceed to make sure the result is functional.
Alix
Well said. When I am not sure, I have a Greek Orthodox priest friend whom I consult. It has been ever so helpful to hear from a culture that is neither mine nor purely American (he was born in Greece). In the same way, I have an Arab friend that I also consult.
Hmm… fascinating discussion.
I think what needs to be realized also is that besides different national cultures, there are different cultures within different denominations (I use that term for lack of a better one at the moment). Combining these two things (national and religious cultures) provides for a rather interesting perception on things.
However, and this is something I think we can all agree on, is that Christianity is trans-cultural.
The reason why, even in the Book of Acts, decisions were not simply made by the Twelve Apostles was their conviction that they needed a wide input. Notice that they made sure to have representatives present from different language groups and cultures. Only then was Saint James finally able to stand up and to declare that NOW they knew what to do. This became the pattern for future Ecumenical Councils.
Nowadays, each limited group, with no input from even their own members in other countries, feels free to declare the Truth that they know that every Christian must believe. More than that, even among the Orthodox, each subgroup (and sometimes each blogger) declares that they know what conditions must be met before Church unity can be achieved. It might be more helpful if each of us spoke with less surety and more fear.
Jesus said that Church unity and world peace will not come until we UNIFY THE DATES OF EASTER. For the love of God, let us agree to have ONE EASTER DATE.
“I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.” (1 Cor 1:10 RSV)
“Every Easter season I must drink of the cup of your division since this cup is forced on Me… the more time passes for them to unite the dates of Easter, the more severe their sentence this generation will receive.” (May 31, 1994 TLIG)
LOVE IS MISSING.
It is time to allow the Holy Spirit to invade our minds and hearts so that He is able to direct us towards complete unity and peace. Until we UNIFY THE DATES OF EASTER, we hinder the Holy Spirit’s action to come upon us in full force to give us the next step to take. We must UNIFY THE DATES OF EASTER first.
Let us pray for the grace of the Holy Spirit to inflame our hearts with the fire of His love to UNIFY THE DATES OF EASTER!
U R G E N T P R A Y E R A P P E A L
Church unity and world peace will come when we UNIFY THE DATES OF EASTER. Jesus has been asking the Church for more than 2 decades to have ONE EASTER DATE.
“I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.” (1 Cor 1:10 RSV)
“Every Easter season I must drink of the cup of your division since this cup is forced on Me… the more time passes for them to unite the dates of Easter, the more severe their sentence this generation will receive.” (May 31, 1994 TLIG)
LOVE AND HUMILITY IS MISSING.
Dialogues, rationalism and intellectualism will not bring about unity. Unity begins not with a signed treaty, but in the heart. All is possible with God and prayer is our contact with Him. Let us ask the Holy Spirit for the grace to truly repent, for the fruit of repentance is humility and love. “It is not just through words that unity among brothers will come, but through the action of the Holy Spirit” (Sep 30, 1993 TLIG).
We need to and must allow the Holy Spirit to invade our minds and hearts so that He is able to direct us towards complete unity and peace. Until we UNIFY THE DATES OF EASTER, we hinder the Holy Spirit’s action to come upon us in full force to give us the next step to take. We must UNIFY THE DATES OF EASTER first.
Let us bend our knees in prayer for the grace of the Holy Spirit to inflame our hearts with obedience and love to UNIFY THE DATES OF EASTER.