Subversive Christian Unity

Some people think that the answer to our schisms is to be found by looking to the past. If the Great Schism and the Reformation could somehow be undone, they feel, then the church would return to unity. I have two problems with that view. As to undoing past schisms, that egg cannot be unscrambled. The schisms happened because of a fundamental divergence in views about what the church is and how it should work. The difference is, for the foreseeable future, irreconcilable. Rome is not interested in an episcopal governance model with the pope's status reduced to first among equals. Nobody else is interested in papal supremacy. But, if we read church history with any attention, the lesson that emerges is that it that the history of Christ's church is surprising. We should not be looking toward the foreseeable future but an unforeseeable future. Secondly, the church did not have real unity even way back when, in the era when matters of outward practice were similar wherever yo

It may simply be because I am spending a lot of time lately thinking about Christian unity and how to achieve it. Thinking so much about it may color my understanding of other things. As that may be, lately this passage of the Lord's Prayer seems to me to speak of unity: Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. How are things done in heaven? I would suppose it is by unanimous efforts of everyone involved in this or that purpose of God. I have not seen heaven so I can't be sure. On earth, though, we do our best work for Christ's kingdom when we have complimentary insights and talents to bring to a task, whatever it is, and work together, without self-promotion and with a generous spirit. Jesus prayed that all Christians would be one, as he and the Father are one, which suggests something about the order of things Christ desires on earth. He wants the world to see our unity so that it will believe. Can we draw a parallel between that passage (Jo

The Anglican communion's plural viewpoints and differing worship styles with, at the same time, unity of church administration, is appealing as an example of how a single church for all believers might work. But in recent times a problem has arisen with its model. Some have used the Anglican tendency toward genial tolerance of varying views to bring into the church ideas that are heterodox at best, importing passing fashions from the culture as new standards for Christianity. It will be interesting to see how (or whether) the Anglican communion recovers from that. That said, Anglicanism is uniquely positioned to serve as a vehicle for dialog, since it is a Protestant church with Catholic roots and Orthodox affinities. As an entity that can point to its continuous existence and operation from long before the Great Schism of 1054, it can claim kinship to the undivided Church of old, something no other Protestant body can do. At the same time, it is accepted as a Protestant church

Some of the ideas I talk about here are pretty far out. I am doing it because no one else is. We need some new thinking, the creative spark of trying to look at things from new perspectives. The question of Christian unity has stagnated for a generation or two, nothing new is on the table and if a crazy idea gets us thinking, maybe that will lead in turn to ideas that are not so crazy. Certainly the status quo in eccumenical dialog is a bore, and leads to scant progress. A panel convenes, bats ideas back and forth and concludes that, yes, there are sincere differences. While we respect the views of our separated brethren they are still wrong (the language is more diplomatic but that is the denotative sense). Okay, why have meetings like that? In any case, is there any purpose in holding such purely ceremonial and cosmetic meetings over and over again? We heard you the first time.

I don't speak for anyone officially, as I'm sure will readily be agreed by all, and by some with thanksgiving, but...  Examining ecumenical questions leads me to say there are several incompatible visions in the church world of how unity might be achieved. I'm not trying to be formal, precise or complete here, just to give my approximations of several viewpoints. Orthodox : The church is rightly organized on an episcopal basis and the faith and ethos of the whole church define Christianity. Authoritative judgments about the faith are made in eccumenical councils. It would not contradict tradition to say that the pope is "first among equals" among the world's bishops, but the Orthodox cannot grant him the primacy of authority he claims. Catholic : Everyone becomes a Catholic, that's what unity means. Anglican : There is room to accommodate divergent views within one church. There can be shared fellowship between people of Reformed and Catholic ten