The Goal of Ecumenism 1: Why are we Divided?

This is the first of series of posts which will respond to a post placed by Chris James on his blog, The Goal of Ecumenism: Why and How to be One.  This is a helpful article, exploring the distinction between visible unity and reconciled diversity.  My aim is to consider each section of his post in turn and I hope Chris will forgive me for using his subheadings.  I do so in order that all readers have some chance of keeping up!

The purpose of my blog is to explore an approach to ecumenism based upon the practice rather than the content of conversations.  I question both visible unity and reconciled diversity and James' post offers me an opportunity to summarise and develop my ideas.

So, James asks the question: 'Why are we divided?'.  He starts with the Protestant reformation and describes in turn how Protestants and Catholics rationalised their new world; their new world of a divided Christendom.  Broadly, there are two extremes.  The view held by the Roman Catholics (although perhaps less so these days) and some Protestant sects is that they are the visible church, which subsists in their institution.  The alternative extreme sees the church as invisible and so the differences don't matter.

James argues that at one extreme we need to push for a recognition of other churches and at the other, highlight the inadequacy of the invisible church.

This seems to be a very Euro-centric story.  I think I am right in saying that at the time of the Reformation, there were more Christians outside of Europe than inside.  The Church was already divided before the reformation.  James writes: The Catholic Church had long maintained the equivalence of the "one holy catholic and apostolic church"  with their institution, and the reformation did not change this.  In effect the Protestants were now outside of the visible church with all the others.

So, from a Catholic perspective, the reformation was nothing new.  For many hundreds of years, probably up to the second Vatican Council in the 1960s, this would be the understanding Catholics had of other churches. 

My second point is, in modern Britain the choice between visible unity and reconciled diversity does not cover all the options.  The reality of Christian life and diversity in modern Britain is much more complex than it was a few years ago.  I have written about the new diversity of the churches in Britain elsewhere.

Many of these churches, new and old, are not reconciled to one or more mainstream churches.  They take pride in their independence.  This new diversity sits alongside the traditional churches, who in the main practice reconciled diversity, even if some people still seek visible unity. 

The point I will develop in my next post is that the fullness of the church is expressed in its divisions so long as churches participate in ecumenism.  Christendom was never a stable settlement because it prevented the Gospel being expressed in its fullness.  Our focus must be on the church that is emerging, a church we cannot describe or imagine because it is not as yet realised.

One final point, when I write of a church not fully realised I am not referring to an eschatological reality but the church becoming present (or visible!) in real time.

Comments

[Chris James]

Fascinating thoughts. I'm curious if you have historical evidence to back the claim of more Christians outside of Europe.

[Chris Sissons]

Thanks Chris. I read it somewhere is the answer. Also I think I knew where I read it when I wrote the post. If the memory surfaces I'll let you know.

I think it rings true. We know about the Great Schism and the separation of the Catholics and Orthodox churches. To which we can add some other churches such as the Copts. An orthodox Christian told me the other day that the early Catholic Church drew its boundaries at the boundary of the Roman Empire leaving a lot of Christians outside of it. I think these were the non-chalcedonian churches, and if you find the wikipedia page you will see they were fairly extensive and not the same as the Orthodox churches who were also outside of Christendom.

We should also remember the population of Europe was a lot smaller than it is today at the time of the Reformation and so it is feasible that the Christian world outside of Europe was at the time larger.

I thought your words highlighted in blue above implied an awareness of the churches outside Europe.

We should

[Chris Sissons]

I think I can do more to substantiate my claim that there were more Christians outside of Europe at the time of the Reformation. Diarmaid MaCulloch has just published a book about the history of Christianity and a TV series has started on BBC4. The first episode travels to Syria and then east to China. What is now known as the Syrian Orthodox Church was at one time, after the rise of the Islam, the Church of the East.

200 years after Islam, a quarter of all Christians were in India and Asia. As many recognised MarTimothy as their leader as recognised the Pope. Add on the Orthodox and Coptic churches and the numbers will have been high indeed. One of DM's arguments is that in the West we are not aware of the history of eastern Christianity.

I will blog about this at some stage.