Exploring Ecumenism

Why is Communion so Divisive?

I think there are three reasons why Communion is so divisive. 

1. There are the issues to do with authority. Communion is the foundation liturgical practice of all the churches and it matters. It spills over into all manner of faith and order issues.
2. Even closely related traditions have grown apart. This covers what we believe about communion and also how we decide what constitutes right practice.
3. There is the matter of ecumenical reception and that is what I intend to focus upon in this post.

Faith as Conversation

However did we get into this situation?  Yesterday, I started to open up the question of belief and I stated that belief drives out faith.  Doubt creates room for faith.  Today I'll explore this a bit further.

Ecumenism and Science 3: Returning Love to a Lifeless Universe

Newtonian cosmology has dis-enchanted the universe.  Perhaps some of this is positive, where old illusions have fallen away.  But where it views the cosmos as without life or consciousness, to be exploited for the good of humanity, the consequences can be negative.

Ecumenism and Science 1: Interpreting Science Together

In 1959 C P Snow published a lecture entitled The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution.  The two cultures were science and literary humanities.  Over the years the barrier between them has to some degree been broken down.  To what extent is it true today that a scientist who didn't know Shakespeare's plays would be seen as ignorant, whereas a professor of humanities who didn't know the second law of thermodynamics would not?

The Relevance of Cosmology to Ecumenism

It is time to take stock and attempt to bring what might be seen as a long diversion into science and cosmology, back to my main theme.  What relevance has cosmology to ecumenism? 

An earlier post in this sequence developed some of my thoughts and in the next few posts I will develop the following in more detail:

1. The need for a new Christian cosmology.
2. Cosmology as context: The move away from structural unity
3. The re-enchantment of the material world.
4. Compassion and ecumenism

5. Faith and Belief

On God's Relationship with Matter

We know very little about consciousness although, according to Martin in Does It Matter?, it should be possible to study it using scientific methods.  This would be through collection and comparison of accounts of experiences.  Wesley, according to Runyon's The New Creation(page 72f), understood experience to be important in spiritual matters.  He did not rule out an empirical approach to spiritual matters because accounts of experiences can be studied.

Made in God's Image

In the first creation story in Genesis, men and women are created in God's image.  What does it mean to be made in God's image?

Purpose not Design

I have already argued God is no designer.  In a fascinating sequence starting on page 197, Martin shows how Dawkins smuggles a purposeful intelligence into the evolutionary process.  In The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins calculates the chances of producing haemoglobin by the random processes of evolution are 1 in 10¹⁵⁰.  But he takes a 'neat side-step' around this problem.

The Case Against Creationism

One of the entertaining dimensions of the atheist onslaught against Christianity is that it is an unwinnable argument.  Either they address people like me who believe in evolution (and depart from the atheist position on other points that don't seem to be debated) ... (apparently I'm unintentionally being fooled by fundamentalists because they are the true representatives of Christianity - so much for solidarity amongst radicals!) ... or else they address fundamentalists who will never be persuaded by science on principle.

Does Evolution have a Purpose?

I have already suggested that although design is not involved in evolution, this does not rule out purpose. 

1. I understand by design a detailed plan, drawn up before the proposed work is done.  God the designer is equivalent to the traditional Calvinist God, who created everything at the beginning, with no room for error.  Is it necessarily the case that God's purpose is best served by such an inflexible approach to creation?  Theologically it opens up several problems, such as why does a good (and absolute) creator allow suffering?  The answer must boil down to: it depends upon what God is trying to achieve.