Churches Try to Bridge Differences

GENEVA (AP) - A 60-member commission seeking to bridge differences in the World Council of Churches between western Protestant and Eastern Orthodox churches proposed sweeping changes Thursday in the group's voting and worship practices.

"In both issues — common prayer and decision-making — a solution was found which was not simply a compromise," Peter Bouteneff of the Orthodox Church in America told the council's governing Central Committee.

The 35-page commission report recommends that the council start deciding major issues by consensus rather than traditional voting in which the majority wins. That will give more voice to the minority, because the emphasis will be on winning their support or at least acceptance, it said.

The commission also urges the council to drop the term "ecumenical worship" when its members gather to pray. The reason is the term implies whole religious services — which may cause theological problems for some denominations. Instead, the council members would join in "common prayer," the commission said.

Deep divisions in the body of 342 churches had led to an Orthodox boycott of some council worship services and threats of a complete pullout from the organization.

"Our divisions will not be resolved solely with theological dialogue and common service to the world," the commission said. "We must also pray together if we are to stay together."

Underscoring difficulties in the council, which has been a leader in the ecumenical movement seeking to bridge denominational differences, Orthodox delegates from Russia and Greece boycotted the opening sessions of the council's 50th anniversary assembly in 1998.

The assembly subsequently set up the special commission to address the concerns of the Eastern churches, which felt they were underrepresented and powerless in the council.

"It was the first time in the history of the council that the two Christian traditions entered into dialogue on an equal basis," with the Orthodox making up half the commission membership, noted His Holiness Aram I Catholicos of Cilicia (Lebanon) of the Armenian Orthodox Church.

Orthodox delegates have complained that their voting power has waned drastically over the years with the addition of small Protestant denominations to the council. Orthodox membership has remained fairly constant at around 21 churches.

The council says it is impossible to say how many individual Christians belong to their member churches, but estimates the number to be in the hundreds of millions, about one-third of whom are Orthodox. The group's U.S. constituency includes 24 Protestant and Orthodox denominations that list 42 million members.

Many Orthodox leaders have expressed disquiet about liberal trends in American and European churches, such as the ordination of women and homosexuals and "inclusive" language in worship.

The Rev. Konrad Raiser, the German theologian who heads the council, said earlier this week that the ecumenical movement faces other problems. It no longer attracts enthusiastic youthful supporters, and conservative elements within member churches have always shunned it.

"For many, even the term 'ecumenism' provokes suspicion and rejection," he said.

Raiser also noted that the council and many other ecumenical organizations face serious budget problems.

"There is currently a clear decrease in the availability of such funds," Raiser said.

The council, which had 359 employees in 1990, currently has 183 and plans to cut back to 162 next year, said council officials.

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't belong to the council, but works cooperatively with it.

How about we agree to stand together on the issues we agree on, and let God guide us on the issues we don't...

Unity should never be based on a de-natured, watered down religiosity but rather on a confluence of purpose as directed by God.

God has never required uniformity. He requires only people who will act in response to the urgings of the spirit. That does not imply uniformity, or even agreement beyond the very basics. It is important that you go where God sends you, and that I go where he sends me. It is not necessary that either of us follow the other.

I will simply reiterate what I have already said. Unity between you and I will not come from some kind of doctrinal compromise hammered out by your people negotiating with my people, and it shouldn't.

Unity between you and I will be the natural result of your following God as he directs your steps, and I doing the same. The result will not be any kind of artificial uniformity, as your purpose and mine are not the same, and God's leading must inevitably be filtered by human eyes and ears and brains. The result will be, rather, more of a harmony of spirit. There will likely be a convergence in our world view, as our understanding is shaped by God and experience.

I do not trust doctrinal conformity as the mark of a God-directed human being. But I think most of us recognize God-directed people when we encounter them.

>> WCC Facing Financially 'Unsustainable' Position

The World Council of Churches (WCC) is in a "financially unsustainable
position" and its central committee, meeting in Geneva until Sept. 3,
will have to take decisions to restore "financial stability," the
committee was told. Anders Gadegaard, on behalf of the WCC's finance
committee, said the council's audited financial results for 2001 showed
an operating deficit of $3.91 million. The WCC is the world's biggest
church grouping, with a staff of about 180 at its Geneva headquarters. 

The preliminary report of the finance committee placed the blame for
poor financial results in 2001 on a shortfall in investment results, a
decrease in contributions and on a one-time cost of an early retirement
program for departing staff. The report said the Geneva meeting would
have to make decisions that would reshape the council in terms of its
organizational setup and activities. "Management has exhausted
possibilities to decrease costs within the current structure," the
report stated. 

Michiel Hardon, the WCC's income monitoring and development manager,
said many WCC member churches were facing financial difficulties,
including cuts in budgets and staff, and that competition from other
ecumenical agencies for funding had increased. The fall in stock markets
had affected the WCC both directly and indirectly through its effects on
the finances of member churches.

The original purpose for my post was to reject the whole notion of a committee trying to negotiate doctrinal unity. I assume you are not defending this.

I suspect that doctrinally you and I are indeed on the same sheet of music. In doctrinal terms, my beliefs are pretty mainstream. But if you and I differ, a committee is not going to negotiate a compromise between us. What will unite us is the simple fact that you are God-directed, if you are, as am I, and my experience is that God-directed people cannot help but recognize one another. If God is alive in your life, though you may disagree with me on some doctrinal issues, nevertheless I will know it and see it in you. Even if I think you are full of it on some points of doctrine.

I grew up in an environment in which doctrinal purity was held to be paramount, and am consequently fairly well versed in most of the doctrinal issues that divide people. But somewhere along the way I lost patience with all of that. I have observed that God's people are the ones who hear his voice, and act on it. They likely have a reasonable understanding of the foundational issues, as you put it, but that is not what makes them God's own. They are God's own, because they act.

God is in motion in the here and now.

You must have noticed that the people who act, the people who do, are not necessarily the doctrinally pure. The doctrinally pure are not necessarily the ones who are out in the fray.

The religious often let themselves off the hook by asserting that we are saved by faith, and not works, and while that is true it is also something of an evasion. There is no faith that does not lead to action. If your faith has any meaning, God is already leading you.

And for those who are out in the fray, men of faith are fairly easy to recognize. They are the ones with the bruises and scars, and callouses on their hands. People of faith are the doers, and the builders, and the warriors.

When God says Go, some people grab their tools and go. Some people sit down to analyze what "go" means.

The simple fact remains...there are certain bottom-line issues that we must agree on - not by means of a committee, but through mutual assent. And the most basic of these is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, who died, was buried, and rose from the dead. If we can not agree on that last sentence, then there can be no unity between us. Jesus said that we were either for Him, or against Him. A vague "God-directed"ness is not a statement where we can find unity. Christianity is, after all, the following of Jesus Christ.

I agree salvation is evidenced by the work we do for the glory of God.

"Hearing God's voice, and acting on that" is nice and fluffy, but there are objective, historically-based facts that we need to make mutual assent to - namely the issues I mentioned above relative to the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. If you deny those historical truths, you are practicing a religion other thatn Christianity. If you assent to those truths, you are a part of His kingdom, working for His glory. I have absolutely no way of knowing where you stand, and I am not asserting anything about you. Those are generic statements which I see as the foundation of any unifying movement.

there are certain bottom-line issues that we must agree on - not by means of a committee, but through mutual assent.

The original post concerned Christian Churches who are forming a committee to try and find a unified theology.

The fact that they are, at least nominally, Christian, means that they have at least accepted the basic, foundational beliefs that you refer to.

Nevertheless, these are precisely the churches who, as institutions, seem to have lost their way. This is an assertion on my part, which is probably too broad to be fair.

A vague "God-directed"ness is not a statement where we can find unity

"God-directedness", while it may seem vague, is all there is. Finding doctrinal purity means very little if God is not there. God is the point.

"Hearing God's voice, and acting on that" is nice and fluffy

Its not nice and fluffy at all. It is the whole point. If you don't do that, none of the rest means anything at all.

I don't think what I am saying is beyond the pale. The pharisees dedicated their lives to scripture and doctrinal precision. And they failed to recognize the living Christ when he was right in front of them.

Peter and Paul, Paul and James, could hardly stand to be in the same room together. But they were each in God's service, they each had their road to walk and their life to lead, their death to face.

There is a kind of unity that flows naturally out of the fact of God's claim on us, and our love for him. But unity is not conformity. We each have our road to walk, and our own experience with him, and our relationship with him that will build over the years. Your walk will not look like mine. But my experience is that, if God is with you, I would know you if I met you.

If I met you in person, I would not know that you have a precise and mature understanding of scripture, unless you told me so. But I would recognize, I believe, the mark on your spirit that God leaves on you.

I understand that the thread had to do with a committee trying to reach an agreement. That aside, I have repeatedly asked you a very simple question which you have not answered, or even addressed. to wit:

Is the man Jesus, who walked on the shores of Galilee nearly 2000 years ago Christ, the Son of God, the third person of the Trinity?

Did this man hang on a cross, die, get buried in a tomb, and then rise from the dead three days later?

Is the Lord and Saviour of mankind?

Wonderful - it seems that is sufficient for unity. We may worship in different styles, we may organize the church differently, we may have a different view of the End Times, but if we agree the Jesus is the Son of God, and Lord and Saviour of all, we have the firmest foundation for Unity.

Sadly, there are too many churches (people in those churches) today that don't believe that. There was a posting yesterday of a Methodist Bishop that rejects all of that, claiming it is idolatry to believe what I have just said. He and I have absolutely now grounds for unity. IMHO he ought to resign, or be defrocked, for he is propounding heresy at its most basic level. I, as an ordained minister of the Gospel - a retired Army chaplain - am ashamed that there are so many of the clergy who are compromising with the world, and departing from their first love.

I never doubted that you were a brother. And I agree with your description of the Methodists and some of the other mainline churches.

I finally read your bio.

Despite all of your prodding, I find it hard to believe that you didn't understand what I was saying all along.

I have little doubt you could have said it better.

I lost patience at some point along the way with religiosity that masquerades as faith. I have always been struck by the distinction between those who talk a good game, and those who are in the game.

For example, there were many from my "faith tradition" (as Al Gore would say it) who took pride in sitting out the second world war. I don't judge them for this, I have no way of judging their sincerity, and I don't know all of the circumstances that causes God to send one man here, and another there.

But evil personified in Europe of the forties was confronted, not by seminary students, but by rather profane young men who stepped out of a landing craft into a hail of bullets. I can't help but be struck by the notion that these men, despite a perhaps rather sketchy understanding of theology, are men of faith in a way that their cousins at the seminary will never know.

This is not to rob the seminarian of his role in all of this; his job is to teach, and lead, and without what he does the soldier may not have enough understanding to do what he does. One mans job is to confront evil in the world of ideas, in the face of its pressures and temptations, and another man must confront it at the cost of his life. Two very different kinds of men, two very different walks, but both men of faith. Though they might not see their unity on the surface.

This is a rather exaggerated example, but useful to show what I am referring to.

There is the rather famous parable in which Jesus meets a group of religious folks at the gates of heaven, and turns them away, in favor of another group of people. It is just a parable, and it is a mistake to stretch it beyond where it was meant to go, but I am struck that the folks ushered into heaven are surprised to be there. They didn't know they were God's people.

But he claimed them because they were men who acted.

And he rejected the others who substituted religiosity for action.

This haunts me.

I have decided which group I want to belong to, and have offered my life to God, for whatever its worth, for whatever he finds to use it for. I have learned to recognize him, I have learned to recognize him in others. I know so little and I love what I know.

I have been a Christian all of my life, but I have begun to see that there is a much bigger game afoot than I was ever taught to see. I don't want to be on the sidelines any longer.

I agree about not being on the sidelines. I guess there are terms that have become jargon - code words, if you will. I suspect I was looking for those. There are many liberals who use fuzzy language, having an appearance of religion, but denying the power thereof. (I read that somewhere).

The ministry that the Lord has me in right now is directly involved in equipping young men and women attempting to enter our military academies. What amazes me is that they are so woefully under taught. Ask them why the believe there is a God, and they have no answer, despite the fact that Peter told us to always be ready with an answer for the hope that is in us. So we teach how to develop a biblical Christian worldview - and how to see all of life through the lens of Scripture. Any thing less than that is one man's opinion against another's.

I actually do work for a living, believe it or not, nevertheless forgive me as I push this thread just a little longer.

If someone asked me how I know there is a God, I am not sure how I would articulate it. I became a Christian at a very early age, so I never doubted it. There was never a "road to Damascus" moment for me, I simply always knew. But what closed the deal for me was, after I entered adulthood, and had my kids, and raised my family, and faced down all of the crises that come with all of that... As I was forced into situations that had no out, and forced to deal with things that had no answer, to find that God was with me, again and again, all of the way through.

I have seen him in motion, in the lives of people around me. I have seen things that would well qualify as miracles, although the funny thing about miracles is how they quickly become knitted into the fabric of one's subsequent life, and how quickly we forget them.

You are right, in insisting that a scriptural framework is important. I always had that. What I did not have, until I had it, was the experience of seeing God in action. It was thanks to scripture, and parents, and perhaps God himself that I knew to look for him, but nothing replaces the experience of seeing him in action.

The kids you are teaching have volunteered to step into the fire, so to speak, so they are potentially already men of faith. These are kids who are going to put their lives on the line, down the road, or lead other men to do so.

While you are giving them the scriptural foundation on which to base their lives and careers, I would only insist that they need as well to be told, as I'm sure you do, that God is real. He is not a theoretical construct, easily defined by a few maxims, but real, and he will be there at their side when the moment comes to leap out into the void.

I always think of the blind men and the elephant when I think of theological debates. Its all very interesting and necessary, but in the end, you've got to put your own hand on the elephant. Let the others argue about the nature of elephantness, and listen to what they have to say, but don't slow down for it. Grab hold of the elephant and don't let go.

I know you know what I mean, and can say it better than I can.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.