Posted on 03/02/2004 10:30:19 AM PST by HarleyD
Dr. Turner is Dean Emeritus of Berkeley Divinity School at Yale University - Episcopalian theologian
There are a number of ways to respond to an address. The most common is either to disagree with or pick at the argument presented. However, with one major exception, I find myself in substantial agreement with Prof. Oden, and, as a consequence, the “challenge/pick-at” model of response is not open to me. Because of my substantial agreement, I have chosen to focus instead on a particular direction in which I believe his argument leads—one that points the divided churches to an ecumenical task of enormous importance.
I will say more in a moment about the particulars of this task, but first allow me to state the primary point at which I find myself in agreement. The old ecumenism, at least as it is represented by the WCC, has indeed lost its way and, in the process, become the advocate of forms of Christian belief and practice that are less and less recognizable as such. My own view is that, in its hands, Christianity has, in large measure, ceased to be a religion of salvation and become in stead a form of moralism coated with a religious veneer and dedicated to social and political projects that have no clear Christian warrant.
This statement is particularly true of ecumenism as represented by the structures of what in America used to be called “mainline Protestantism.” Different things must be said of the ecumenical efforts and views of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Evangelical Protestants. The “new ecumemism” Prof. Oden describes, within the confines of the U.S., constitutes, in the first instance, a reaction on the part of orthodox Protestants to the liberal drift of their mother churches—particularly Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Congregationalist. This reaction has brought Protestants with differing denominational allegiances together and forged bonds that cut across these boundaries. These links in fact are now stronger than those that bind them to the structures of their own denominations. They also have given these somewhat dispossessed Protestants a new sense of commonality with Evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians.
There is without question a shift occurring within America in the way in which orthodox Protestants identify themselves as Christians and, when viewed through their eyes, there is indeed “a new ecumenism”—one that links them in new ways to Evangelical, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians. These links have grown from what Prof. Oden has described as a high doctrine of scripture, Chalcedonian Christology, an account of the Trinity articulated by the ecumenical councils of the undivided church, a high doctrine of the atonement and resurrection and a belief in the return of the Lord.
It is at this point that I wish to reframe aspects of Prof. Oden’s account of the new ecumenism, and use this recasting as a means of suggesting the enormous potential I believe his remarks carry. It is certainly the case that orthodox Protestants experience a new unity among themselves. It is also true that when these people meet with Roman Catholic, Evangelical and Eastern Orthodox Christians they know a unity in Christ that may well not be present when they find themselves in the company of either liberal Protestant or liberal Roman Catholic Christians. However, the reaction of other Christians and church hierarchies to the dilemmas of these orthodox Protestants may well not be supportive of unity on the same basis as they, the orthodox Protestants, hope. The travail of “mainline Protestantism” may be viewed by Evangelicals as an opportunity for “conversion” or by the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as an indication of the likelihood of large numbers returning to the one, true, holy, catholic and apostolic church.
I wish only to say that what orthodox Protestants view as a new ecumenism may be viewed by many of those with whom they feel new bonds in a very different way. For this reason, the promise of a new ecumenism may in fact be thwarted by fragmentation on the part of the Protestants themselves, and by a degree of triumphalism on the part of Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical Christians who, I note with considerable envy, have a much clearer institutional and confessional identity.
Accordingly, I believe that if the promise of the new ecumenism is to be realized and if it is to issue in an effective Christian social witness, a number of things must happen. I want to mention two of them in particular—one briefly and the other at greater length. The first (the one about which I will speak briefly) concerns what might be called the “character” that the new ecumenism must assume if it is to issue in concrete expressions of Christian unity and in faithful forms of Christian social witness. Prof. Oden remarks: “We cannot rightly confess the unity of the church without re-grounding that unity in the apostolic teaching that was hammered out on the anvil of martyrdom and defined by the early conciliar movement when heresies were rejected and orthodox teaching defined.” He is certainly right to note that the pressures of modernism are driving orthodox Christians of all stripes once more both to the creeds of the undivided church and to ways of reading the Holy Scriptures that more closely resemble those employed by the “Fathers of the Church” than to those that spring from the Enlightenment.
The mind moves naturally enough to these classical “topics” as means for identifying the new ecumenism. However, Prof. Oden makes an additional remark, the significance of which demands further explication because the promise of the new ecumenism is directly dependent upon it. In addition to insisting that the confession of the new ecumenism must be apostolic he says that it must also “seek to refract the holiness of God in our lives in the world…” I would say as well that it must refract that holiness in relations between those people, groups and churches that count themselves as part of the new ecumenism. The unity of the church consists of more than doctrinal agreement. It is rooted even more deeply in a form of life that imitates in appropriate ways that of its Lord. Thus, without love, manifest in humility of mind, patience, forbearance, eagerness for unity, kindness, sympathy, forgiveness and a willingness to count others better, unity of belief and practice can neither be achieved nor maintained. If relations between those who identify with the new ecumenism do not manifest this “character” those who seek to strengthen it will at best achieve an uneasy peace rooted in shifting and unstable alliances. Apart from these Christ-like qualities, the new ecumenism will become little more than a form of pragmatic alliance or a veiled, perhaps even arrogant, invitation for conversion or return to the one true church.
Now I move to my more extended comment—one that bears on the social witness the new ecumenism must make, at least within America, if it is to realize its potential and prove credible. I believe that it is in relation to this social witness that the depth and force of the new ecumenism will be tested and its future forged. Prof. Oden mentions a number of areas in which he believes this witness must take place—parenting, schooling, the relation of men and women, international aid, biomedical dilemmas, market economy and social welfare are but a sampling of his list. I suspect, however, he would not object if I were to append to this list another--one comprised of what I like to call the A’s, B/C’s, D’s, E’s and F’s of ecumenical relations. I speak of abortion, birth control, divorce, euthanasia and (forgive this antique notion) fornication. These are the moral flashpoints that now light up the ethical landscape both within the churches and within society as a whole. They are also points at which orthodox Christians find themselves sadly, publicly and sometimes bitterly divided. It is my contention that these issues constitute the place we must begin if we are to forge a new ecumenism that serves at one and the same time to unify Christians and make their social witness credible as a Christian witness.
I say this because I have come to believe that a single issue lies beneath each letter of this moral alphabet, and that this issue comprises the point at which Christians are called to make a contrary rather than a conforming social witness. I have in mind the ubiquitous assumption that gives coherence to what we mistakenly view as a pluralistic moral universe, namely, autonomous individualism. “In, with, and under” the changing views our society holds about abortion, birth control, divorce, euthanasia and the moral probity of sexual relations between people who are not married one to another lies the foundational notion that each “individual,” “self” or “person” is a free and reasonable moral agent who is responsible for employing their freedom and reason in a way that promotes their own well being without doing undue harm to others. In this moral space, deontology and utilitarianism (as current debates in the field of medical ethics make plain) are like brothers or sisters locked in a perpetual and irresolvable family feud. In this moral space, the dominant issue connected with each of the letters of the moral alphabet is whether any of these actions promotes the flourishing of the individual agent without doing undue harm to others who are recognized as beings endowed with freedom and reason.
Were there time on this occasion to point out the full significance of what happened when we began to identify ourselves as “persons,” “selves,” and “individuals” defined by the possession of freedom and reason rather than as beings created in the image of God and ordered to common life with God and one another I believe I could make the dire moral circumstances of our society plain. I can only say on this occasion that this shift in moral self-identity stands behind our readiness to abort new human life or end dying life by our own decision. It is this shift that turns marriage into a private contract entered into for personal reasons and divorce into a way toward personal fulfillment. It is this shift also that renders procreation a choice made on the basis of its contribution to the flourishing of those who might decide, for various reasons, to have a child in whatever manner lies open to them.
It is this assumption also that must be challenged by the new ecumenism if it is to remain credible as a Christian social witness. With the exception of ecclesiolgy, orthodox Christians are not at the moment arguing among themselves about the great doctrines of the church. They are, however, arguing about these moral issues. Let it be said then, that in addressing the fundamental assumption that unites these issues and in challenging this assumption with another, the new ecumenism will meet its greatest challenge. Our challenge is to see clearly the way in which the foundational moral notion of our society has departed from that it received from Christian belief and practice, and then to reach agreement among ourselves about the implications a genuinely Christian account of moral agency has for the A’s, B/C’s, D’s, E’s and F’s of both ecumenical and social relations. My belief is that, if indeed we do reclaim a Christian view of moral agency, it will be easier to achieve agreement about abortion, euthanasia and fornication than about birth control and divorce. In respect to this prognostication, time alone will tell if I am right, but I am certain that agreement in respect to any of the divisive issues we face will prove impossible apart from the presence among us of that “character” of life implied by the notion of holiness. We often separate the notion of holiness from that of unity, but we do so at our peril. Apart from a common life stamped by the image of our Lord’s life we will not find our way to unity of belief and practice in respect to these matters and, as a consequence, when time comes to make a social witness, our words will fall empty to the ground.
Bump for later study.
1. Celebate priests who dedicate their lives to God, take on vows of poverty and are thoroughly educated and deeply spiritual. I can't have Joe-blow who I'd have a beer with preaching to me, teaching me or taking on the role of my spiritual advisor, much less giving me communion. Some of the "preachers" I see out there resemble puffed up clowns, and rich ones at that. I could NEVER suffer these types.
2. Eucharist. This is a must and very clearly worded in the bible. To me there is no way around it and I find it unfathomable how some denominations avoid this.
3. Vehicle for the belief in Mary. I know it may sound goofy to some, but she has shown herself to me in a very real way, not in a dream or any such ambiguous fashion either. She is real and is capable of miracles.
4. No toleration for heresy, leftist, homos, modernists or humanists. No toleration for non-adherence to New Testament scripture including no woman preaching to the congregation or not covering their heads in church. Yes it is written. I have no idea why we pretend it doesn't exist.
5. Scriptural adherence. One thing I don't like about all Protestant denominations and Catholicism as well is the liberties taken where scripture is silent. I think whenever such is done it should be done rarely and with extraordinary care. Every religion is guilty of this and to me it's wrong.
I'm going to hear it from my Catholic friends for posting this, I just know it.
Excellent post, Harley. IMHO, the confusion amongst Christians regarding the ethical is directly related to the Thomist syntheist. If the deontology is taken away and placed firmly in the ontology of God, if moral law is not simply a construct of some hidden human reasoning, if it is affirmed that moral law is known specifically through divine revelation, would the sharpening of the antithesis between the Christian and the utilitarianist ethic help bring about a clearer focus for the Christian intiative?
See Carl F H Henry on "Natural Law and a Nihilistic Culture."
About the matter of "grounding." The natural law is always defined by Thomas in reference to the eternal law: "It should be said that the natural law is a participation of the eternal law, and therefore endures without change owing to the unchangeableness and perfection of the divine reason." The idea that natural law is grounded in, rather than known by, human reason would subvert the metaphysical order laid out in the Summa. While many things are known from the bottom up, as it were, they are not "grounded" in this way. This system, after all is a neo-Platonic scheme of participation.
Yes I do. You mean that the New Testament is an instrument of great love and following it is in our best interest. We shouldn't re-interpret it.
You also mean that we're not smarter than all of the wise and divinely inspired that came before us, including the Son of God.
I hear ya.
4.....No toleration for non-adherence to New Testament scripture including no woman preaching to the congregation or not covering their heads in church. Yes it is written. I have no idea why we pretend it doesn't exist.
5. Scriptural adherence. One thing I don't like about all Protestant denominations and Catholicism as well is the liberties taken where scripture is silent. I think whenever such is done it should be done rarely and with extraordinary care. Every religion is guilty of this and to me it's wrong.
.... the New Testament is an instrument of great love and following it is in our best interest. We shouldn't re-interpret it.
And yet... Your first point is:
1. Celebate priests who dedicate their lives to God, take on vows of poverty and are thoroughly educated and deeply spiritual.
So you believe that Christians should closely follow the New Testament. This is good. But, you explicitly call for celebate priests, notwithstanding the FACT (not opinion) that no such office as "priest" is to be found in the Church described in the New Testament. Further, of the OFFICES described in the New Testament Church, NO celebate person could ever qualify.
[For much more information on this, look at this thread:(I have not yet completed this dissertation, but I hope to get back to it later)]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/928151/posts
DG
p.s. I am not trying to start a fight. You do not even need to answer. I just hope that this will start people thinking.
Maybe I just have a high standard for those who teach me or give spiritual guidance. I've watched many ministers on Christian TV and usually can only stand them for about 5 minutes before being forced to turn the channel. I could never have one of these people guiding me spiritually or giving me communion.
I've also been to many various protestant services, some on a regular basis. I've just concluded (for myself personally) that I must have a priest leading me. They that(supposedly) give up all that is worldly are infinitely more credible to me than those that don't.
IMO holy men have a hard enough time being holy without the distraction of women, money and family.
1 Corinthians 7
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
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.