I am glad to have read this post; thanks for sharing. You have quite the knack for rhetoric. Help me understand the connection with my post about evangelicalism. I see some points of agreement and some points of disagreement, and I would love to hear what you have in mind.
would you define athenasius treatment of the arians after nicea as sectarian? the westminster confedsions identification of the pope as Antichrist? historical christianity is exclusivistic about truth, post 60s christianity is reativistic or what you call ecumenical. when billy graham first came to nyc in the early 60s the catholic bishops forbade thier faithful from attending and held catechism every night of his crusade at local parishes. by the 70s they were encouraging faithful to attend his nyc crusade and billy sending his converts to rcc churches if they so chose. (from a bill buckley firing line episode in the 80s). its not clear what the post 60s ecuminism has to do with historical christianity as we experienced it for the 19 centuries before.
Hi Stephen, thanks for this perspective. I would not characterize all post-1960s ecumenism as relativistic. The so-called “faith and order” ecumenical work was seriously focused on clarifying meaningful differences as part of the effort to heal division. The goal of full, visible unity hasn’t been reached, and that fact is traceable to doctrinal convictions. I think the development/unfolding of Christian orthodoxy in the form of things like Nicene dogma are absolutely ecumenical—especially as that process involves clarifying who is and is not in communion. That doesn’t excuse morally the mistreatment of heretics; I oppose, e.g., burning heretics at the stake. But I don’t oppose identifying heresy. Similarly, I don’t object to the Catholic Church’s decision not to admit Protestants to communion: we are not in communion, and so how can we commune together? Our baptismal obligation to each other demands that we endure the pain of our separation as we seek for God to heal the division.
right. i mean i like your application of the term sectarianism to the bourgois purveyors of the corporate morality that have captured basically all the institutional churches, that is spot on. they would do well to treat their opponents with charity as well as their opponents try to comprehend why theyve lost power. i guess i still write from the conviction that the onslaught of relativism poisoned the church and if liberals want to enforce their ideology or sectarian claim to universality, its better than the patty cake weve been playing for the past half century. also a good point: liberals are the projection of their own enemy and behave in this manner, ok. but the truth is their enemy was right, the sectarian mindset is the traditional christian one, where everyone is supposed to conform to my group to be saved. and this was the attitude of all baptized, orthodox, catholic, protestant until the 60s. how do we commune together? the church fathers say we aren´t supposed to do this with schismatics and heretics. maybe the church will only unite when the standard of truth is raised and considered more consequential than today.
Ah, I see. I appreciate that point very much. I have no problem with raising the standard as long as the people doing it have the courage of their convictions and are honest about what they’re doing.
“Baptism demands more of us.”
Amen, amen, amen.
Holy Hypocrisy: The Distorted Gospel of Christian Nationalism
How a Movement that Preaches Peace, Justice, and Humility Embraces Violence, Hypocrisy, and Political Power
https://substack.com/home/post/p-150028413?r=4d7sow&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I am glad to have read this post; thanks for sharing. You have quite the knack for rhetoric. Help me understand the connection with my post about evangelicalism. I see some points of agreement and some points of disagreement, and I would love to hear what you have in mind.
would you define athenasius treatment of the arians after nicea as sectarian? the westminster confedsions identification of the pope as Antichrist? historical christianity is exclusivistic about truth, post 60s christianity is reativistic or what you call ecumenical. when billy graham first came to nyc in the early 60s the catholic bishops forbade thier faithful from attending and held catechism every night of his crusade at local parishes. by the 70s they were encouraging faithful to attend his nyc crusade and billy sending his converts to rcc churches if they so chose. (from a bill buckley firing line episode in the 80s). its not clear what the post 60s ecuminism has to do with historical christianity as we experienced it for the 19 centuries before.
Hi Stephen, thanks for this perspective. I would not characterize all post-1960s ecumenism as relativistic. The so-called “faith and order” ecumenical work was seriously focused on clarifying meaningful differences as part of the effort to heal division. The goal of full, visible unity hasn’t been reached, and that fact is traceable to doctrinal convictions. I think the development/unfolding of Christian orthodoxy in the form of things like Nicene dogma are absolutely ecumenical—especially as that process involves clarifying who is and is not in communion. That doesn’t excuse morally the mistreatment of heretics; I oppose, e.g., burning heretics at the stake. But I don’t oppose identifying heresy. Similarly, I don’t object to the Catholic Church’s decision not to admit Protestants to communion: we are not in communion, and so how can we commune together? Our baptismal obligation to each other demands that we endure the pain of our separation as we seek for God to heal the division.
right. i mean i like your application of the term sectarianism to the bourgois purveyors of the corporate morality that have captured basically all the institutional churches, that is spot on. they would do well to treat their opponents with charity as well as their opponents try to comprehend why theyve lost power. i guess i still write from the conviction that the onslaught of relativism poisoned the church and if liberals want to enforce their ideology or sectarian claim to universality, its better than the patty cake weve been playing for the past half century. also a good point: liberals are the projection of their own enemy and behave in this manner, ok. but the truth is their enemy was right, the sectarian mindset is the traditional christian one, where everyone is supposed to conform to my group to be saved. and this was the attitude of all baptized, orthodox, catholic, protestant until the 60s. how do we commune together? the church fathers say we aren´t supposed to do this with schismatics and heretics. maybe the church will only unite when the standard of truth is raised and considered more consequential than today.
Ah, I see. I appreciate that point very much. I have no problem with raising the standard as long as the people doing it have the courage of their convictions and are honest about what they’re doing.