tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post2615034498686075340..comments2024-03-25T13:40:30.747-04:00Comments on Faith and Theology: Ten propositions on ecumenismBen Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-76807146197597463272007-03-02T04:47:00.000-05:002007-03-02T04:47:00.000-05:00I'm very big on eucharistic hospitality, Kim. I'm ...I'm very big on eucharistic hospitality, Kim. I'm not sure what apostolic recognition is. I don't believe in apostolic succession and wouldn't think it important if it did exist. My tradition does NOT go back to the apostles but does attempt to recover apostolic beliefs and practices abandoned over the years.<BR/><BR/>I guess where we differ most on ecumenism, Kim, is that I see eucharistic hospitality, missional cooperation, joint efforts for peace and justice, etc. AS "visible unity," whereas you appear to see them only as steps toward a greater unity--which is where my fears of corporate mergers and suppression of needed features and distinctives of particular communions/traditions comes screaming to the fore.Michael Westmoreland-White, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06343135380354344847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-23562723280055831972007-03-01T11:12:00.000-05:002007-03-01T11:12:00.000-05:00Hi Michael,Re. your middle paragraph, see my #5! ...Hi Michael,<BR/><BR/>Re. your middle paragraph, see my #5! Which suggests that we could begin, at least, with apostolic recognition (#7) and shared eucharistic hospitality (also #7). And then, who knows? I'm quite happy to be (mind-)blown by the Spirit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-26745975126941515102007-03-01T09:52:00.000-05:002007-03-01T09:52:00.000-05:00Well, my spiritual ancestors TRIED to sit at the s...Well, my spiritual ancestors TRIED to sit at the same table with those who drowned them and those who burned them, THEN, so the least I can do is sit with their descendants who, whatever else, are not trying to do the same to me. (Although as recently as 50 years ago state pedobaptist churches in Europe were forcibly christening infants born to Baptists, Mennonites and other baptists!)<BR/>If Jesus could share the Last Supper with Judas, surely I can share the Lord's Supper with "whosoever will."<BR/><BR/>Yep! We filthy Gentiles were grafted in by grace! Wonderful!--but there is every evidence that the 1st C. Church had many, many differences so that One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church was not One Corporate Entity with identical polity, etc. And, in an ecumenical move, I cite Catholic Raymond Brown's <I>The Churches the Apostles Left Behind</I> as well as James D.G. Dunn's <I>Unity and Diversity in Early Christianity</I>.<BR/><BR/>I have been the sole Protestant on 3 different Catholic faculties. Loved it. Would do it again. But I do not feel we have a common baptism. My ecumenical model is cooperation, not merger.Michael Westmoreland-White, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06343135380354344847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-32496409178663740752007-03-01T06:10:00.000-05:002007-03-01T06:10:00.000-05:00Just a few remaks on justification.Of course a per...Just a few remaks on justification.<BR/><BR/>Of course a person may be justified by faith alone without fully understanding the doctrine of JBF. A new believer or a poorly taught believer may have defective views on this docrine. They need teaching and further instruction to help them see the truth in all its glory. <BR/><BR/>But the ecumenical project aims to unite <I>church groupings</I> that express really quite different understandings of JBF. The official Catholic teaching on justification <I>is</I> different from the traditional Evangelical and Reformed position. The Lutheran/Catholic joint declaration does not resolve some of the main the differences. The document does not make a clear enough distinction between justification as a <I>forensic</I> declaration and regeneration as a transformative act. Baptistmal regeneration/justification seems to be affirmed. I can't go along with that.<BR/><BR/>The NPP may be ecumencally convenient, as it shifts the focus of justification from soteriology to ecclesiology. But again, some of of don't accept that faith is <I>primarily</I> a boundary marker that defines the people of God. <BR/><BR/>If JBF in its Evangelical and Reformed (and I would say Biblical) meaning is the article that defines the standing or falling of the church, then much work still needs to be done to before Evangelical Protestants can contemplate full ecumenical engagement. The same could be said for the sole authority of Scripture and other Reformed distinctives.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-26227385039953207592007-03-01T02:48:00.000-05:002007-03-01T02:48:00.000-05:00Hi Matheson,Thanks for your comment on justificati...Hi Matheson,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comment on justification by faith alone. I am particularly glad that you mention it in the light of my comment on the "new perspective" on Paul, in #10. The "new perspective" has <I>enormous</I> ecumenical potential.<BR/><BR/>It is not that Luther's own insight does not still stand, it is just that it is not Paul's. For Paul, justification is not a soteriological concept but an ecclesiological concept. It answers the question not "How can I be saved?" but "Who belongs to the people of God?" And the answer is: those with faith - faith <I>alone</I>! Theologies, litugies, and various practices - the trajectory (as I would trace it) would make them "circumcision" - which may continue as a sign for the circumcised themselves, but should not be imposed on those who do not practice circumcision - and cannot be a church-dividing issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-57071490356003976302007-02-28T20:38:00.000-05:002007-02-28T20:38:00.000-05:00It seems to me that "justification by faith alone"...It seems to me that "justification by faith alone" is THE ecumenical doctrine <I>par excellence</I>. Because each of us is received into fellowship with God on the basis of faith in Christ alone, then we must receive each other on the same basis. <BR/><BR/>(That JBF has stood as a great shibboleth dividing Catholics and Protestants for so long is one of the deepest ironies of Christian history - as though we were justified by believing in JBF!)<BR/><BR/>So I'm sympathetic with Kim's desire to draw the list of "essential doctrines" rather minimally. This is not reductionism, nor is it to turn a blind eye to important differences. It reflects a desire not to erect doctrinal tests where the gospel demands only the test of faith in Christ ("Jesus is Lord!";"He is risen!"). <BR/><BR/>It is for this reason, incidentally, that I think Kim is right to mention baptism in this context. This may seem like an arbitrary addition, until of course one understands that baptism is nothing other than the Biblically authorised rite for publicly declaring and pledging one's <I>faith</I>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-88733932800503226512007-02-28T19:19:00.000-05:002007-02-28T19:19:00.000-05:00Hi Bop,Which of all the churches out there is the ...Hi Bop,<BR/><BR/>Which of all the churches out there is the one Church? None of the above. All are deficient in lacking both true unity and catholicity.<BR/><BR/>exiled preacher, I agree that the question is not 'How can we all get back together?' but given that there is one Church, 'How can we become what in Christ we already are?' <BR/><BR/>Clearly we will not do so if we view it as some sort of merger proposal or project, and the final shape of the Oecumene will not be clear until Kingdom come. It's more about expressing what is given as faithfully as we can, and that will always be a step on the road.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-53146857780056231932007-02-28T19:08:00.000-05:002007-02-28T19:08:00.000-05:00Guy,The doctrinal issues you raise are interesting...Guy,<BR/><BR/>The doctrinal issues you raise are interesting.<BR/><BR/>On the <I>sola fide</I>, although there are not insignificant RC/Protestant differences, no one argues justification by works. And you will be aware of the Lutheran/RC agreement, as well as Küng's famous book on Barth and RC teaching. Not a church-dividing issue.<BR/><BR/>On atonement theory, the early church in its wisdom enshrined no particular model(s) in its creeds. Nor do I think you will find many unreconstructed Abelardians about. And the differences within Protestantism, intra- as well as inter-denominational, are as significant as any between Protestantism and RC. Not a church-dividing issue.<BR/><BR/>And the bodily resurrection - again the theological disagreements have nothing to do with denominational labels. Not a church-dividing issue.<BR/><BR/>Of course I have my own views on all these matters (including - I wonder if it surprises you? - a very somatic understanding of the resurrection), but none of them warrant not sharing Supper together with those who disagree.<BR/><BR/>Michael,<BR/><BR/>Well, if paedobaptists don't understand that baptists, in their own minds, are not rebaptising then they haven't been paying attention. If the ignorance is really that bad then all is indeed lost. It seems to me that the concept of <I>intentio fidei</I> is absolutely crucial to edifying ecumenical conversation. However if one's baptismal theology and practice is right up there with "God is Trinity" and "Christ is risen!" - well, you've got me, partner! And yet you feel you can sit at table with folk who drowned your ancestors. . . <BR/><BR/>Whenever I get despondent about ecumenism, I just think of the early church. We filthy pigs - Gentiles - we came to share in the blessings of Isreal, one in Christ Jesus. Makes bishops and baptism seem like a piece of cakeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-16525730284187488992007-02-28T18:41:00.001-05:002007-02-28T18:41:00.001-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-2979367397428965652007-02-28T18:41:00.000-05:002007-02-28T18:41:00.000-05:00MWW agreeing with me & Michael Jensen against Kim ...MWW agreeing with me & Michael Jensen <I>against</I> Kim Fab. Now <I>that's</I> what I call ecuminism! ;-)Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-35450226290303402302007-02-28T17:46:00.000-05:002007-02-28T17:46:00.000-05:00Kim, what pedobaptists fail to understand is that ...Kim, what pedobaptists fail to understand is that those holding to believers' baptism do not consider what they are doing "rebaptism." The term Anabaptist ('rebaptizer') was a term used by enemies. What baptist groups insist on is that faith/conversion precedes the ordinance/rite/sacrament of initiation. We connect baptism not so much with salvation, but with discipleship, with following after Christ.<BR/> Being asked to accept infant baptism as an individual option or choice is, for us, like asking whether the Trinity or the resurrection are optional. Now, where we baptistic types differ among ourselves is whether or not we can share communion with those not scripturally baptized. I'm of the open communion party, here. With the 17th C. Baptist, John Bunyan, I hold that "Water Baptism is No Bar to Communion," the title of one of Bunyan's tracts--one that got him in trouble with fellow Baptists.<BR/><BR/>(And, yes, this is a strange day when I agree more with Michael Jenson and Guy Davies than Kim Fabricius! I do NOT agree that the WCC is preaching paganism.)<BR/><BR/>Do we all have to have the same episcopacy to sing in harmony? Why?<BR/><BR/>And I think corporate mergers are related to the loss of theological traditions, not a separate issue from it.Michael Westmoreland-White, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06343135380354344847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-32523451588345452412007-02-28T17:43:00.000-05:002007-02-28T17:43:00.000-05:00anonymous,By "ecclesiastical boundaries" I meant g...anonymous,<BR/><BR/>By "ecclesiastical boundaries" I meant gospel unity that defies differences over church government and polity. Maybe I should have said denominational boundaries.<BR/><BR/>My problem with the ecumenical movement is that it starts where we are now with lots of different church groupings and asks "How can we all get back together?"<BR/><BR/>The more fundamental question, "What makes for a gospel church in the the New Testament sense?" is fudged by institutional ecuminism. If the church is constituted the by the gospel, then there must be agreement on basic gospel truth for unity to exist. Kim's list of essentials is far too minimalistic for my liking. Christ's death and resurrection are abviously fundamental. But did he die for our sins, or simply give us a wonderful example of self-sacrifice? Was he <I>bodily</I> raised from the dead, or was his resurrection simply the continuation of a post mortem spiritual state? Paul gave clear <I>doctrinal</I> content to his gospel proclamation of Christ crucified and risen in 1 Cor 15:1ff.<BR/><BR/>I have already raised the difficulties with baptism as an ecumenical essetial from a baptistic standpoint. When baptismal regeneration is brought into the picture the whole thing becomes impossible. <BR/><BR/>Basic and serious doctrinal differences cannot be relegated to <I>adiaphora</I> if ecuminism is to have some kind of evangelical integrity. <BR/><BR/>(Guy Davies)Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-91046708553697093842007-02-28T17:05:00.000-05:002007-02-28T17:05:00.000-05:00Kim, sorry about the episcopacy blunder. Thanks fo...Kim, sorry about the episcopacy blunder. Thanks for the clarifications. I thought your points on that were spot on.<BR/><BR/>andrewAndrewEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03935631014151132458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-91669455996796313832007-02-28T14:39:00.000-05:002007-02-28T14:39:00.000-05:00At now, at the risk of sounding obnoxious, the onl...At now, at the risk of sounding obnoxious, the online gleanings of the ….. Conservative Catholic: <BR/><BR/>“The entire form of the Catholic Church stands between the extreme East and the extreme West, between Athos and Wittenberg, pure vision and pure hearing”<BR/><BR/>"It can happen that an individual possesses the objective holiness of mission and authority and yet has no subjective holiness. This is a grave misfortune, dangerously obscuring the Church's mission. But the Church as a whole can never fail to possess both gifts at the same time. This equally applies to the Church in its visible aspect. Consequently it will not do to divide the Catholic Church into two churches: an empirical Church with her authority and her ascertainable membership, and an invisible Church of saints, whose number is known only to God. Augustine saw very clearly that the visible bearer of the power of the keys cannot receive a sinner back into the Communio Sanctorum without the forgiveness of the Church of the saints, which the Song of Songs calls the 'one dove.' But he does not draw the same conclusion as that Augustinian friar, Luther, namely, that only the Church of the saints with its 'priesthood of all believers' has the true power of the keys. In Augustine the tension persists: Christ's Church has objective and subjective holiness, but they coincide perfectly only in Christ, the Church's head."<BR/><BR/> "It is only because the Church's internal structure has authority and an official dimension that she can admonish and encourage the imperfect Christian to pursue his own special mission. Of course it is important for the 'official' side of the Church to react with understanding to the distress, difficulties and helplessness of Christians, but it is even more important that the Christian should continually aspire to the authoritatively presented norm that is mediated and rendered concrete in everyday life by manifold Church practices. (Nowadays, the tendency is to loosen, abolish, or spiritualize a large part of these mediatory practices. The question is: Does this not cause the gospel norm to become abstract, remote from daily life, and ultimately forgotten?)... In this respect, the 'institution' is a 'necessary evil' (but could this not be said of Christ's cross too?), since human nature, crawling on the ground, needs to be held up by a trellis if it is to bear fruit."<BR/><BR/>"The Petrine principle is the sole or decisive principle of unity in the Catholica. And the more worldwide the Church becomes, the more threatened she is in the modern states with their fascism of the right and of the left, the more she is called upon to incarnate herself in the most diverse, non-Mediterranean cultures, and the wider theological and episcopal pluralism she contains, the more indispensable this reference-point becomes. Anyone who denies this is either a fanatic or an irrational sentimentalist."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-3277984050974008992007-02-28T14:01:00.000-05:002007-02-28T14:01:00.000-05:00Michael and others:It's great to see that this con...Michael and others:<BR/><BR/>It's great to see that this conversation has gotten lively and some substantive points are being brought up. I am with Kim in that I think institutional unity is important, but we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking institutional unity is identical to ecumenicity. Being ecumenical INCLUDES institutional unity, but it is not ONLY institutional unity.<BR/><BR/>This is because of what the church is: the "ecclesia", the gathering. It is a bit of a joke to talk about unity when we are not all gathering together in one place as one body. Your image of harmony is right on Michael, but we have to all be in the same building, a part of the same choir, singing the same song. It is no good for us to go on in our separate buildings, in different choirs, singing different songs and pretending that they all mesh together to form a unified composition. They do not. They make a cacophany.<BR/><BR/>Institutional Unity is important, but it needs to be accomplished in ways that don't overlook the very controversies you bring up. We can't ignore the baptism issue. Or doctrinal differences. These have to be resolved first before insitutional unity is even a possibility - but they need to be resolved in ways that bring them into harmony without enforcing uniformity. The ecclesia of the church catholic will have to be a very big and diverse gathering.<BR/><BR/>Unity will require all of us to learn to hold our distinctiveness gently and gracefully rather than adamantly and obnoxiously.Aric Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15241157655075444268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-29321011666470948852007-02-28T12:45:00.000-05:002007-02-28T12:45:00.000-05:00Hi Anonymous.Given, as you say, that there is and ...Hi Anonymous.<BR/><BR/>Given, as you say, that there is and can be only one church, and that it has to be institutionally structured, which church, of all the ‘churches’ out there, is that church?<BR/><BR/>Bop.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-33225560415892639762007-02-28T12:31:00.000-05:002007-02-28T12:31:00.000-05:00Hi KimThanks for these. I want to echo Exiled Pre...Hi Kim<BR/><BR/>Thanks for these. I want to echo Exiled Preacher's comment about using common baptism as an essential parameter - thus excluding those from baptistic traditions. Progress in this area has been made in recent discussions between the Baptist Union of Great Britain and the Church of England, Pushing the Boundaries of Unity, drawing on the work of Paul Fiddes on mutual recognition of journeys of intitiation. The problem with making common baptism an essential parameter is that those Baptists who do not see infant baptism as baptism at all are thereby excluded from the ecumenical conversations that might help them to see that there may be some validity after all, even in a derivative sense.Sean Winterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09760325410280159212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-65742097532976497652007-02-28T11:45:00.000-05:002007-02-28T11:45:00.000-05:00I'm not sure what exiled preaher means by an 'evan...I'm not sure what exiled preaher means by an 'evangelical or gospel unity that defies ecclesiatical boundaries'. There is and can be only one ekklesia. It's the boundaries that are the problem. <BR/><BR/>Unity has to be structural and institutional otherwise by failing to be incarnational we fall into docetism. The Word became flesh and unity needs to be enfleshed. <BR/><BR/>My gripe with the ecumenical movement is that it seems to have lost its nerve and compromised its basic theological insight that inspired a generation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-79117286039658486382007-02-28T07:11:00.000-05:002007-02-28T07:11:00.000-05:00I agree with MWW too. The ecumenical movement's ob...I agree with MWW too. The ecumenical movement's obsession with institutional unity is deeply problematic. This is especially the case as the instutution that the ecumenical movement aims to unite us with is the Roman Catholic Church. <BR/><BR/>Kim's list of essential doctrines is far too reductionistic. Is justification by faith alone an <I>adiaphora</I>? I don't think so. The same goes for the other <I>solas</I> of the Reformation. Besides, making a common baptism an ecumenical essential is problematic for baptists who do not recognise the validity of infant-baptism. <BR/><BR/>I believe in evangelical or <I>gospel</I> ecuminism that defies eccesiastical boundaries But I'm not sure that all who belong to the WCC hold to that Biblical gospel.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-2977907559138387302007-02-28T05:34:00.000-05:002007-02-28T05:34:00.000-05:00Hi Michaels,My own United Reformed Church (UK) rec...Hi Michaels,<BR/><BR/>My own United Reformed Church (UK) recognises <I>both</I> forms of baptism. Both forms have to be made available in the life of local churches, but ministers who, in conscience, have objections to infant baptism do not have to preside at them.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, I recognise that there are important theological issue involved here. The whole question of "re-baptism" is very vexing, not least because 16th century Anabaptists (sic) were actually killed for their practice. Interestingly, Yoder points out that one way of interpreting their actions is as a protest against "indiscriminate baptism", of which BEM itself is critical. The tightening up of baptismal discipline in paedobaptist churches would take some heat off the problem - though the evidence of this happening is patchy at best - but, in any case, real theological issues still remain. But, again, I would not despair about talking them through as <I>church-dividing</I> issues. <BR/><BR/>As for the Quakers, good point - and I'm certainly not into casting folk out if they're already in - though in the UK, at least, there are intra-Friend discussions going on as to exactly how specifically Christian the movement is.<BR/><BR/>Mergers don't scare me as they scare you, Michael W-W. What really scares me is that people, whatever their denomination, are becoming less and less aware of their own traditions, so that, ecumenical or anti-ecumenical, their positions are more visceral than theological. And that can't be a good thingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-20808175553650072512007-02-28T01:50:00.000-05:002007-02-28T01:50:00.000-05:00I can't believe I agree (for the most part) with M...I can't believe I agree (for the most part) with MWW... !<BR/><BR/>But I always was a Baptist kinda Anglican...<BR/><BR/>It would help the WCC's cause no end if it didn't appear to be preaching a kind of new-age paganism...michael jensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15379361601019023165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-11078174621726632852007-02-27T22:19:00.000-05:002007-02-27T22:19:00.000-05:00I'm leaving aside my objections to any form of ext...I'm leaving aside my objections to any form of extra-congregational episcopacy for now. I agree that the church needs institutions, but I don't agree that our <I>unity</I> has to be institutionally expressed--not in anything more formal than the World Council of Churches, at any rate.<BR/><BR/>Frankly, I am NOT a fan of "united" churches because what happens is that the strengths of particular traditions then get lost.<BR/><BR/>You propose a common baptism as one of the non-negotiable signs of Christian unity. As a Baptist that worries me. Remember BEM? The WCC document <I>Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry</I>? The concerns of believers' baptizing groups (Baptists, Mennonites, Church of the Brethren, many Pentecostals, etc.) were simply papered over--though clearly pedobaptism has the weaker exegetical and theological (see Barth) case. And what about Friends/Quakers who do not practice a physical baptism at all--are they cast out?<BR/><BR/>(I had even more problems with the BEM document on ministry. I reject the clergy/laity distinction. All Christians are called to ministry and ordained in our baptism. I have pastored two churches, but never had any more ordination than my baptism. The "professional Christian" must go for true discipleship to flourish.)<BR/><BR/>I believe in ecumenism. In fact, I would not mind working for either the World Council of Churches. But definitions of unity that look like corporate mergers scare me.<BR/><BR/>I prefer harmony. Four part harmony beats unison singing. The Body of Christ needs to be able to have the Lord's Supper together--but our division into denominations is not, in itself, scandalous. What is scandalous is that the church has so often gone to war over such differences. If we disagreed in love, a love visible in common communion, our separation into different denominations/traditions would not be scandalous--and might preserve essential strengths.Michael Westmoreland-White, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06343135380354344847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-57118787204180664132007-02-27T20:59:00.000-05:002007-02-27T20:59:00.000-05:00Michael and Andrewe,Thank you for your critiques, ...Michael and Andrewe,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your critiques, and your worries - I mean about the church as "institution". In insisting on visible structures which are not merely "secondary" or "sociological" (Michael Kinnamon), I confess to being a student of Lesslie Newbigin. But listen also to John Webster:<BR/><BR/>"The danger of collapsing Spirit into structure ought not to frighten us into the equal danger of a purely punctiliar or actualistic ecclesiology. Church order is the social shape of the converting power and activity of Christ present as Spirit. This is not to claim that the Spirit can be formalized, or reduced to a calculable and manipulable element in what is envisaged as an immanent social process. It is simply to say that 'without institutions, the church canot become "event". This principle is correct however, only if it is also reversible; unless the church becomes an event, it cannot be the kind of institution it is supposed to be' [citing Miroslav Volf]." <BR/><BR/>Any good?<BR/><BR/>As for your concern, Andrewe, about mono-episcopacy, I was not referring to papal primacy (and certainly not with the trappings of infallibility), I was referring to what is otherwise called the monarchical episcopate (and the threefold order).<BR/><BR/>Interestingly, in my own British - and specifically Welsh - context, the biggest problem with episcopal schemes that have been proffered by ecumenical working groups (I was on such a group which presented proposals for an ecumenical bishop in the Cardiff area of South Wales) has been - the episocplaians themselves (the Church of England, the Church in Wales)! I also know that, in the current cold ecumenical climate at institutional level, bishops are no longer on the ecumenical agenda (the Methodists, who are in discussion with the Church of England, have just decided, after local feedback, to shelve all talk of bishops). Still the bishops is always going to be an ecumenical elephant in the room, and I'd rather continue to try to tame him rather than let him rampage (with apologies to my episcopal friends for my unseemly imagery!).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-937823651936179992007-02-27T18:17:00.000-05:002007-02-27T18:17:00.000-05:00Kim, you write, (perhaps your answer to Michael's ...Kim, you write, (perhaps your answer to Michael's suggestion): "our catholicity must be recognisably visible; a merely “spiritual” unity is a form of ecclesial docetism." I think you are missing a category here. There is the church visible and particular (embodied in institutions), the church visible and catholic (visible in the body of believers), and the church invisible (stretching throughout the ages). The only alternative to an invisible and spiritual unity is not an institutionally visible one: There can be real, non-docetic unity without formal union. <BR/><BR/>I feel rather uncomfortable about your suggestion that mono-episcopacy might be the bene esse, even in a practical sense, of the church. Any sense in which the Pope represents Christ's rule over the church is deeply problematic. <BR/><BR/>Can I recommend, on this, chapter 15 in O'Donovan's, <I>Ways of Judgment</I>?AndrewEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03935631014151132458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1357593979889931672007-02-27T17:53:00.000-05:002007-02-27T17:53:00.000-05:00I absolutely agree that ecumenism is not optional ...I absolutely agree that ecumenism is not optional and catholicity must be visible. Where I, as a Baptist (part of the larger Free Churches) worry is for those who think our catholicity must be corporate or organizational. I don't see that in the New Testament.Michael Westmoreland-White, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06343135380354344847noreply@blogger.com