Unity?

Given we are now in the week of prayer for Christian unity and are just as divided and argumentative as ever. I wonder what does Christian unity look like to you? What kind of routes will get us there? What kind of things might you pray for in this week? What promising signs do you see of developing closeness between different flavours of Christian?
«1

Comments

  • The love of one another, accepting differences of opinion, is the only way we will ever be in unity - but that is sufficient.
  • Yes, *Christian Unity* is something of an oxymoron! I think that the best we can hope for, as @Raptor Eye says, is to accept our differences, but work together wherever and whenever we can. Not that that's an easy task...

    Our Place is the only Forward-in-Faith (traditionalist Anglo-Catholic) in Our Town. A former churchwarden once asked, rather testily, *Well, who can we worship with?*. The answer, which he didn't like, was *Anyone who acknowledges Jesus as Lord!*
  • Good question.

    I think it's one of those things where a lot depends on the quality of the relationship between individuals rather than at an institutional level.

    I can remember calls from a regional Baptist association for Baptist churches in a particular city to work more closely together falling on deaf ears.

    The ministers said that they had closer links with their local Anglican or Methodist churches, say, than with Baptist churches at the other end of town.

    And I can see their point.

    I tend to remember churches and clergy/ministers of local churches of whatever stripe in my prayers fairly regularly so won't be doing anything special for the 'Week of Prayer' for Christian unity.

    How we get bishops and head-honchos to work together is the tricky bit, not only across the churches and denominations but within the same outfit very often.

    As to what unity would look like. Not sure. I can't imagine everyone wearing beards and funny hats or all agreeing on the same calendar (that would be a start, the calendar that is!).

    Nor can I imagine everyone agreeing to have the Pope as Universal Pontiff in however modified a way.

    I've heard some Orthodox say that we already have the 'unity of the faith' - that is among the Orthodox themselves. Where does that leave everyone else?

    Short answer. I don’t know what it would like. Different to how it looks now.
  • I think that, yes, working on what we can work on together, in mutual charity, without expecting other churches to change their theology* or liturgy or ecclesiology to suit ours, is the best approach here on Earth.

    * I will add, which will likely be controversial for some, but I think it is true: Basic, really basic, Christian doctrine, like the Trinity (not getting into the filioque clause here), the unique Incarnation of God as Christ, His Death and Resurrection to (in some way) redeem us, and other things on that level, should be taken as a given in this context. This means that some churches may have clergy and laity which don't believe these things (speaking as an Episcopalian, we've had a problem with this in various churches for many years).
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited January 20
    Our Place is the only Forward-in-Faith (traditionalist Anglo-Catholic) in Our Town. A former churchwarden once asked, rather testily, *Well, who can we worship with?*. The answer, which he didn't like, was *Anyone who acknowledges Jesus as Lord!*
    But it is the correct answer, I think. And, at least for me, it leads to:
    Twangist wrote: »
    I wonder what does Christian unity look like to you?
    Gathering around and being fed from the same table, without worrying about whether we believe exactly the same things beyond believing that Jesus is Lord.

    It’s not that I think doctrine and teaching are unimportant or irrelevant. But I think doctrinal disagreement should be approached with some humility and grace on all sides, and shouldn’t lead those who disagree on points of doctrine to exclude one another from the table where Christ alone is the host.


  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    It’s not that I think doctrine and teaching are unimportant or irrelevant. But I think doctrinal disagreement should be approached with some humility and grace on all sides, and shouldn’t lead those who disagree on points of doctrine to exclude one another from the table where Christ alone is the host.

    On the issue of sharing the Eucharist, there are at least two kinds of exclusion. There's the "you can't eat this, because you don't believe the right things about it / aren't adequately prepared, and so it might be dangerous for you" position, and there's the "I won't eat that, because in my understanding, I don't have affirmative knowledge that it is Jesus" position.

    I don't think the "we think sharing communion indicates a higher degree of doctrinal unity than we have" position has to include either of those, but it might include one or both of them.


  • IMHO the "dangerous" position ought to be respected, however wrong you might think those people are, unless you think they are actually lying about their concern. And I'm pretty sure everyone falls into the "don't come up, it might be dangerous for you" category with respect to some bit of the universal Christian church. Charity obliges us not to freak them out by coming up anyway.

    As for other forms of unity, I've never seen a problem with, say, running a food bank together, or offering hospitality, or basically doing good works in a zillion different categories together. My own work involves cooperating with anybody who loves Jesus and has a use for my materials/work, regardless of denomination, country, or language. Maybe that's where the greater unity we all hope for will get its start from some day--from service together.
  • There have been threads on sharing communion before. I won't get into the ins and outs of that here. Not because I don't think it's important but because we could end up going round in circles as we did on the filioque thread - and yes, I bear some of the responsibility for that.

    When I worked in a university and when I go to ecumenical conferences, I've found myself in situations where communion is celebrated but where we can't all participate.

    I feel a pang of sadness everything that happens, but find myself wondering why we feel we have to include a eucharistic element on such occasions as it only underlines our separation from one another at that level.

    Why don't we simply have a service in which we can all join?

    Those who are particularly strident or entrenched in their own theological and ecclesial positions wouldn't be at such gatherings anyway.

    It gets tiresome after a while when you hear the presiding clergy-person of whatever stripe say something to the effect that we are divided on account of our sinfulness and then proceed with the eucharist inspite of that - but that's only what happens on a Sunday anyway, only we tend to be in separate buildings at that time.

    I don't know what the answer is. Lowest common denominator ecumenism doesn't get us very far. Where do we draw the line? Should we include unitarians?

    How about marginal groups like Mormons or JWs?

    I remember reading on SoF many years ago some comments by @Baptist Trainfan and another Baptist minister who no longer posts here about ecumenical gatherings where the Quakers insisted that there be no vocal prayers - in a 'prayer meeting' - kind of way and that things be done in a way that didn’t offend their sensibilities.

    I once attended a full day 'retreat' organised by the Friends where we all sat in silence, did Tai Chi, various crafts and collective exercises yet where Christ wasn't mentioned once - as an RC attendee pointed out at the end only to be told that Quakers were non-creedal and could believe anything they wished - or otherwise. There were non-theistic Quakers present.

    Ok. I have a lot of respect for The Religious Society of Friends but is that what we have in mind when we talk about the 'unity of the faith'?

    Or the Don Cupitt, Spong and Richard Holloway approaches to things?

    Sure, saying 'Jesus is Lord' can and does encompass a wide range of theological and ecclesial positions but sooner or later those are going to intrude or cause comment. We can't brush divisions under the carpet and pretend they don't exist.

    It's how we work together in full acknowledgement of divisions and difficulties whilst finding common ground until such time - please God - that they can be resolved that's the tricky bit.

  • BullfrogBullfrog Shipmate
    Unity? We're all Christians. Is that not enough?

    I think getting beyond that...you have to decide what the basis for unity is. Personally, I think an organization that expects all of its members to agree on all things seems rather creepy. A range of lively internal argument is certainly part of a healthy organization.

    So maybe unity means a commitment to continuing the conversation.
  • Bullfrog wrote: »
    Unity? We're all Christians. Is that not enough?

    I think getting beyond that...you have to decide what the basis for unity is. Personally, I think an organization that expects all of its members to agree on all things seems rather creepy. A range of lively internal argument is certainly part of a healthy organization.

    So maybe unity means a commitment to continuing the conversation.

    I think the question of “Christian” itself may be one of the things people may not agree on. (Which is part of why I added that stuff after the asterisk about “basic Christian doctrine.” There are members of denominations with whom I disagree about many things, but have more in common with, as a believing Christian, than some members of my own church—even than some priests and bishops.)
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    I think institutional unity is off the table. Closer cooperation should be the goal. And a lowering of tensions where they exist.
    Our local Christian Unity Service yesterday had the usual couple of dozen people. There seems to be a lack of enthusiasm for it. Maybe people feel it has gone as far as it can.
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited January 20
    Going back to @Gamma Gamaliel , why, oh way, has Eucharist, the service that above all ought to unite us, become the one which so cruelly demonstrates our divisions? Why is "who can partake" such a big issue? Why can't I - a Baptist - 'commune' among Catholics, and vice-versa? Yes, there may be different understandings of what's going on in the service; but why have we erected so many barriers?
  • The Uniting Church in Australia has been a study in how three major denominations (Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregationalist) arrived at a common understanding of ecclesiology. In country Australia, the Uniting Church occupies the same socio-religious position in its community which the C of E does in rural English churches, it is the default church. In retirement, I take a monthly ecumenical communion service in a small mountaintop community of scarcely 200 souls. It's not unusual (cue Tom Jones) to have 20 all sorts. That will be repeated throughout the bush. I'm pretty sure that this sort of ad hoc ecumenism, including sharing of communion, goes on all over the world in rural communities.
    Here's the Uniting Church Basis of Union, the document underpinning union.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    Denomination? Abomination! Why can;t we just accept one another's faith without questioning it, and get on with following the way of Christ.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Going back to @Gamma Gamaliel , why, oh way, has Eucharist, the service that above all ought to unite us, become the one which so cruelly demonstrates our divisions? Why is "who can partake" such a big issue? Why can't I - a Baptist - 'commune' among Catholics, and vice-versa? Yes, there may be different understandings of what's going on in the service; but why have we erected so many barriers?

    The Eucharist as I see it expresses unity. If the unity isnt there .......
    Maybe the pain has a purpose, to spur efforts to unity on. I confess I choose not to communicate in other churches because of that lack of unity.
    However during Covid lockdowns when we were the first church to re-open our priest unofficially extended eucharistic hospitality to people from other local churches. It was greatly appreciated.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Eirenist wrote: »
    Denomination? Abomination! Why can;t we just accept one another's faith without questioning it, and get on with following the way of Christ.

    Because, bluntly, it's not entirely clear that everyone involved is interested in following the way of Christ, whether that be "non-theists" or those who have made an idol of politics or church institutions.

    We can only move closer together if we are all moving in the direction of Christ. "Draw us the nearer, each to each, we plead, by drawing all to thee, O prince of peace"
  • IMHO the "dangerous" position ought to be respected, however wrong you might think those people are, unless you think they are actually lying about their concern.
    I do not think they’re lying, and I do respect their position and the charity and concern that gives rise to it. I can respect and still disagree.

    And I do think there’s some difference between “those who are not adequately prepared should not commune” and “those who are members of a church we don’t agree with should not commune.”

    Alan29 wrote: »
    Going back to @Gamma Gamaliel , why, oh way, has Eucharist, the service that above all ought to unite us, become the one which so cruelly demonstrates our divisions? Why is "who can partake" such a big issue? Why can't I - a Baptist - 'commune' among Catholics, and vice-versa? Yes, there may be different understandings of what's going on in the service; but why have we erected so many barriers?

    The Eucharist as I see it expresses unity. If the unity isnt there .......
    The question that raises, though, is where the unity the Eucharist expresses lies. Is it nstitutional unity? Unity of belief about a specified list of doctrinal matters? Unity of belief about what is going on in the Eucharist? Unity of some other kind.

    As I have said, I (admittedly following the approach of my own denomination) would locate that unity in the confession that Jesus is Lord.


  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    For me unity in the eucharist is about community, specifically the communities we all belong to. When I go to communion it is an expression of the deep sacramental unity that I believe exists in my particular community. And that link is shared through the formal communion between Roman Catholics. That matters to me. Thats why I personally would not want to receive communion from a person who was not part of that community. There are other ways of expressing and celebrating those things we hold in common.
  • What do we mean by unity? institutional unity? doctrinal unity? shared rite? shared worship? ecumenical hospitality? open communion? recognition of sacraments? recognition of religious orders? cooperation on shared endeavours? willing to pray together? respect? friendship at a personal level? Not dissing each other in public? Welcoming those of other traditions?

    These are not the same thing almost all will go someway towards acknowledging the sincerity of other Christians faith. Very few are happy to talk of full doctrinal and institutional unity for all sorts of reasons not least the skeletons in other people's cupboards that that will involve being open about.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Our Place is the only Forward-in-Faith (traditionalist Anglo-Catholic) in Our Town. A former churchwarden once asked, rather testily, *Well, who can we worship with?*. The answer, which he didn't like, was *Anyone who acknowledges Jesus as Lord!*
    But it is the correct answer, I think. And, at least for me, it leads to:
    Twangist wrote: »
    I wonder what does Christian unity look like to you?
    Gathering around and being fed from the same table, without worrying about whether we believe exactly the same things beyond believing that Jesus is Lord.

    It’s not that I think doctrine and teaching are unimportant or irrelevant. But I think doctrinal disagreement should be approached with some humility and grace on all sides, and shouldn’t lead those who disagree on points of doctrine to exclude one another from the table where Christ alone is the host.


    Yes, this. Thank you @Nick Tamen

    The very idea that some people might think they can judge who God will bless and who God couldn’t possibly bless, and to exclude the latter from the table, leaves me to shake my head.
  • Going back to @Gamma Gamaliel , why, oh way, has Eucharist, the service that above all ought to unite us, become the one which so cruelly demonstrates our divisions? Why is "who can partake" such a big issue? Why can't I - a Baptist - 'commune' among Catholics, and vice-versa? Yes, there may be different understandings of what's going on in the service; but why have we erected so many barriers?

    Well, it's not just you 'as a Baptist' who can't commune among Catholics and vice versa, but Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Orthodox even ...

    The RC will often say that the Orthodox are welcome to receive communion at their churches but technically this isn't the case, at least from the Orthodox side.

    I've been offered communion in RC settings. This was before I became Orthodox. I didn't receive, not because I thought the sky would fall in or that I'd get the lurgy but because to do so would have been to flout the rules, even though these particular RCs were content to waive them.

    As someone who has joined a Church which practices 'closed communion', I do find that aspect very difficult indeed. Probably far more difficult than other Orthodox practices such as the invocation of Mary and the Saints, prayers for the dead, etc - all of which I now take in my stride.

    But I don’t make the rules.

    I abide by them though and hope that one day 'table fellowship' will be possible.

    That doesn't mean I think the current state of affairs is anything other than a crying shame.

    I agree with @Nick Tamen on the 'Jesus is Lord' but Oneness Pentecostals would say that too. Unitarians might say the same. Where do we draw the line?

    It's a conundrum but I've noticed that when it comes to salvation or 'getting to heaven', the RCs and the Orthodox are much wider in scoping terms of who they believe might actually end up there than most Protestant evangelicals would be. So being rigorous or restrictive in terms of who can receive communion doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with limiting salvation to those who believe in Christ, or who are baptised or observe particular rites or believe a set of doctrinal propositions.

    At any rate, there is a long way to go but we can only, as individuals, do what we can.
  • Well, it's not just you 'as a Baptist' who can't commune among Catholics and vice versa, but Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Orthodox even ...
    Yes, I do realise that.
    As someone who has joined a Church which practices 'closed communion', I do find that aspect very difficult indeed.
    And of course there are Protestant churches which not only practise closed Communion but have it written in the Trust Deeds of their buildings!

  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited January 20
    The RC will often say that the Orthodox are welcome to receive communion at their churches but technically this isn't the case, at least from the Orthodox side.

    Sure - an Orthodox person not receiving at a Catholic Mass is a matter of Orthodox discipline, and not Catholic. Whereas I, an Episcopalian, don't receive at a Catholic Mass as a matter of Catholic discipline. "All baptized Christians" are welcome to receive communion in my own church, but visiting Catholics and Orthodoxen choose not to, as part of their own discipline.

    We don't have a communion police, though. We say "all baptized Christians", and we write those words in the order of service, but we don't grill strangers on where they were baptized. How Our Lord in His Most Blessed Sacrament responds to those who are not baptized, or are not Christian, is very much above my pay grade!
  • We say "all baptized Christians", and we write those words in the order of service, but we don't grill strangers on where they were baptized. How Our Lord in His Most Blessed Sacrament responds to those who are not baptized, or are not Christian, is very much above my pay grade!
    Indeed so.

  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    What will happen when we all find ourselves at Christ's table in Heaven? 'I'm not sitting next to them . . .'
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Eirenist wrote: »
    What will happen when we all find ourselves at Christ's table in Heaven? 'I'm not sitting next to them . . .'

    Don't you know we will all be in our own religion's rooms?
  • Speaking as a member of a denomination usually flogged for fencing the table, I'll say that in my experience, it takes very little to receive communion among us either. Generally that's a chat with the pastor or an elder beforehand, possibly just before service starts up, to make sure that a) you're a Christian and b) you understand what we believe about the Lord's supper and are okay with that. Maybe I should say, "In broad strokes, agree with that"--because if anybody says, "Well, Jesus isn't really there, it's nothing but a symbol," we'll ask them politely to abstain. But if they say they agree with him being really there, we aren't going to go dissecting the precise nature of HOW they think he is present, whether they are transubstantionalists or consubstantiationalists or intentionalists or whatsit. Probably most of our own members could not give a coherent technical account of what they believe about the real presence!

    Really, simply echoing back the words of Scripture, "this is my body, this is my blood" would get you a pass.

    Eucharistic hospitality usually comes down to the pastor's decision--which ought not be based solely or even mostly on church membership. We want to know what you believe, not what your affiliation is.

    As always, you might run into the rare pastor or congregation who goes beyond this; but I've never met one.
  • We don't have a communion police, though. We say "all baptized Christians", and we write those words in the order of service, but we don't grill strangers on where they were baptized. How Our Lord in His Most Blessed Sacrament responds to those who are not baptized, or are not Christian, is very much above my pay grade!
    In my denomination, the phrasing is, at least in my experience, typically some variation of “This is the Lord’s Table. Our Savior invites those who trust him to share the feast that he has prepared.” Our rules specifically provide that all who present themselves are to be offered the bread and cup; if it’s known that someone not baptized has communed, that is to be addressed appropriately and pastorally later on.


  • With all this in mind, I reiterate my earlier comment about ecumenical conferences which feature communion services at which not all those present are able to participate.

    It sort of rubs it in. 'We're having a lovely ecumenical conference here but ...'

    I know of an annual conference that features an RC Mass, an Orthodox Liturgy (and memorial prayers for past members and friends) and an Anglican communion and either morning or evening prayer.

    It's all very supportive but we can't partake in each others communion.

    So why don't we do something else?

  • Maybe because a) that’s where the heart of each group’s internal unity is, and it would be weird not to lean on it and reference it when you’re trying to do something about the greater unity. Plus b) the obvious painpoints prevent us from imagining we’ve come much further than we really have, and so challenge us to keep trying.
  • @Gamma Gamaliel I attend an Anglo-Catholic Church where we have invocation of the BVM and the saints, and prayers for the dead, all of which I believe in and find very important. But we also have open communion, another thing I greatly value.

    I understand that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches don't want to share communion with schismatics, which in the case of the Orthodox includes the entire Western Church, both Catholic and Protestant, but in the case of Catholics only includes Protestants.

    I don't have an issue with how others see communion. A Catholic may believe in transubstantiation. An Orthodox Christian or a High Church Anglican may believe in the Real Presence without defining it so tightly. A Protestant may believe it is in obedience to Christ's command, "Do this in remembrance of me." As long as they are all honouring Christ in their hearts, we really shouldn't have barriers. But as you say, we don't make the rules.
  • With all this in mind, I reiterate my earlier comment about ecumenical conferences which feature communion services at which not all those present are able to participate.

    It sort of rubs it in. 'We're having a lovely ecumenical conference here but ...'

    I know of an annual conference that features an RC Mass, an Orthodox Liturgy (and memorial prayers for past members and friends) and an Anglican communion and either morning or evening prayer.

    It's all very supportive but we can't partake in each others communion.

    So why don't we do something else?

    It's "tradition" (small "t"). Goes back to the founders. We have always done it that way. Etc.
  • Our Place's local Unity Service is on Thursday evening, at the main church in town. I don't know what form it will take, but, given that the church is a charismatic-evangelical C of E Place, I could hazard a guess...
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    ... I remember reading on SoF many years ago some comments by @Baptist Trainfan and another Baptist minister who no longer posts here about ecumenical gatherings where the Quakers insisted that there be no vocal prayers - in a 'prayer meeting' - kind of way and that things be done in a way that didn’t offend their sensibilities.

    I once attended a full day 'retreat' organised by the Friends where we all sat in silence, did Tai Chi, various crafts and collective exercises yet where Christ wasn't mentioned once - as an RC attendee pointed out at the end only to be told that Quakers were non-creedal and could believe anything they wished - or otherwise. There were non-theistic Quakers present.

    Ok. I have a lot of respect for The Religious Society of Friends but is that what we have in mind when we talk about the 'unity of the faith'? ...
    That sounds just as sniffily 'we like the idea of unity, but only on our terms','we are the one true lot and everybody has to fit in with us' as the RC, Orthodox and old fashioned high CofE, except in a weirdly passive-aggressive sort of way.

  • Yes, with all due respect to the Quakers they can be 'passive-aggressive' at times but I s'pose that's better than being openly aggressive and burning people at the stake and so on.

    @Ex_Organist yes, on the small 't' tradition. You've probably guessed which ecumenical conference I'm referring to. It was established 100 years ago and part of the remit was to allow Christians of different T/traditions to experience one another's worship.

    A century later, we can pretty much do that as a matter of course, certainly if we attend conferences like that one. I no longer find myself thinking, 'Oh, so that's what a stratospherically High Anglican Mass looks like ...' although I would have done at one time when I tended to stay within evangelical boundaries.
  • Can anybody think of things (besides praying) that we ourselves, individuals that we are, could do to promote unity?
  • Joint projects. Works of mercy.
  • Absolutely.

    And I too have come across the passive-aggressive stance mentioned above.
  • peasepease Tech Admin
    I'd suggest that embracing wrongness could be quite effective.
  • TwangistTwangist Shipmate
    Can anybody think of things (besides praying) that we ourselves, individuals that we are, could do to promote unity?

    Investing in genuine friendship with Xtians of other flavours. Bit like being on the ship but IRL I guess...
  • I went to a Quaker meeting once for the experience. I remained silent for the whole time of the gathering, then on the way out my friend said that God wasn’t mentioned once. We were told off - both for talking on the way out (which apparently wasn’t the done thing) and for mentioning God when a lot of the people there were non-believers.

    We never returned.

    Looking back, it was a very inclusive approach. I suppose we can worship together with others without speaking at all.

    But then, was it Christian worship? At some juncture don’t we need to have Christ at the centre of Christian Unity?
  • Can anybody think of things (besides praying) that we ourselves, individuals that we are, could do to promote unity?

    Hugs?

    (Only half joking. Hugs are nice.)
  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    I went to a Quaker meeting once for the experience. I remained silent for the whole time of the gathering, then on the way out my friend said that God wasn’t mentioned once. We were told off - both for talking on the way out (which apparently wasn’t the done thing) and for mentioning God when a lot of the people there were non-believers.

    We never returned.

    Looking back, it was a very inclusive approach. I suppose we can worship together with others without speaking at all.

    But then, was it Christian worship? At some juncture don’t we need to have Christ at the centre of Christian Unity?

    I should mention that there are Christocentric Quaker meetings as well—it all depends on the group in question. Cubby sometimes called himself a “Quaker-palian” (we went to my Episcopal church), and he was an actual Christian kind of Quaker, rather than the non-Christian or non-theistic kind.
  • I hasten to add that I've generally had quite positive experiences with Quakers and with their meetings. I've attended a few. As an aside, I think they 'work' if we approach them on their own terms, as it were, rather than trying to project our own sensibilities onto them - although we all do that to a certain extent.

    I remember reading a critique online of an Orthodox service by a very conservative US evangelical. They seemed quite put out that there wasn't a 'testimony' time where people stood up to tell how they'd been 'saved'.

    It'd be a bit like attending a cathedral service and complaining that there was a choir or a Quaker meeting and complaining that they didn't sing hymns.

  • PuzzlerPuzzler Shipmate
    Sadly our local “ Churches Together” has disbanded, or at least, ceased to function, as the CofE Vicar has withdrawn and the PCC have therefore followed his example.
    If Christians can no longer be together in remembering the death of our Lord on Good Friday, there is no unity.
  • BullfrogBullfrog Shipmate
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    Bullfrog wrote: »
    Unity? We're all Christians. Is that not enough?

    I think getting beyond that...you have to decide what the basis for unity is. Personally, I think an organization that expects all of its members to agree on all things seems rather creepy. A range of lively internal argument is certainly part of a healthy organization.

    So maybe unity means a commitment to continuing the conversation.

    I think the question of “Christian” itself may be one of the things people may not agree on. (Which is part of why I added that stuff after the asterisk about “basic Christian doctrine.” There are members of denominations with whom I disagree about many things, but have more in common with, as a believing Christian, than some members of my own church—even than some priests and bishops.)

    Totally, and there are probably neo Pagans I have more in common with in some existential terms than I do with Christian fundamentalists.

    That's one reason I think unity is more about uniting to keep the conversation going than to committing to a particular answer. But maybe that's my becoming an Episcopalian.
  • Gill HGill H Shipmate
    I have never been to an ecumenical service ehich included communion.

    However, I have done many Alpha courses with a group including RCs, Anglicans, Baptists and others together. We included an ‘agape meal’ as part of the weekend away - this involves shared bread and wine and prayers, but it was explicitly explained this was not communion, Mass, eucharist…

    Classic Anglican fudge maybe, but it was very meaningful to us.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Puzzler wrote: »
    Sadly our local “ Churches Together” has disbanded, or at least, ceased to function, as the CofE Vicar has withdrawn and the PCC have therefore followed his example.
    If Christians can no longer be together in remembering the death of our Lord on Good Friday, there is no unity.

    I may be unusual, but I think major feasts and commemorations are the least helpful times to have ecumenical services. Even with the best of intentions ecumenical services tend to involve a certain amount of "chafing" which distracts from the festival itself. It is important that I spend time praying for forbearance and charity towards those whose practice rubs me up the wrong way, but I don't want to be doing that at the same time as marking Good Friday or Easter Day. Have the ecumenical services in ordinary time, or at least for occasions where there isn't such a depth and divergence of liturgical tradition (Sea Sunday would work, for example).
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Our local council of churches have a shared eucharist on Maundy Thursday which not all feel they want to/can attend. It is mainly a non-conformist event. On Palm Sunday we RCs host the Stations of the Cross which again not all feel they want to/can attend.
    There are people in all churches who don't want to darken the doorsteps of a different denomination. These folks tend to be old and to have grown up with certain prejudices.
  • [quote="Arethosemyfeet;c-71
    I may be unusual, but I think major feasts and commemorations are the least helpful times to have ecumenical services. [/quote] I tend to agree: churches tend to want to celebrate these "in house". Having said that, in one place I served, we managed to run two or three successful open-air services in the Town Hall square on Pentecost Sunday.

    Even there one Anglican church didn't attend as its music director wouldn't accede to their choir taking part unless they sang the whole service. They weren't of course the only churches not to join in.

Sign In or Register to comment.