Right before I go on holidays tomorrow I thought I might toss the cat amongst the pigeons and post a link to an article on the Matthias Media website about Christian Unity & Denominations.
It’s part of a three part series of essays by John Woodhouse based on addresses given at the Reform National Conference in Swanick, UK, in October 2001 on unity within the church. If you want to read it in the context of the other three articles (it’s the last in the series so it might be good to do that) you can read the other two by clicking here and then hitting the web extras button (after January you need to go to ‘past web extras’)
I’d be interested to know your thoughts :)
And to whet your appetite…
Discussions of Christian unity usually focus on the relationships within and between the Christian denominations. The previous two essays in this series have argued that the unity for which Jesus prayed (John 17) and which he established by his death (Eph 2) is a spiritual or heavenly reality (“You are all one in Christ Jesus”, Gal 3:28). This heavenly reality finds expression in this world as the Spirit brings Christians together in various localities (1 Cor 1:10). In other words the unity of which the Christian gospel speaks applies first to the spiritual unity of all, from every place and every age, who are members of God’s household. It applies second to the relationships in the local gathering of Christians.
In this essay we consider the implications of this gospel unity for relationships within and between the denominations
I believe I can see where he is coming from, and, like I said in a previous topic that touched on this, to me we are moving away from the denominations we have to a more doctrine-based categorisation of our religious affiliation...unfortunately, as Dr Woodhouse makes clear in his articles, there is that much variety within, say, “evangelicalism” or “High Church Anglican”, that these are almost just as useless for defining where we come from [the last bit from “that these..” in mine, Dr Woodhouse simply said there are small varieties within “evangelistic"].
Thus, I tend to think that you are simply trading one name for another, and not really getting anywhere. Else, you are trying to identify yourself as “the true believers”, therefore alienating anyone else. I understand the point of view that unity must not come at all costs, and I agree 100% with it - I do not want “unity” if it means giving up certain tenets of the faith I hold dear and true. This is why, unfortunately, I feel that the church on earth will never be 1 - at least not until Christ’s return and the New Heaven and New Earth.
On the article, I thought it was slightly picky in parts, but as it was delivered to Reform , I understand it was probably meant to be very evangelical in nature. For example:
When, then, is a church a church? The classic ‘marks’ of the church are an attempt to answer that question. Article 19 of the Thirty Nine Articles is difficult to improve on:
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.
The language may suggest a formality and structure that is not essential. However, a gathering of people of true faith in God is a church. Such a gathering will of necessity have the word of God spoken, and such a gathering will act in accordance with Christ’s commands.
My point is that the church is complete wherever two or three have been gathered by God to himself by his word.
To me I see Dr Woodhouse ignoring “and the Sacraments be duly ministered” - in Acts 2 we see that the disciples met daily and broke bread - the Sacrament of Holy Communion was important from the beginning. I’d have grave doubts about lowering the importance of the sacraments, as I have seen in a few Anglican churches whereby communion has not been celebrated in a service for over a year!!!
I did find the view of the “denominations” in Apostolic times [i.e. Paul’s churches and the Church in Jersualem , to put it crudely] interesting...I shall need to ponder that more. I (currently) do not see those as “denominations” per se: they did have different views but the Council at Jerusalem put them all on the same wavelength in my understanding…
While I agree one should not see “Anglican” or “Baptist” as wholly right because it is an institution we belong to, I also believe we should not go so far as to limit its importance at all. Anglicanism has a lot of great history - and some not so great, like every other institution - behind it. It would be sad to lose this help simply because we frown upon the label. I have reasons for being an Anglican and not being Presbyterian, Baptist, or Catholic - the faith (generally) of the Anglican church is what has drawn me. No doubt now there are differences now, and the gap is widening [hence, and here is some news for you, my consideration of moving to the Orthodox Church which I shall be looking at from next year: I have cleared it with my current priest! ;-)] so perhaps the Anglican church is not longer tenable as is - but for me I am there because I believe it is a right way to God, and the right way for me.
I found the section of co-operation and working with other denominations refreshing and helpful [as I did many other parts, esp. historical - I do not want to be seen as merely tut-tutting and disagreeing!] - and I agree 100%.
My belief is that we should seek to understand other “denominations” or Christian groups, esp. for the aim of drawing together as one as well as getting rid of some of the false beliefs and prejudices that exist between certain groups. I’d go one step further than Dr Woodhouse, though:
We ought to take up opportunities given by our denominational association for believing churches to relate to other faithful churches. However, it is also important that we express our unity with gospel people and churches across recognised denominational boundaries. Evangelicals working together, fellowshipping across denominational limits for the sake of gospel churches and gospel proclamation will, at some point, encounter denominational opposition.
I understand that there are perhaps some groups we cannot assoiciate on a Communion level with, and I am sure they may not want to associate with us [e.g. Unitarians - I tend to think a belief in the Trinity is important - see Nicene Creed!], but I find this restriction to “faithful churches” very unclear. Who are “faithful churches”? Evangelicals? Apostolic churches? I am unsure. I tend to think we should associate with [or at least get to know] similarly Nicene Creed believing churches in order to understand.
My 99cents; a bit longer than I first thought when I started typing…
God bless,
Ian.
{ Edit: Oh, I forgot: Have a great holiday, Dani! }
I find myself agreeing with the article. It is good to see scripture quoted in the essay, which gives God’s perspective on the subject.
The unity of the Spirit is unity in the gospel
First, we must be people whose focus is on the gospel, its true understanding, and its faithful proclamation in the power of the Spirit. The unity that matters to us, and the only unity that matters, must be the unity created by God himself through this gospel, unity in this gospel. Only unity in this gospel is the unity of which the gospel speaks.
Christian should find unity in the gospel, which is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. It proclaims God’s purpose for mankind.
A denomination is not a church, and it is dangerous to treat it as though it is. Then the denomination inevitably becomes opposed to the unity of the Spirit, for it confuses its own structures with the unity of God’s church.
If we are committed to unity and avoiding division, we will not be faithful to the gospel. It will never be the ‘right time’ to push gospel issues hard. There will always be reasons to put off action. We need to accept that the gospel and gospel mindedness will divide denominations.
P.S. I like to see Christians giving opinions about what the Church should or should not do; but I like to see their arguments backed up by quotes from scripture. To simply give an unqualified personal opinion is not good enough if we are debating Christian issues.
We would know little about Jesus, God or the Holy Spirit without the bible to assist us.
Why would a Christian ignore the gospel? It is the basis of our faith and the cause for unity.
I particularly agreed with:
Evangelicals claim to be gospel people. We must not allow this claim to be the basis for arrogance. Then it would be a claim falsely made. For the gospel humbles all whom it touches. We are miserable sinners, saved by the extraordinary grace of our God.
Humility, however, demands our submission to the word of God and our recognition that biblical gospel Christianity is authentic Christianity. We are far from perfect either in our confession or our obedience. But if evangelicals have become one sub-group in our various denominations, then we have to insist that our claim is that it is only believing the gospel of Jesus Christ found in Holy Scripture, only trusting in the Jesus of that gospel, that makes a man or a woman a member of the church of God.
But, scripture does not take precedence in some churches, and some believers will never agree with Dr Woodhouse’s view, due to prejudice. Ceremonies, tradition and man’s opinion are paramount to many.
[quote author="Ken Austin"]I find myself agreeing with the article. It is good to see scripture quoted in the essay, which gives God’s perspective on the subject.
The unity of the Spirit is unity in the gospel
First, we must be people whose focus is on the gospel, its true understanding, and its faithful proclamation in the power of the Spirit. The unity that matters to us, and the only unity that matters, must be the unity created by God himself through this gospel, unity in this gospel. Only unity in this gospel is the unity of which the gospel speaks.
Christian should find unity in the gospel, which is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. It proclaims God’s purpose for mankind.
I forgot about this quote. Thanks, Ken: I find myself agreeing with the fact we should find unity in the Gospel. Generally I believe we do - it is simply there are different interpretations.
My other difficulties, and some others, remain - but I’ll get off topic if I start and I’d like to hear others’ views.
I forgot about this quote. Thanks, Ken: I find myself agreeing with the fact we should find unity in the Gospel. Generally I believe we do - it is simply there are different interpretations.
Yes Ian, there are different interpretations. But checking a cross referenced section of scripture, is the best way to correctly interpret scripture. We may then see a common argument taking place in the bible. The bible is God’s Word, and is not in contradiction with itself, as far as I can see. I like 2 Timothy 3:16,17 as a guide.
The problem is, in many cases, people use opinion or tradition to interpret scripture. This is not a logical way to study the intended meaning of the bible.
Which parts if scripture, would you be referring to, where there might be different ways of interpretation?
[quote author="Ken Austin"]Yes Ian, there are different interpretations. But checking a cross referenced section of scripture, is the best way to correctly interpret scripture. We may then see a common argument taking place in the bible. The bible is God’s Word, and is not in contradiction with itself, as far as I can see. I like 2 Timothy 3:16,17 as a guide.
100% agreement.
[quote author="Ken Austin"]
The problem is, in many cases, people use opinion or tradition to interpret scripture. This is not a logical way to study the intended meaning of the bible.
My agreement may start to waver...I tend to believe in Hooker’s 3-legged stool: “Scripture, Tradition and Reason”. In terms of Tradition, I do not mean men’s tradition, but the Tradition handed down by the early church. As they were “closer” to the events, I feel early church Fathers [and Mothers] can often shed light on passages that may confound/confuse us.
[quote author="Ken Austin"]
Which parts if scripture, would you be referring to, where there might be different ways of interpretation?
Nowhere in particular, I was trying to say - and I did it poorly - what I said (I hope) better above: some people (like myself) take Tradition (and Reason) to have some bearing on interpretation. Note that I believe this does not cloud or remove the truths in the Gospel, but, for example, I may believe that Mary was a virgin for her entire life, you may not...I realise this is not (perhaps) a major point of doctrine for people and for salvation, but I bring it up as an example.
[quote author="Ken Austin"]
Anyway, best wishes, and have a happy new year .
And to you. Thank you for always challenging me and forcing me to think hard and deep.
[End Tangent]
In tonight’s Compass program (see here for my thoughts), the chairman (I think) of Reform said something very similar to what Dr Woodhouse said here:
(4) Steps must be taken to put church property under the control of the local congregation.
Today’s denominations generally control vast amounts of land and property. These have been inherited from the past. Whatever the particulars of the law, morally these inheritances are trusts. Once again denominational ownership of church property is an instrument of control which may be exercised responsibly for the advance of the gospel, or may be used to obstruct and prevent evangelical ministry. When the latter position is reached, faithful congregations have a moral right to control the property entrusted from the past for gospel ministry. While such changes call for careful wisdom, they are too urgent for procrastination. These matters cannot wait for twenty years. In ten years it will probably be too late.
The chairman of Reform was more interested in a church [i.e. building in this context] supporting themselves...but I see this as a flow-on from Dr Woodhouse’s statement: perhaps I am mistaken though.
I am in two minds...keeping it under the control of a denomination or diocese can be helpful as the funds can be allocated to needier parishes. Then again, local churches could raise money from their property and give it to whomever they desire [as in St Paul’s collection for Jerusalem]. Mmmm...I’m more confused now.
Best be off to sleep...well, laying in bed listening to StarStuff on NewsRadio at least! ;-)
The argument of this essay may be summarised as follows. Denominations can be an expression of the unity of the Spirit. However when the nature of the denomination is misunderstood and inappropriate policies and actions developed, denominations can oppose the unity of the Spirit. Some simple implications for evangelicals and evangelical churches will conclude the essay.
I would see the ordination of Gene Robinson to fall under this category.
Dr Woodhouse said:
The denomination (an association between churches) arises out of the Spirit of fellowship between believers beyond their own congregation, and its purpose is to express and facilitate the fellowship of the Spirit beyond the local congregation.
OK, but what of churches of the same denomination, ie Anglican, which do not share similar views on the interpretation of scripture.
What of Anglo-catholic Churches, which may be more like the Roman Catholic Church than the Anglican Church? Do Evangelicals and Catholics share a unity of the Spirit? I for one do not feel this unity of Spirit when I am arguing about things with Catholics which I feel are not “Reformed understandings”. I would not ever want to attend regularly a church that did not share similar gospel understanding to the Evangelical church I attend. I would prefer to attend another denominational church which had a unity of the Spirit identified by what I see as true gospel understanding.
Dr Woodhouse says:
• There are those who take the view that evangelicals cannot remain in an organisational structure that has utterly lost the gospel, or promotes a false gospel.
Are catholics promoting a false gospel when they mention worship of things that are not supported by scripture? Do they fall under this category? I do not agree with many Catholic views and interpretations of scripture, although we agree on much. (The adding of doctrine, normally viewed by Reformed understanding as being in error, cannot be agreed with. I have no unity of the Spirit in this case.)
The denomination (an association between churches) arises out of the Spirit of fellowship between believers beyond their own congregation, and its purpose is to express and facilitate the fellowship of the Spirit beyond the local congregation.
OK, but what of churches of the same denomination, ie Anglican, which do not share similar views on the interpretation of scripture.
What of Anglo-catholic Churches, which may be more like the Roman Catholic Church than the Anglican Church?
As someone said (Mike, I think), be careful of labels - Anglo-Catholic (to me!) refers primarily to the mode of worship, but then I suppose that does lead into doctrinal differences as well. I think far too many people have some impression that A/Cs hate sermons and would prefer to have a nice bit of Latin, some Beethoven and then the Eucharist, and stroll out to a nice fugue by Bach! While I do not deny that I don’t mind nice music ;-), to me the sermon is of importance - if I get a “dud” sermon [thankfully rare at my parish!] I really feel let down.
[quote author="Ken Austin"]
Do Evangelicals and Catholics share a unity of the Spirit? I for one do not feel this unity of Spirit when I am arguing about things with Catholics which I feel are not “Reformed understandings”.
And no doubt the Catholics feel the same way… ;-) ;-)
In my parish we have good relations with the Catholic parish in the next suburb [their priest has preached during our services and many parishioners from our church often go to a Taize group there]. There is more that binds us than that separates us. Would I expect him to criticise us when in our church about not believing in Papal Infallibility? No - the same as when I attend his church I am not going to kick up a fuss about transubstantiation! Respect is the key word I think.
[quote author="Ken Austin"]
I would not ever want to attend regularly a church that did not share similar gospel understanding to the Evangelical church I attend. I would prefer to attend another denominational church which had a unity of the Spirit identified by what I see as true gospel understanding.
And I think that is the way most people would see it - I cannot worship wholeheartedly in my sister’s Baptist church because I do not agree with the fact I am not considered “baptized” as I was baptized an infant (among other things).
I tend, wrongly perhaps, to take some pride in Anglicanism - though that is waning as it (in my opinion) heads towards some form of schism.
[quote author="Ken Austin"]
Dr Woodhouse says:
• There are those who take the view that evangelicals cannot remain in an organisational structure that has utterly lost the gospel, or promotes a false gospel.
Are catholics promoting a false gospel when they mention worship of things that are not supported by scripture? Do they fall under this category? I do not agree with many Catholic views and interpretations of scripture, although we agree on much. (The adding of doctrine, normally viewed by Reformed understanding as being in error, cannot be agreed with. I have no unity of the Spirit in this case.)
May I ask what do you mean by “adding of doctrine”?
Be careful when you say “catholics promoting a false gospel when they mention worship of things that are not supported by scripture” - Catholics do not worship Mary, Saints, or anyone except the Triune God. Due to their (and mine, I’ll add!) belief that the saints are risen and lights before God’s throne, they ask them to pray for them - just as a friend may ask me to pray for them. I think this is a huge misunderstanding between Protestants and Catholics. I am not saying this is the *only* difference, but one that can be solved if people realise Catholics [and Orthodox] ask Saints to pray for them, not pray to Saints.
”Anglo- Catholic Movement that emphasizes the Catholic rather than the Protestant heritage of the Anglican Communion. It was an outgrowth of the 19th-century Oxford Movement, which sought to renew Catholic thought and practice in the Church of England. The term Anglo-Catholic was first used in some of the writings of leaders of the Oxford Movement who wished to demonstrate the historical continuity of the English (Anglican) Church with Catholic Christianity.In addition to stressing Catholic elements in worship and theology, Anglo-Catholics have worked among the poor and unchurched and have attempted to renew the church. Although their beliefs and activities have often been opposed by Anglican Evangelicals, who stress the Protestant heritage of Anglicanism, Anglo-Catholics have continued to be an important force within the Anglican Communion.Anglo -Catholics are sometimes called high churchmen, in that they give a “high” place to the importance of the episcopal form of church government, the sacraments, and liturgical worship. The term High Church was first used about the end of the 17th century to express this particular emphasis within the Church of England. Historically, however, High Church attitudes, like Low Church (Evangelical) attitudes, were evident within the Church of England from the time of Elizabeth I (1533-1603). The Oxford Movement and Anglo-Catholicism renewed this emphasis within Anglicanism.
Oxford Movement 19th-century movement centred at the University of Oxford that sought a renewal of “catholic,” or Roman Catholic, thought and practice within the Church of England in opposition to the Protestant tendencies of the church. An immediate cause of the movement was the change that took place in the relationship between the state and the established Church of England from 1828 to 1832. Laws that required members of municipal corporations and government-office holders to receive the Eucharist in the Church of England were repealed, and a law was passed that removed most of the restrictions formerly imposed on Roman Catholics. For a short time it seemed possible that the Church of England might be disestablished and that it might lose its endowments. Consequently, many loyal Anglicans wished to assert that the Church of England was not dependent on the state and that it gained its authority from the fact that it taught Christian truth and its bishops were in the apostolic succession (i.e., able to trace their authority and office back in an unbroken line to the Apostles). The movement rapidly became involved in theological, pastoral, and devotional problems.Leaders of the movement were John Henry Newman (1801-90), a clergyman and subsequently a convert to Roman Catholicism and a cardinal; Richard Hurrell Froude (1803-36), a clergyman; John Keble (1792-1866), a clergyman and poet; and Edward Pusey (1800-82), a clergyman and professor at Oxford.The ideas of the movement were published in 90 Tracts for the Times (1833-41), 24 of which were written by Newman, who edited the entire series. The Tractarians asserted the doctrinal authority of the catholic church to be absolute, and by “catholic” they understood that which was faithful to the teaching of the early and undivided church. They believed the Church of England to be such a catholic church.Some of the movement’s followers gradually moved closer to the beliefs of the Roman Catholic church, and controversies over the Tractarians’ ideas developed. In 1845 Newman joined the Roman Catholic church, and, subsequently, several others also joined.Keble and Pusey remained active leaders of the movement, which gradually spread its influence throughout the Church of England. Some of the results were increased use of ceremony and ritual in church worship, the establishment of Anglican monastic communities for men and for women, and better-educated clergy who were more concerned with pastoral care of their church members. “
Ken, I am unsure what you are getting at by merely posting quotes from some site.
I agree that it does encompass more than simply a form of worship, as I roughly said in my previous post. I am not sure what you are getting at with those quotes, though. The fact that Anglo-Catholics are different to “Protestants”? I always thought the Anglican church thought itself “catholic” (and perhaps “protestant” in some sense, but nothing like Knox, Calvin or the Anabaptists [in my opinion]).
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
