Curious Christian

Reflections on culture, nature, and spirituality from a Christian perspective

Limits To Ecumenism?

Published by

Matt Stone

2006-04-25

I’ve been having a number of interesting conversations over the last week with various Pagans and Christians over how we define our Christian path.

At a theorectical level some of us have been conversing about what legacy we would like to leave behind and the observation that any new traditions that last the long haul eventually get over the liminal stuff and concretize what they’re on about in the form of creeds and what have you. The ones that don’t eventually fade out for lack of a strong centre.

But where the rubber has hit the road for me is over some recent discussions with Pagans about whether Mormons should be considered Christians. I found myself drawn back to the ancient Nicene Creed, making the observation that Mormons were henotheist rather than monotheist and therefore a new religious movement rather than a Christian denomination in the eyes of creed affirming Christian denominations.

Coming out of this are some rather pointed issues for the Emerging Church. What are the limits of ecumenism. Is there a limit to inclusiveness?

I was recently reading the Gibbs and Bolger book on “Emerging Churches” and it identified inclusiveness as one of the core values. Fair enough, I like to be inclusive and eclectic myself. But sooner or later we need to stop defining ourselves exclusively against fundamental exclusivists and recognise that there is an error in the opposite extreme.

So here’s a question for Emerging Church leaders: would your current affirmations of faith and your current ways of identifying yourselves to people testing the waters be sufficiently succint to differentiate yourselves from other religions like Mormonism?

If not you may want to join us in hashing out some of these issues!

Tags Inclusivity

3 responses to “Limits To Ecumenism?”

graham

2006-04-25

‘So here’s a question for Emerging Church leaders: would your current affirmations of faith and your current ways of identifying yourselves to people testing the waters be sufficiently succint to differentiate yourselves from other religions like Mormonism?’
No, I don’t think so (though I can’t answer for everyone).
Oh, I thought I should add that a number of scholars (Jewish & Christian) believe that Judaism pre-Christ was Henotheistic.

LikeLike

Reply
Matt Stone

2006-05-06

Well, there are others still tht claim it was duotheistic, that YHWH had the Caananite goddess Asherah as his consort. Can’t all be right can they?

LikeLike

Reply
philjohnson

2006-05-06

In the patriarchal religion of Genesis there seems to be room for understanding that Abram and his immediate descendants had a tribal view of El (Elohim), and recognised others had other deities. The Genesis text in this regard is not apparently interested in debating the universality of YHWH Elohim; this is something that becomes much more of an issue in the exilic and post-exilic prophets.
The syncretic approach of the Israelites is evident in Judges and in the historical books of Samuel and Kings; and the eighth century prophets (Amos, Micah, Hosea) indicate that Israel and Judah compromised in their religiosity with altars erected to Baal and Asherah, and this was co-existent with the Temple cultus of Jerusalem. The prophets’ message is anti-idolatry and exclusively Yahwistic.
The universality of YHWH is an item in Ezekiel, Isaiah (40-66), and parts of Jeremiah, and the later minor prophets. The historical books juxtapose the actions of “bad kings” who tolerated multiple deities, with those who sought to purge idolatry (e.g. the reign of Josiah). The reader of the text is meant to reflect on that juxtaposed material and to infer the conclusion of exclusive devotion to YHWH.
As for today, if an EC advocate’s theology is so vague and cannot be differentiated from the Latter-day Saints, then it does raise critical questions of discernment, critical questions about praxis and theology for EC advocates, and what kind of perceptions are constructed by people who are uncommitted to faith in Christ Jesus.
There was a time when an embodied faith-apologia flourished and it lacked clear verbal articulation and differentiation between competing doctrines. It is traceable to the early church when so many found it easier to affirm Arius’ version of Christ instead of confessing the deity of Christ.
If Athanasius had opted for a non-verbal embodied apologia, failed to dissent from the prevailing trend and mood, then today’s churches would be the custodians of Arian teaching (in effect we would belong to Jehovah’s Witnesses and we would deny the trinity).
In a different vein, a church that does not enculturate stands a good chance of disappearing. The fate of the church in North Africa between the 5th-7th century AD is a sobering case study on that very point.
A church can endure for quite sometime without clear doctrine, but the sociological and theological dynamics over time will demand that a church stands or falls for specific teachings relative to the person, nature and work of Christ.

LikeLike

Reply