An Ecumenical Church

It's a shame when either people think the high mass/service is aimed for nobles or when they actually are by crooked church directors in order to separate classes.

You seem to have pre-empted a post I was about to make in response to just picking up Paul's comment "a definite British class distinction", and probably my own (I'd think historical) comments on nobility and the construction and layout (yes, including higher seats) of churches.

To add to the confusion. Neither of my parents are remotely upper class but as far as I understand it they differend in terms of high/low church upbringings.

My mother was born in rural Shropshire to the village post mistress. She attended the local village church. She would describe her part of Shropshire as quite feudal during her childhood (b mid 1930s) with there being a powerful(ish) family. The church (which I don't know whether it had special places for the nobility) she considers "low church" with the reverent Calwick (I think) largely of the "hell fire and damnation" set.

My father was born in the city of Norwich. His father worked for the diocese but (perhaps given as they lived in a council house) might even be considered "working class". It is my understanding that their preffered church services were the high church ones.

Not much to go on, I know but again. I don't think you can tie up high seats in churches (where they may exist) with "high/low" church approache to services.
 
Last edited:
(Repost deleted)

This site needs to fix reposts on browser back usage. I know I could navigate better but the software the site is using should prevent this sort of repost.
 
You seem to have pre-empted a post I was about to make in response to just picking up Paul's comment "a definite British class distinction", and probably my own (I'd think historical) comments on nobility and the construction and layout (yes, including higher seats) of churches.

To add to the confusion. Neither of my parents are remotely upper class but as far as I understand it they differend in terms of high/low church upbringings.

My mother was born in rural Shropshire to the village post mistress. She attended the local village church. She would describe her part of Shropshire as quite feudal during her childhood (b mid 1930s) with there being a powerful(ish) family. The church (which I don't know whether it had special places for the nobility) she considers "low church" with the reverent Calwick (I think) largely of the "hell fire and damnation" set.

My father was born in the city of Norwich. His father worked for the diocese but (perhaps given as they lived in a council house) might even be considered "working class". It is my understanding that their preffered church services were the high church ones.

Not much to go on, I know but again. I don't think you can tie up high seats in churches (where they may exist) with "high/low" church approache to services.

I hope you didn't take what I said as directed at you. It was more of a general response directed toward no one.
 
I've been thinking, a lot of attempts at uniting the Christian Church seems to focus on compromising on articles of faith, but what about trying to integrate services to have both the high and low church services?

Most protestants hold essentially the same articles of faith, and I would like to see a more united interfaith dialogue.

I am a little bit nervous about this post because I am not into fanaticism, speculation or confrontations. Therefore, this post is not to gloat, criticize, or validate my belief. Instead it is to be faithful to my conscience and God and to warn my dear brothers and sisters in whom Christ shed His blood for. Please do not take any offense and thoughtfully consider the following with this quote from Jesus in mind.


And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. John 14:29


As a Seventh Day Adventist, I can say that we been giving the message, in the love of Jesus for over 150 years. We have proclaimed that this event (protestant unity) would come to pass in accordance with Bible prophecy. Sometimes we been mocked for our views, some people took it personal and were offended. However, many other times the truth was accepted in humility because it was made plain from scripture.

50 years ago + (you can argue less then that), denominational-ism was very strong in protestantism. It was deemed as very unlikely that protestantism would unite or compromise. Today, we now we see differently. The following statement was written well over 100 years ago and is based off our understanding of Daniel and Revelation:

"When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result.{GC 445.1}"


Two steps are involved in this statement, first leading churches will be united, based on points of doctrine. That is in its final stages as you probably already know. The other step is they will influence the state to enforce their decrees to sustain their institution. The author calls this the forming of an image to the Roman hierarchy. (Rev 13:14) Why? Because Roman Catholicism during the dark ages used the state power to persecute the Protestants and other religions. In 1798, the RCC would have received a "deadly wound" (Rev 13:3) when Napoleon captured the pope. The pope would then die in this captivity (Rev 13:10). This, in combination with the protestant reformation, forced a separation of church and state. Catholicism claims that political and religio authority are the prerogatives of the RCC. They lost that in 1798. Therefore, when protestantism forms an image to the Roman hierachy, they create a union of church and state. But again, there is a prerequisite. That perquisite is that protestantism unite on points of doctrine as are held in common--which is and has happened.

Notice this other quote from the same book:

Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his deceptions. The Protestants of the United States will be foremost in stretching their hands across the gulf to grasp the hand of spiritualism; they will reach over the abyss to clasp hands with the Roman power; and under the influence of this threefold union, this country (the United States) will follow in the steps of Rome in trampling on the rights of conscience.{GC 588.1}


This last part of uniting with Rome was as far from protestantism as anything imagined--and is part of the reason why the message was scoffed at. But that enmity towards Rome has changed a lot in the last decade --especially due to the labors of the latest pope.

See this recent article found here from the Boston Globe:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/wor...unity-lives/v7y0x8NglzPe6oNWoXIKdJ/story.html


One of many quotes that stands out from this article:

On June 24, Palmer took a group of evangelical leaders who jointly reach more than 700 million people to meet and lunch with Francis, which he reported to me a few days later, as he left for two weeks in South Africa. The delegates included Copeland, the televangelist James Robison, as well as Geoff Tunnicliffe, head of the Worldwide Evangelical Alliance. They told Francis they wanted to accept his invitation to seek visible unity with the Bishop of Rome.
....

Palmer handed the pope a proposed Declaration of Faith in Unity for Mission the evangelicals had drawn up, which they proposed would be signed by both the Vatican and leaders of the major Protestant churches in Rome in 2017, on the 500th anniversary of the Reformation and the 50th anniversary of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.

2017 perhaps will be a milestone. Prophecy is being fulfilled. What does this all mean? It means we heed Gods warning. Jesus said,



rev 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.


Anyone who walks up right, obeys Gods commandments through His Spirit, has the Faith OF Jesus, and discerns the voice of God, shall be saved.



God bless,
MoG
 
Last edited:
I hope you didn't take what I said as directed at you. It was more of a general response directed toward no one.

Not at all and I was in fact posting before I'd seen your post. Sometimes you see a more messages have been posted link appear while you are posting here. On this occasion, I opted to view the message(s). I modified the opening but the rest was pretty much as I'd planned on saying before reading your post.
 
Here is my assessment to personal opinion

Full doctrinal ecumenicism may be only conceivable in the confines of absolute-compulsory control (similar to Constantine's day which was immoral), as Christian doctrinal unity on earth in this natural era moves to endless hermeneutic configurations. I will argue that "doctrinal degeneration" would be required, and also not tolerated by almost all factions of the Christian church.

Although with Christian ecumenicism you would not have to deal with multi-faith (mono/poly/pan/primal) differentiating obstacles allocating "who is God," you would still have serious issues with differentiating positions regarding "how is the monotheistic God-head structured." For some in the faith see Christ as all forms of the God-head (oneness), some to Trinitarianism with three equal parts, and some to Trinitarianism but with three ranking parts. Then also immeasurable differences regarding discipleship, sainthood, sanctification, salvation, baptism, works, grace and love.

Thus with ecumenicism what strategy is possible when force is absent?

I argue that limited ecumenicism is only possible "if" church autonomy is respected. Thus, if so, what is left for common ground?
 
Here is my assessment to personal opinion

Full doctrinal ecumenicism may be only conceivable in the confines of absolute-compulsory control (similar to Constantine's day which was immoral), as Christian doctrinal unity on earth in this natural era moves to endless hermeneutic configurations. I will argue that "doctrinal degeneration" would be required, and also not tolerated by almost all factions of the Christian church.

Although with Christian ecumenicism you would not have to deal with multi-faith (mono/poly/pan/primal) differentiating obstacles allocating "who is God," you would still have serious issues with differentiating positions regarding "how is the monotheistic God-head structured." For some in the faith see Christ as all forms of the God-head (oneness), some to Trinitarianism with three equal parts, and some to Trinitarianism but with three ranking parts. Then also immeasurable differences regarding discipleship, sainthood, sanctification, salvation, baptism, works, grace and love.

Thus with ecumenicism what strategy is possible when force is absent?

I argue that limited ecumenicism is only possible "if" church autonomy is respected. Thus, if so, what is left for common ground?

Well, you do discount the possibility of forming a new, anti-schismatic denomination, seeking to be "the" protestant Church.

Honestly, there is not much of a need for force. As far as trinitarianism goes, I would argue that the doctrine of the Trinity is the defining component of Christianity. That is three persons, coequal, cosubstantial and coeternal.

As far as organization goes, I don't see any reason why organization should extend passed the local church with synods convening from time to time to discuss doctrine or other issues.

I think moving away from scholasticism is an important aspect of this, though. People need to learn to accept a mystery.
 
Let me first say that I commend your efforts to propose the prospect of bringing the church together in one accord. For if Christians could unite on certain aspects in the faith, then it would be highly beneficial to the body. So know that I find your topic intriguing

Honestly, there is not much of a need for force.

Know that I am no proponent of force as well, yet only pointed out that history delivers ecumenical success using force, and has otherwise had little success.

As far as trinitarianism goes, I would argue that the doctrine of the Trinity is the defining component of Christianity. That is three persons, coequal, cosubstantial and coeternal.

Yet if you will allow me to be your antagonist for polite discussion, can we see doctrinal degeneration or monotheistic division? With accepting the trinity as "coequal, cosubstantial and coeternal," then "schismatic" factions will propagate with all who disagree. However you could ecumenicize monotheistic trinitarianism itself. For example: you could say that there will be a "Trinitarian Ecumenical church that defines the monotheistic God-head as "coequal, cosubstantial and coeternal," by structuring it under a sub-umbrella. Yet this could easily then be argued as a "denomination" of monotheism with ecumenical attributes.

As far as organization goes, I don't see any reason why organization should extend passed the local church with synods convening from time to time to discuss doctrine or other issues

I agree
Also a charter does not have to be riddled with authority and accountability. It can simply be a template and if a church does not agree with the template then they are free in their own autonomy to re-identify and depart.

I think moving away from scholasticism is an important aspect of this, though. People need to learn to accept a mystery.

I find that knowledge is good, and that degrees will often deliver it. Yet they also often pervert it as well.

Can we agree that demonstrated credentials "in ministry" are often superior than formal degreed credentials which "prepare for the ministry?" Yet I am unable to condemn the scholar, for many successes have materialized abroad for the body.
 
Let me first say that I commend your efforts to propose the prospect of bringing the church together in one accord. For if Christians could unite on certain aspects in the faith, then it would be highly beneficial to the body. So know that I find your topic intriguing

I appreciate your commendation. I suspect we have some differing theologies, so that is quite meaningful that you would be so inclined to complement. At times, I admit I don't have quite that humility.



Know that I am no proponent of force as well, yet only pointed out that history delivers ecumenical success using force, and has otherwise had little success.

True. Although, let me also add, it's not always about the number of sheep in the flock. Unfortunately, we tend to view success as a "numbers" game. But, in reality I think we should look at it as a "fruits" game. If a church can deliver good fruits to its community, even if its numbers are small, that is a success in and of itself. Gaining converts is good, insofar as it brings people to God. But not in the sense that it "legitimizes" the faith. As it is said, Islam has more members than any denomination of Christianity, but they also forcibly convert people.



Yet if you will allow me to be your antagonist for polite discussion, can we see doctrinal degeneration or monotheistic division? With accepting the trinity as "coequal, cosubstantial and coeternal," then "schismatic" factions will propagate with all who disagree. However you could ecumenicize monotheistic trinitarianism itself. For example: you could say that there will be a "Trinitarian Ecumenical church that defines the monotheistic God-head as "coequal, cosubstantial and coeternal," by structuring it under a sub-umbrella. Yet this could easily then be argued as a "denomination" of monotheism with ecumenical attributes.

To stay on topic I'm going to open another thread about the Trinity. I understand your faith is non-trinitarian, so we can have a meaningful discussion about that.



I agree
Also a charter does not have to be riddled with authority and accountability. It can simply be a template and if a church does not agree with the template then they are free in their own autonomy to re-identify and depart.

Well, truthfully, I like the presbyterian structure, and why anyone would want to give that up, I do not know. A Pastor with a council of elders and however many deacons they need, and pastors can't interfere with other pastor's congregations. I understand this was similar to how it was in the early church, and for the life of me I don't know why a bishop needs to oversee multiple parishes.

As much as one can avoid church politics I think the better. Lord have mercy for all the evils that were engendered from papal elections in the Middle ages.



I find that knowledge is good, and that degrees will often deliver it. Yet they also often pervert it as well.

Can we agree that demonstrated credentials "in ministry" are often superior than formal degreed credentials which "prepare for the ministry?" Yet I am unable to condemn the scholar, for many successes have materialized abroad for the body.

Forgive me, I don't know that scholarship is quite the same as scholasticism. If I am not mistaken scholasticism is more like a a recipe book: do A, B and then C and you will inherit eternal life. Mysticism is more like, follow God and you will experience His light. Its less about a particular formula and more in line with growing in faith, communing with others, etc. Not trying to provide an endless codification of dogma. Often times that just ends in a circular argument (i.e. the Church is infallible because the Church says it infallible, and the Church is infallible, therefore, the Church is infallible).
 
Yet if you will allow me to be your antagonist for polite discussion, can we see doctrinal degeneration or monotheistic division? With accepting the trinity as "coequal, cosubstantial and coeternal," then "schismatic" factions will propagate with all who disagree. However you could ecumenicize monotheistic trinitarianism itself. For example: you could say that there will be a "Trinitarian Ecumenical church that defines the monotheistic God-head as "coequal, cosubstantial and coeternal," by structuring it under a sub-umbrella. Yet this could easily then be argued as a "denomination" of monotheism with ecumenical attributes.
To stay on topic I'm going to open another thread about the Trinity. I understand your faith is non-trinitarian, so we can have a meaningful discussion about that.

Please forgive me if I have misled my position. For I am a Trinitarian as well, believing that the monotheistic God-head has three distinctions.

My goal was to extrapolate the diverse and embraced structural differences of monotheism in the body of Christ, which makes ecumenical objectives difficult. For if one group are “oneness”, another group are “trinitarians void of rank/subordination,” and yet another group are “trinitarians embracing rank/subordination” then ecumenism must degenerate or divide into three groups seeking sub-ecumenistic goals.

Well, truthfully, I like the presbyterian structure, and why anyone would want to give that up, I do not know. A Pastor with a council of elders and however many deacons they need, and pastors can't interfere with other pastor's congregations. I understand this was similar to how it was in the early church, and for the life of me I don't know why a bishop needs to oversee multiple parishes.

For me it is of no consequence if a pastor owns outright all control, or if a board regulates a hiring process unto oversight.

As much as one can avoid church politics I think the better. Lord have mercy for all the evils that were engendered from papal elections in the Middle ages.

I agree that politics leads to evil manifestations

Forgive me, I don't know that scholarship is quite the same as scholasticism. If I am not mistaken scholasticism is more like a a recipe book: do A, B and then C and you will inherit eternal life. Mysticism is more like, follow God and you will experience His light. Its less about a particular formula and more in line with growing in faith, communing with others, etc. Not trying to provide an endless codification of dogma. Often times that just ends in a circular argument (i.e. the Church is infallible because the Church says it infallible, and the Church is infallible, therefore, the Church is infallible).

Is it possible that scholasticism is rooted in dialectical reasoning coming from Socratic and Aristotelean dialogue, which then became institutionalized philosophically and theologically in the middle ages? A knowledge-based protagonist/antagonist and apologetical exchange that would try to resolve to better understanding? I simply meant that “formal institutions” using philosophical methods have much to contribute; yet your terminological exactness is received.

Yet also you mention “Mysticism?” Is it possible that the mystics of the middle ages in the platonic legacy were antagonistic to trinitarian doctrine? For most mystics are pantheistic not monotheistic, then condemning monotheistic trinitarianism.
 
Please forgive me if I have misled my position. For I am a Trinitarian as well, believing that the monotheistic God-head has three distinctions.

My goal was to extrapolate the diverse and embraced structural differences of monotheism in the body of Christ, which makes ecumenical objectives difficult. For if one group are “oneness”, another group are “trinitarians void of rank/subordination,” and yet another group are “trinitarians embracing rank/subordination” then ecumenism must degenerate or divide into three groups seeking sub-ecumenistic goals.



For me it is of no consequence if a pastor owns outright all control, or if a board regulates a hiring process unto oversight.



I agree that politics leads to evil manifestations



Is it possible that scholasticism is rooted in dialectical reasoning coming from Socratic and Aristotelean dialogue, which then became institutionalized philosophically and theologically in the middle ages? A knowledge-based protagonist/antagonist and apologetical exchange that would try to resolve to better understanding? I simply meant that “formal institutions” using philosophical methods have much to contribute; yet your terminological exactness is received.

Yet also you mention “Mysticism?” Is it possible that the mystics of the middle ages in the platonic legacy were antagonistic to trinitarian doctrine? For most mystics are pantheistic not monotheistic, then condemning monotheistic trinitarianism.

Actually mysticism doesn't have to be pantheistic. I actually don't believe pantheists can experience true mysticism. But Jews have some concepts of it. Sufi Muslims believe in it, and it is especially prevalent in Eastern Christianity.

According to the Bible any time you help someone in need it is a sort of mystical experience. Union with God in this life so to speak.

The new age spirituality has been I think an attempt to separate divine experience from the work and growth it takes to get there. Lost souls look for spiritual fulfillment elsewhere not realizing that Christianity has a lot of spirituality hidden from popular knowledge.
 
Actually mysticism doesn't have to be pantheistic. I actually don't believe pantheists can experience true mysticism. But Jews have some concepts of it. Sufi Muslims believe in it, and it is especially prevalent in Eastern Christianity.

According to the Bible any time you help someone in need it is a sort of mystical experience. Union with God in this life so to speak.

The new age spirituality has been I think an attempt to separate divine experience from the work and growth it takes to get there. Lost souls look for spiritual fulfillment elsewhere not realizing that Christianity has a lot of spirituality hidden from popular knowledge.

Almost all mystics I have met move to the pantheistic position, its now highly interesting to converse with a monotheistic mystic. I have many questions if you will oblige?

(The next few sentences are based upon a polite assumption of your "possible position," and you may need to adjust the assumption)

"Potentially"
Do you embrace Monotheistic Trinitarian Mysticism coming from early Eastern Orthodoxy, mid-history deviations of Judaism, and ancient Sufism? If so, then do you consider yourself a "Monotheistic Philosophic Perennialist?" (not a religious Perennialist per-say, but a philosophic one) "One who will recognize "Perennial Philosophy of Religion" but not necessarily "Perennial Religious Philosophy?" A non-religious and philosophic deductive and dialectical process "by people in faith - theism" to tie various religious doctrines together?

If you can say yes, then can we agree that the monotheistic Perennialist is presented with an ecumenistic doctrinal conundrum? For monotheism competes with its own variants of "who" is the one God/ or God-head? Will it not contradict the scripture? Thus doctrinal degeneration is required in order to have monotheistic agreement that everyone is serving the "same" monotheistic God. Thus to my earliest point - doctrinal degeneration or division is eminent? Thus we are accommodated now with countless denominations demonstrating the divisions.
 
Almost all mystics I have met move to the pantheistic position, its now highly interesting to converse with a monotheistic mystic. I have many questions if you will oblige?

(The next few sentences are based upon a polite assumption of your "possible position," and you may need to adjust the assumption)

"Potentially"
Do you embrace Monotheistic Trinitarian Mysticism coming from early Eastern Orthodoxy, mid-history deviations of Judaism, and ancient Sufism? If so, then do you consider yourself a "Monotheistic Philosophic Perennialist?" (not a religious Perennialist per-say, but a philosophic one) "One who will recognize "Perennial Philosophy of Religion" but not necessarily "Perennial Religious Philosophy?" A non-religious and philosophic deductive and dialectical process "by people in faith - theism" to tie various religious doctrines together?

If you can say yes, then can we agree that the monotheistic Perennialist is presented with an ecumenistic doctrinal conundrum? For monotheism competes with its own variants of "who" is the one God/ or God-head? Will it not contradict the scripture? Thus doctrinal degeneration is required in order to have monotheistic agreement that everyone is serving the "same" monotheistic God. Thus to my earliest point - doctrinal degeneration or division is eminent? Thus we are accommodated now with countless denominations demonstrating the divisions.

Your question is a little wordy for me. So, I'm going to just give you a quick rundown of some theological thoughts I've had, sort of where I am right now with respect to religion.

For starters, there are four terms used with respect to religion from a Christian perspective, and I use them rather precisely. An orthodox Christian is one with the right theology. A heretic, would be someone who purports a theology deviant to Christian orthodoxy. A heterodox is one who inherits a heretical theology. Finally a pagan is someone who holds a theology particularly distinct from Christianity (i.e. someone who believes in pantheism, polytheism, etc.).

By these definitions, I believe that an orthodox Christian can achieve a mystical union with God in this life. The process of that union starts with repentance, humility and submission to the Holy Spirit. I do not know if a heterodox can achieve that union, and ultimately that is for God to decide anyways. Heretics and Pagans I don't believe can achieve that union, but again its ultimately up to God. Whether or not someone like Gandhi, who lived life in a remarkable resemblance to Christ, though he had a pagan theology, had some divine insight, I simply do not know.

For me, and I differ quite a bit from a lot of members here, faith in Christ is not simply reciting the sinner's prayer, going to Church, and believing in creeds or doctrines. I believe it is a matter of pursuing the life that Christ lived, through imitation mixed with humility. Of course humility requires one to accept that they are not perfect and they have work to do in their own lives. But I do believe that it is possible to conquer sin and passion in this life. As I've said before on this forum, Christ didn't come to us to lower the bar we were suppose to live up to, He came to lift us up to make it over.
 
Back
Top