{"id":1408,"date":"2017-09-01T08:46:56","date_gmt":"2017-09-01T06:46:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/vaticanfiles.org\/?p=1408"},"modified":"2017-09-01T08:55:15","modified_gmt":"2017-09-01T06:55:15","slug":"141-greater-oneness-in-christ-what-does-it-mean","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vaticanfiles.org\/ro\/2017\/09\/141-greater-oneness-in-christ-what-does-it-mean\/","title":{"rendered":"141. \u201cGreater Oneness in Christ\u201d: What Does it Mean?"},"content":{"rendered":"

September 1st, 2017<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cIn the journey to overcome internal divisions separating Christians, the top leadership of the World Council of Churches (WCC), Pentecostal World Fellowship (PWF), World Evangelical Alliance (WEA), and the Vatican\u2019s officials for promoting Christian Unity met together, for the first time, in a historic meeting, spending two days facilitating their support of the <\/i>Global Christian Forum<\/i><\/a> (GCF)\u201d.<\/i> – Global Christian Forum press release, May 27, 2017<\/p>\n

\u201cHistoric\u201d may be an overused description, especially when the term is applied not by historians writing 3-4 generations in the future, but by reporters talking about current events. According to the event\u2019s press release, the ecumenical meeting<\/a> was historic because these leaders \u2013 representing\u00a0 almost the whole of present-day Christianity \u2013 committed themselves to work towards \u201cgreater oneness in Christ\u201d and pledged to reinforce such a direction in a series of events that will take place in 2018.<\/p>\n

The Long Haul Ecumenical Strategy<\/i><\/p>\n

The announcement of this \u201chistoric\u201d meeting comes almost 20 years after the founding of the GCF. The idea of a Forum (i.e. a place to meet and talk) took root in the 1990s as a way to informally gather leaders of different Christian communions around the same table. Such a strategy arose, in part, due to a lack of visible progress in institutional ecumenism and uneasiness among Evangelicals and other less institutionalized Christians towards official ecumenism. With no apparent agenda and no expressed ecumenical intentionality, the Forum sought to be characterized by a relational approach rather than an institutional mindset, and by informality rather than ecclesiastical diplomacy. This more casual format suited Evangelicals and Pentecostals who found it difficult to relate to Rome and the WCC in strictly institutional forms and easier in more informal patterns. Much of evangelicalism is formed from local and regional loose networks, rather than top-down hierarchical institutions. Both the WEA and WPF welcomed GCF and became part of it without perhaps appreciating the long-term ecumenical goals<\/i> of GCF and without pondering the ecumenical process<\/i> they were joining.<\/p>\n

After 20 years, it becomes clear that the agenda of GCF was to bypass the roadblock of a formalized ecumenical journey with the long-term goal of including sectors of Christianity that are statistically growing (and that happen to be vocally critical of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and liberal tendencies in mainstream ecumenism). It is telling that after 20 years of the informal and relational ecumenism of the GCF, both WEA and WPF are now willing to move further towards \u201cgreater oneness\u201d with representatives of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and liberal Christianity without the latter becoming less Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and liberal. The change on the part of these Evangelicals and Pentecostals is indeed significant.<\/p>\n

What is at Stake with \u201cGreater Oneness\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

What does committing to greater unity mean? Of course, the word \u201cunity\u201d is used in different ways according to context, but in ecumenical theological “unity\u201d it has a fairly established and stable meaning. In this sense, unity refers to a harmony of the baptized, i.e. those who have received the sacrament of the initiation to the Christian life, in view of the sacramental unity around the same Eucharistic table and within the same institutional structures of the church.<\/p>\n

So far, Evangelicals and Pentecostals have been talking about unity among \u201cborn again\u201d believers in view of loose partnerships aimed at evangelism, social action, and mission. If they commit to \u201cgreater oneness\u201d with the Roman Catholic Church and WCC, they need to reflect on what they become committed to:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Unity among the baptized. They will be pressed to consider as \u201cbrothers and sisters\u201d all those who have received baptism in Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and liberal Protestant churches, whether or not they are born again Christians. The reality on the ground is that most of these Christians are baptized only in name, without any personal commitment to Christ. Greater oneness means that we are all \u201cbrothers and sisters\u201d not because we are born-again believers in Christ, but because we are all baptized. If we are all \u201cbrothers and sisters\u201d, evangelism done by Evangelicals in majority Roman Catholic and Easter Orthodox contexts becomes unnecessary. Is this what Evangelicals and Pentecostals believe and find acceptable?<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Unity as conveyed by the same sacraments and within the same institutions. According to ecumenical theology, \u201cgreater oneness\u201d means sacramental unity and institutional unity. This means not only baptism, but the sacramental theologies and practices of Rome (e.g. the Eucharist as sacrifice and re-enacting the cross) and Eastern Orthodox churches need to be accepted as legitimate Christian practice. Moreover, \u201cgreater oneness\u201d means that the institutions of the Roman Catholic Church, with its complex political, diplomatic, and economic power (e.g. the papacy, the Vatican state and bank) become legitimate ways of representing the church that Jesus Christ promised to build. Evangelicals have always been clear in denouncing all deviations from clear biblical teaching, yet committing to \u201cgreater oneness\u201d means that they have to stop doing so because of ecumenical etiquette. Is this what Evangelicals and Pentecostals believe and find acceptable?<\/p>\n

Who Decides What?<\/i><\/p>\n

For the WEA and WPF to commit to \u201cgreater oneness\u201d with Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and liberal churches is a huge step that significantly changes historic beliefs and practices. It is a watershed event that impinges on biblical convictions (e.g. unity among believers only) that are now stretched in order to make them compatible with mainstream ecumenical correctness. Have we really counted the cost?<\/p>\n

A final question remains to be asked. Who decided to move forward? Was there any public decision of the WEA constituency that empowered the leadership to move towards \u201cgreater oneness\u201d? Was there an open discussion about the implications? Was there a decisional process based on the involvement of the grass-roots movements? As far as it is possible to know, there was no involvement on regional and national discussion, let alone a vote of the General Assembly.<\/p>\n

The fact is that WEA did not ask its constituency to vote to become part of GCF, let alone receive a vote to move forward towards \u201cgreater oneness\u201d. Given the \u201chistoric\u201d nature of the decision and the wide-ranging theological implications, it is awkward to say the least that the local churches and regional networks that this body claims to represent were not even consulted beforehand. This operational mode undermines the trust essential in horizontal networks such as WEA. When few people decide on their own a question of this magnitude without a serious discussion with the people they supposedly represent, it is the beginning of the end of this historical evangelical network and a transformation into top-down hierarchical organization, which is a completely different thing.<\/p>\n

As far as WEA is concerned, the last document that was voted by a General Assembly is Roman Catholicism. A Contemporary Evangelical Perspective<\/i><\/a> (1986). After a careful analysis of present-day Roman Catholicism in its doctrine and practice, the document ends by arguing that unity is desirable but not at the expense of biblical truth and that there are still \u201cunsurmountable obstacles\u201d between Evangelicals and the Roman Catholic Church because of their divergent accounts of the gospel. Millions of evangelicals are still convinced that this is case and do not see any biblical reason to move towards \u201cgreater oneness\u201d.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Share<\/a>