Round Table Discussion:Can General Christian Unity Be Accomplished Temporally?

[ERayR]

I am not spending as much time here as before. I am going to check in occasionally and if I find something interesting I might respond. I am reading Glenn Beck's book Common Sense and found this that I think is pertinent to this thread.

"...Virtue, honesty, and character aren't the purview of any particular congregation; they can found in any church that has God as its foundation. We have forgotten this lesson and instead of using religion as our anchor, we use it to shame or blame. To many in this country, those who attend church regularly aren't pillars of their community, they're freaks or extremists".

"But that mind-set can be changed by setting an example of tolerance and unparalleled acceptance toward each other. Let's stop using our religious sympols to score political points. Are we that insecure in our own faith that religious symbols or public prayers of a different religion cannot be welcomed with open arms?..."(Glenn Beck in "Common Sense" pg 98)

I think it is worth considering.

Incidentally I think this book is worth a read.

[Lightbearer]

Hi All,

I have had the opportunity to meet many wonderful people in the course of my life. Some I have met through forums such as this one, others in my daily work and social life. Many claim Christ but their beliefs vary from mine on different points. Yet as I see it, every one I have talked of Christ with ... RCC, EOC, LDS, Mainline Prots, EV's, Pentecostals, CommunityOC and so forth, all share a profound love and respect for their Savior. Yet despite this common love of Christ, our variant beliefs cordon us off from our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

I think the subject I am bringing up is a rather difficult one, but one that can hopefully be discussed. One general problem I see, is that nearly all faiths basic solution is for everyone to come round to what they believe. Hopefully you are as cognizant of the fact as I am, that this is an unlikely scenario in any temporal sense.

Recognizing that, I would posit Paul tells us in Ephesians 4:1-7 that "I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism,One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ."

This statement is a powerful one that I read quite often. Looking at the text, I think it is pretty obvious that Christianity as a whole has done a fairly poor job of it. Sometimes it just makes me want to curl up in my nice cozy ecclesiastical ball and pull the shutters closed on the rest of the world.

In fact many people do just that, however I think this sort of thinking seems to be a bit contrary to Paul's encouragement to be longsuffering and forbearing one another in love. Such language seem to imply the challenge of such unity.

Given the current state of things, how are we to endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace?

What are the biggest hurdles we as Christian's face?

What are some possible solutions to surmount them?

BTW.. I know there are a number of quality posters who don't count themselves as Christian. Your input is welcome as well.

Hello Mudcat,

Yes this is quite the question. I think the only true unity that can be obtained is in our love and charity towards each other. A search for total unity may have to await the second coming, as Isaiah said: "Then we shall see eye to eye." Until then we may need to struggle along and remember we are all brothers and sisters and that if we love one another unconditionally that will go a long way toward that ideal of unity. The root problem is the nature of Christ's Church, and His message, it is exclusive: "He that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned." When Jesus taught the Jews they were divided into sects and yet he called them out from among their beliefs to His Church. Paul pleaded that there be no divisions in the Church, the one Lord, one faith, and one baptism reference goes to this thought. Yet the very world of Christianity that confused Joseph Smith was a divided sectarian world. His solution was to pray to God for wisdom. Now if his vision was correct then there was a glaring problem, none of the Churches then existent were considered by God and Christ as His Church and Kingdom. LDS have been commissioned to carry this message to all the world. This presents a problem with any attempt at an ecumenical movement on the part of members of the Church. The Church has and does participate in community involvement and humanitarian efforts but we remain doctrinally independent from any World Church Councils, and that is as it should be from an LDS perspective. That does not mean we can reach out in love and charity and build upon commonalities to accomplish much good, but I doubt there will ever be doctrinal agreement until the Son of man comes in the clouds of heaven.

Regards,

your brother in Christ,

Lightbearer

[Mudcat]

Well I agree we should just go for it, I just want to work on something that will work. I don't mean to be negative, just practical.

And I appreciate your practicality. I suppose I found myself rather excited about this concept and may have been a bit overzealous. In fact I got so fired up about it, I decided to start a blog about this post... see my siggy addition.

The blogs pretty cheesy, as I know nothing about making one look cool and from what I can gather no one has looked at it yet.

Regardless, your realistic perspective is an asset. Since you seem agreeable to the concept of using humanitarian service as a plausible vehicle of action.

What do you think would be the best method of getting something like this started?

Generating an interest from diverse faith groups while not an insurmountable challenge, will pose difficulties.

Once I get a pretty good sketch of what this might look like, I plan on approaching my own pastor for some pulpit time, but.... actually getting it might be another story. Taking this concept to another church to see if I can gain support may prove more difficult. I think there are some.. possibly many, who would find the whole idea a bit heretical.

[mrmendoza]

For the first, I see the biggest challenge being that most religious belief has two aspects - a system of how to live in the here and now, and a belief about what will occur in the here-after and to whom. I think that opportunities to achieve solidarity must rely on a focus on the here and now and agreement on the values of "christian walk" in a temporal world.

People being people, the second big challenge is due to the desire for power we all seem to struggle with. Christianity has seen it's fair share of struggle between the search for an egalitarian society and the need to establish heirarchy to function in the day-to-day. How a unified christianity can resolve this should be considered as well.

I'm inclined to think your first chalange, as you present it here, is just about the only way we're really going to get along! If we could focus on what needs to be done to make this a better world in our day to day lives, and not always want to convince the other person that they're going to hell for not believing the same way, or over a point of doctrine I think much could be accomplished!

About 10 yrs ago, I was blessed to head up a service project working with the Salvation Army. It was at a Halfway House and homeless shelter in the St Louis area. Working with them showed me just how hard and difficult it is to work with the truly down and out. I told the Sister (I guess she was an officer in the SA, but I can't remember what her rank was.)that I was working with that I thought that what they were doing was the epitime of Christian love and I know in my heart, that God will have a special blessing in store for her and all those who gave themselves so willing to service for others. And I meant every word!

Contrast that with the report I heard, (This was third person report, so I can't verify it, but it sounds like some of the people I've come across!) wherein a group of concerned citizens were having a meeting to see what they could do about pornogrophy in their neighborhood, when some of them got up and left the room when they found out that there were Moromns in the group!

When it comes to who's "saved" and whose not, I don't really think that there's much we can do. While it's true, we Mormons claim an "exclusitivity" on some things which can make us quite anoying to some, even so we hold out that all can come unto Christ in their own way, and still recieve the blessings of God! We don't go around telling everyone else that their religion is "false". We simply invite them to learn from us how to recieve all the blessings from God that they don't know about yet!

The fact is, I've known many "Christians" (Both Mormon and non-Mormon) of many persuesions who have "walked the Christian walk" better than I ever could!

Of course some of us just like to argue, so we'll never be able to find enough common ground to end the debate!

Mike

[mrmendoza]

DELETE

Mike

[mrmendoza]

DELETE

Mike

[mrmendoza]

DELETE

[mrmendoza]

How do you git rid of the extra post that I accedently put up ?

Mike

[mfbukowski]

How do you git rid of the extra post that I accedently put up ?

Mike

Looks like 2 extras- it happens to me all the time with the bugs in the system- you hit the button and it is so slow you don't think it "took" and hit it again.

Anyway, at the bottom of the post, you will find an "edit" button when you look at your extra posts. Hit that button and delete everything in it. You can't delete the post itself, just the words in the post, so it seems that what most are doing is posting the words "deleted" in the box where the post used to be.

That may be a dumb way to do it, but it is the only way I know.

[mfbukowski]

And I appreciate your practicality. I suppose I found myself rather excited about this concept and may have been a bit overzealous. In fact I got so fired up about it, I decided to start a blog about this post... see my siggy addition.

The blogs pretty cheesy, as I know nothing about making one look cool and from what I can gather no one has looked at it yet.

Regardless, your realistic perspective is an asset. Since you seem agreeable to the concept of using humanitarian service as a plausible vehicle of action.

What do you think would be the best method of getting something like this started?

Generating an interest from diverse faith groups while not an insurmountable challenge, will pose difficulties.

Once I get a pretty good sketch of what this might look like, I plan on approaching my own pastor for some pulpit time, but.... actually getting it might be another story. Taking this concept to another church to see if I can gain support may prove more difficult. I think there are some.. possibly many, who would find the whole idea a bit heretical.

Well they won't be LDS. We have done things like this all the time. Frankly, I think it would be relatively easy to get started in principle- the devil is in the details though.

It would be easy to get two local congregations to work together, as long as they weren't worry that the goal was to "convert" anybody. This is a crucial aspect for the LDS congregation to understand because regardless of the instructions not to discuss doctrine, the LDS people would view this as "missionary work", which in a sense it would be, that sense being "creating better understanding about the church for non-members". But I think any pastor would probably not have a problem with it if it was presented the same way. Both would be thinking about conversion options and that might be the motivation at first, so it is important that you set the ground rules.

One would first have to pick a worthy project which was locally large enough and important enough to get people involved. Homeless shelters, etc - charitable activities -- also have the benefit of being something that Christians should do anyway, so it would provide an excuse to do what we are supposed to be doing anyway, with the added benefit of doing some "advertising" for the local congregation.

Your wife already has an LDS congregation, and you have your pastor to talk to -- let her talk to the bishop and maybe you will be off to a good start.

If there is a way we could do this over distance or on a larger scale, let me know. I do have some connections in the church

[mfbukowski]

The key I think is starting with getting two or more congregations together to do service together, or perhaps with common concerns over moral or even political issues. At first perhaps each pastor (bishop) will see the project as a "missionary effort" so it must be clear that preaching to the other congregation is strictly prohibited. But the real goal is for each member to see the love of Christ operating in the hearts of the other congregation members, and becoming friends. Social activities could be next.

This could also be accomplished over a distance perhaps with a website like your site including an organization which would assist local pastors/bishops at a distance with ideas and examples of how this has been tried and what works and what does not.

It would be worth a try.

[hagoth7]

It would be easy to get two local congregations to work together, as long as they weren't worry that the goal was to "convert" anybody.

One simple idea I tried once was to swap local choirs.

(Convince our choir to accept an invitation to sing a number or two [that would have special meaning/consolation for the audience] in a different congregation.

And then extend an invite for their choir or special musical number to reciprocate.)

Almost worked - even had the first music exchange date lined up - but people got jittery on both sides and bailed.

Requires support from both leadership and lay folk.

Interacting with people who have differing views can be scary for some people. You know, the whole "worlds are colliding" thing.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I think, I know, that website forums give people license to act in a

[mfbukowski]

I think, I know, that website forums give people license to act in a

[Helmuth]

Can General Christian Unity Be Accomplished Temporally?

You seem to propose that Christians have unity, but without being unified. There's a simple answer to that: No. Impossibility.

All should be invited into our circle of love, but that is as far as it can go. If on very important points I do not believe what you believe and you do not believe what I believe (which truly is the case) I do not see how either of us could bring the other into our circle of faith, nor have any kind of unity, other than one of love and understanding.

What would a unity of a non-unified Christian faith even look like? Further, what would the advantage of such a "unity" be?

Perhaps by unity all you mean is what I said above: a unity of love and respect and other mutual good feelings. We could have that. All Christians denominations could stop being mean to each other. However, different people have different ideas of "mean". I still hold to the idea of all other churches being corrupt and their false teachings an abomination. Is that mean? Many mainliners strongly feel that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong, evil, and possibly Satan-influenced groups. Is that mean? So if the beliefs themselves are offensive and "mean", no matter how loving and respectful their adherents are, I see no clear path towards universal love and harmony among the churches other than eliminating the beliefs.

Buddhism and Islam seem much less fragmented to the outside observer than Christianity. This is, I think, because they have no strong institutional bodies, so there is not anything to schism from if you have a disagreement. In contrast, Christianity had the strong institutional church in Rome, and now is made up mostly of institutional (organized, hierarchical, cohesive) churches. So another possibility is to completely dissolve all institutional churches.

[Mudcat]

Hello Mudcat,

Yes this is quite the question. I think the only true unity that can be obtained is in our love and charity towards each other. A search for total unity may have to await the second coming, as Isaiah said: "Then we shall see eye to eye." Until then we may need to struggle along and remember we are all brothers and sisters and that if we love one another unconditionally that will go a long way toward that ideal of unity. The root problem is the nature of Christ's Church, and His message, it is exclusive: "He that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned." When Jesus taught the Jews they were divided into sects and yet he called them out from among their beliefs to His Church. Paul pleaded that there be no divisions in the Church, the one Lord, one faith, and one baptism reference goes to this thought. Yet the very world of Christianity that confused Joseph Smith was a divided sectarian world. His solution was to pray to God for wisdom. Now if his vision was correct then there was a glaring problem, none of the Churches then existent were considered by God and Christ as His Church and Kingdom. LDS have been commissioned to carry this message to all the world.

Hey Lightbearer,

Emphasis mine, you point out what I would find to the biggest hurdle. Not just in your statement that separates your faith from the faith of many others, but also the fact that there are many other faiths (mine included) that ultimately draw a line somewhere as to who is and who is not in the Church. Ultimately, I surrender such matters to Christ.

I am encouraged by Christs words at the last supper.

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

This is what I am looking in others and this is what I want to be.

This presents a problem with any attempt at an ecumenical movement on the part of members of the Church. The Church has and does participate in community involvement and humanitarian efforts but we remain doctrinally independent from any World Church Councils, and that is as it should be from an LDS perspective. That does not mean we can reach out in love and charity and build upon commonalities to accomplish much good, but I doubt there will ever be doctrinal agreement until the Son of man comes in the clouds of heaven.

I agree there is always going to some sort of division in the here and know. But I think the more we try to love one another and love our fellow man, then perhaps we can make a few molehills out of our mountains. I am not asking anyone to sacrifice their doctrinal dependency. I would rather that we all at least come together in love and recognize that doctrine aside, we share a common dependency on Christ Jesus.

Yours Also,

Mudcat

[Ceeboo]

I am encouraged by Christs words at the last supper.

This is what I am looking in others and this is what I want to be.

I agree there is always going to some sort of division in the here and know. But I think the more we try to love one another and love our fellow man, then perhaps we can make a few molehills out of our mountains. I am not asking anyone to sacrifice their doctrinal dependency. I would rather that we all at least come together in love and recognize that doctrine aside, we share a common dependency on Christ Jesus.

Yours Also,

Mudcat

GREAT Post, Mudcat

A HUGE round of applause by the crazy Catholic guy !!!!!!!!!

DITTO !!!

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Brenda]

Hey Lightbearer,

Emphasis mine, you point out what I would find to the biggest hurdle. Not just in your statement that separates your faith from the faith of many others, but also the fact that there are many other faiths (mine included) that ultimately draw a line somewhere as to who is and who is not in the Church. Ultimately, I surrender such matters to Christ.

I am encouraged by Christs words at the last supper.

This is what I am looking in others and this is what I want to be.

I agree there is always going to some sort of division in the here and know. But I think the more we try to love one another and love our fellow man, then perhaps we can make a few molehills out of our mountains. I am not asking anyone to sacrifice their doctrinal dependency. I would rather that we all at least come together in love and recognize that doctrine aside, we share a common dependency on Christ Jesus.

Yours Also,

Mudcat

Exactly!! Why is this so hard to do? I feel no ill will towards other religions. None. They are my fellow Christians. As for non-Christians, ie. Buddhists, Jewish, etc., I see them as people of integrity as they follow their God, according to the "dictates of their conscience".

My only beef with people would be if they don't live up to their OWN beliefs. If you're a Catholic, be a Catholic. If you're a Baptist, be a Baptist. Be true to your church and what it teaches. Follow Christ's word as you best understand it. Really BE what you say you are. If you do that, even though you may not be LDS, you'll have my full respect and admiration.

[Mudcat]

I think the necessary step is to get people working together side by side, and then getting together socially. That is what it will take. It is like the racial thing in the 60's. Racism is far from gone in this country but it has reduced I think because as we have become more integrated we all find out that under it all, we are the same. But each of us needs a friend of the "other" race or religion to learn these things.

Emphasis mine. I agree completely.

It seems many fight an unseen enemy.

In Luke 6 Christ admonishes us..

"But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you."

Without friends of other faiths, they are simply other faiths. We can refute and defend against the arguments of other faiths...I mean its just words against words at the point.

We can hate other faiths. We can distance people from belief and hate their "belief" all the day long. But how can we stare at the words of our Lord as recorded in Luke and say we hate "them"... whoever "them" may be. He didn't hate them, did he?

He suffered and died for every one of us.

[Mudcat]

One simple idea I tried once was to swap local choirs.

(Convince our choir to accept an invitation to sing a number or two [that would have special meaning/consolation for the audience] in a different congregation.

And then extend an invite for their choir or special musical number to reciprocate.)

Almost worked - even had the first music exchange date lined up - but people got jittery on both sides and bailed.

Requires support from both leadership and lay folk.

Interacting with people who have differing views can be scary for some people. You know, the whole "worlds are colliding" thing.

I know what you mean. Our Baptist choir and orchestra performed at a Methodist revival along with our Baptist music minister. Caused quite a stir in the community. One of the owners of the company I represent is a Methodist. When she caught wind of what had happened, she had quite bit to say about this new Methodist minister at the church across town and his Baptist ways....

What a joke... I kinda put that is the same category as ordering a Coke and getting a Pepsi.

[Mudcat]

I think, I know, that website forums give people license to act in a

[Helmuth]

Can General Christian Unity Be Accomplished Temporally?

You seem to propose that Christians have unity, but without being unified. There's a simple answer to that: No. Impossibility.

All should be invited into our circle of love, but that is as far as it can go. If on very important points I do not believe what you believe and you do not believe what I believe (which truly is the case) I do not see how either of us could bring the other into our circle of faith, nor have any kind of unity, other than one of love and understanding.

What would a unity of a non-unified Christian faith even look like? Further, what would the advantage of such a "unity" be?

Perhaps by unity all you mean is what I said above: a unity of love and respect and other mutual good feelings. We could have that. All Christians denominations could stop being mean to each other. However, different people have different ideas of "mean". I still hold to the idea of all other churches being corrupt and their false teachings an abomination. Is that mean? Many mainliners strongly feel that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong, evil, and possibly Satan-influenced groups. Is that mean? So if the beliefs themselves are offensive and "mean", no matter how loving and respectful their adherents are, I see no clear path towards universal love and harmony among the churches other than eliminating the beliefs.

Buddhism and Islam seem much less fragmented to the outside observer than Christianity. This is, I think, because they have no strong institutional bodies, so there is not anything to schism from if you have a disagreement. In contrast, Christianity had the strong institutional church in Rome, and now is made up mostly of institutional (organized, hierarchical, cohesive) churches. So another possibility is to completely dissolve all institutional churches.

So Mudcat, do you have any thoughts on any of the above?

[Mudcat]

Can General Christian Unity Be Accomplished Temporally?

You seem to propose that Christians have unity, but without being unified. There's a simple answer to that: No. Impossibility.

All should be invited into our circle of love, but that is as far as it can go. If on very important points I do not believe what you believe and you do not believe what I believe (which truly is the case) I do not see how either of us could bring the other into our circle of faith, nor have any kind of unity, other than one of love and understanding.

Hi Helmuth,

I don't think it would be impossible, I just think it would require a different look at how we define "unity". Even within "unified" Christian faiths, under scrutiny, a case could be made that they do not have unity, because of variant beliefs that exist within the group.

But you are correct, love and understanding, is the sort of thing I would like to see accomplished in all Christian faiths.

What would a unity of a non-unified Christian faith even look like? Further, what would the advantage of such a "unity" be?

I want to give you an example....

My community is primarily EV. I actually know of one LDS business owner, that doesn't make any efforts to advertise their faith. You don't see any of those little hand out cards with the nice artwork that the missionaries bring by, no fliers for upcoming events at their local branch.. and so forth. The business owner feels that such a statement of faith might draw attention to their beliefs and it would cost them there livelihood.

To tell you the truth, I have no idea what would happen if the business owner did start doing that sort of thing. But I imagine, in some respects it would cost them revenue.

I wonder if their aren't some EV's in the rural areas of Utah that feel that there are similar pressures?

I suppose if Christianity were more unified, even if only in the general sense of love and understanding, it would make it easier for us to live together in happiness. Maybe people wouldn't have to be afraid.

Perhaps by unity all you mean is what I said above: a unity of love and respect and other mutual good feelings. We could have that. All Christians denominations could stop being mean to each other. However, different people have different ideas of "mean". I still hold to the idea of all other churches being corrupt and their false teachings an abomination. Is that mean? Many mainliners strongly feel that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong, evil, and possibly Satan-influenced groups. Is that mean? So if the beliefs themselves are offensive and "mean", no matter how loving and respectful their adherents are, I see no clear path towards universal love and harmony among the churches other than eliminating the beliefs.

Well if that is what came of it, I would be ecstatic. As you point out, there are lots or areas of disagreement. In fact these areas are what makes us mean. I don't think it is mean to share you faith or even disagree with you because you believe X. Those actions are IMO actually born out of love.

However, when our disagreements on X become such a focus that we say things like...

I don't like you because you believe X

Don't play with those kids across the street they are X's

Don't hire him, I heard he was an X

Never trust an X

You don't need to extend them a club membership, they are X's you know

I won't do business with an X

That is where the love stops and the meanness starts. Christ isn't in it, nor will he ever be.

Someone pointed out to me that the most difficult group to deal with in this regard are my fellow Evangelicals. I don't know that they aren't right.

I would imagine in any area that has more of belief X than belief Y, it is harder to be Y no matter what faith X is and what faith Y is.

[Mudcat]

So Mudcat, do you have any thoughts on any of the above?

Keep your pants on Helmuth.

[Honorentheos]

About 10 yrs ago, I was blessed to head up a service project working with the Salvation Army. It was at a Halfway House and homeless shelter in the St Louis area. Working with them showed me just how hard and difficult it is to work with the truly down and out. I told the Sister (I guess she was an officer in the SA, but I can't remember what her rank was.)that I was working with that I thought that what they were doing was the epitime of Christian love and I know in my heart, that God will have a special blessing in store for her and all those who gave themselves so willing to service for others. And I meant every word!

This is a good example of what I think is needed.

Of course some of us just like to argue, so we'll never be able to find enough common ground to end the debate!

Mike

Yes, I think I am guilty of enjoying a spirited discussion myself. The tricky part is to know when the nature of the discussion has shifted to one of being mean-spirited. Not easy to do all of the time.