Reorganizing Christianity

[Sarmatian]

Just a thought that's been in my head for some time, and I got a desire to discuss it after seeing Tuff's thread about religion. In the poll options, there are quite a few variants of Christianity and then there are many more not present as poll options. The main point here is - they're basically different interpretations of the same message or in some cases divisions made because of political issues. I'm not a religious person and see it as a more of a cultural thing so all this divisions are somehow unnatural to me.

Could all those variants of Christianity be united? Could we all become just Christians again?

Also, organization of most Christian churches is rather archaic, and reorganizing them under a banner of a single Christian church would be a good way to "modernize" it (in the lack of a better term). Maybe forming a highest body, something like a Holy Council that would have 12 members, representing 12 apostles that would represent all parts of the world, like one from South America, one from North America, one or two more in Europe (in Germany, France, England or Russia), Asia, Africa and so on. That would leave enough room for representatives from more ancient holy Cristian cites like Rome, Istanbul, Jerusalem, Alexandria and so on. The Pope in Rome in that council could have the same role the Patriarch from Istanbul now has among Orthodox Christian churches - primus inter pares or the first among equals, which would basically be just a honorific title. This would for better representation of Christians from all over the world.

So the question is should Christian churches unite? Could it be done? Now or in the future? If so, how should it be done...

Your thoughts gentlemen...

P.S. Maybe this is more Frontroom material but here we have more leeway in discussing it...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You've said you're not a Christian and it shows.

The divisions are doctrinal. From my own doctrinal standpoint the Pope is the natural head of the Church but I, and many others, believe the Holy See is in error and therefore cannot be reconciled to Rome. The Pope claims the right of the absolute monarch with direct authority from God, further, he claims to speak the irrefutable word of God when he sits in the throne of Saint Peter.

As to organisation, most church bodies are organised as you describe, be it with Bishops or a more open polity.

[Sigurd]

There is already a church with 12 apostles. :smash:

[Sarmatian]

You've said you're not a Christian and it shows.

The divisions are doctrinal. From my own doctrinal standpoint the Pope is the natural head of the Church but I, and many others, believe the Holy See is in error and therefore cannot be reconciled to Rome. The Pope claims the right of the absolute monarch with direct authority from God, further, he claims to speak the irrefutable word of God when he sits in the throne of Saint Peter.

As to organisation, most church bodies are organised as you describe, be it with Bishops or a more open polity.

I am a Christian, I'm just not very religious.

That organization is the first thing that came to my mind. It's not something I've spent time on. The issue is could it be done, should it be done and how, if the answer is positive to the first two questions. So, you're saying that it couldn't be done because of doctrinal issues. Well, there have been councils that tried to address doctrinal issues and it's not like it couldn't be done.

This is not about me saying how it should be done, I'm trying to start a discussion on that, hear what people think about that. So, your opinion is that it couldn't and shouldn't be done. Thank you for that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am a Christian, I'm just not very religious.

That organization is the first thing that came to my mind. It's not something I've spent time on. The issue is could it be done, should it be done and how, if the answer is positive to the first two questions. So, you're saying that it couldn't be done because of doctrinal issues. Well, there have been councils that tried to address doctrinal issues and it's not like it couldn't be done.

This is not about me saying how it should be done, I'm trying to start a discussion on that, hear what people think about that. So, your opinion is that it couldn't and shouldn't be done. Thank you for that.

I'm sorry, when you said "not religious" and "cultural issue" I assumed you meant you were agnostic.

All the modern churches sprang from the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is still the largest in the world. With Holy Church there is considerable variation but all the branches agree on the basis of their faith, which is the Apostolic Succession and the Historical Episcopate. The Orthodox Church spilt with Rome because the Patriarch refused to recognise the Pope as more that Primus inter Pares and they excomunicated each other. The Anglican split with Rome was along the same lines but much later.

My opinion, which I thought I made clear in my last post, is that it should and can be done but won't be because is requires the agreement of every major church on imporant issues such as Biblical fallability, transubstantiation and the role of the Colledge of Bishps. such a working consensus is unlikely.

[Don Corleone]

I do not believe that it can happen. The universal church is too human, and therefore too fractious and concerned with their own inerrancy than actually serving God (by universal Church, I mean all Christians). There is a reason that humility is a cardinal virtue, and its one I see lacking in all walks of modern life, including unfortunately in the leadership roles within major denominations.

What's more, as Philipvs correctly pointed out, there are serious doctrinal issues to consider. Just consider how broad the definition of "Christian" is, and how much dispute there is over the definition of the term. There are organized "Christian" denominations (the quotes are because they call themselves that, but I do not believe they are) that deny the divinity of Christ. Wouldn't that make them a sect of Judaism?

Mormons consider themselves Christians as well. This is where things get really thorny, because they do not deny the divinity of Christ, but if I understand Mormon theology properly, they believe humans can transcend this existence and in effect become divine themselves. Again, I would dispute that, and it's a thorny issue, but it strikes at questions of tennets of faith. They honestly believe what they believe and I don't begrudge them that. But the theology itself, on the surface, smacks of hubris, that the person that formulated it could not accept a subservient role to Christ. Since they believe it to be divinely revealed, now we're really at loggerheads, as they would understanably say "Who the hell am I to question their theology, as if it were open to debate", much the same way I might react in a discussion over transsubstantiation.

In short, with God, all things are possible, but frankly, in this case, I don't see how.

[yesdachi]

I think people like the subtle divisions between religious factions, it differentiates them, and people, in general, like to be different (or think they are different) from the masses. I would say, just like a country, if “X” denomination had a good strong leader there would be an increased following of loyal converts but without one, the factions will continue to grow because the people are looking for the one that fits them best, think third party in politics.

Think about the popularity of sports teams, when Michael Jordan and the Bulls were kicking it, everyone was a Bulls fan and later when Jordan was gone and they sucked those fans spread out. If a church had an MVP the people could rally behind or for that matter a reason to rally, the splintering might subside and one denomination would grow.

I think a lot of people are disenfranchised with the church right now, our lifestyle doesn’t “fit” a lot of the traditional teachings of the church and people are not being forced to go like their parents forced them resulting in people not going or choosing alternative churches and even nondenominational churches with a more open interpretation of the bible.

[LittleGrizzly]

Atheist here, just my theory on the church....

The coming togther of all the denominations is just unworkable imo, theres too many differences between them and too many slightly different flavours to be able to mix them up and create a flavour all christians like, from the first christians the religion seems slowly splitting and fracturing into more suitable arrangments (churches for gays being the most convenient example, though i realise they aren't a seperate denomination imagine trying to put them in the same church as people who believe gays are the downfall of our society.... its unworkable!)

Personally i can see this fracturing and splitting going on more and more as time goes by...

[Sigurd]

Ok ... I was a little flippant in my first post.

As I understand the Bible, Christ will be returning in the last days. He will set his foot on mount Olives and it will be rent in twain. He will then gather his people and the Jews will bend the knee to him and declare him Messiah. The Last days will be in the Seventh thousand year after Adam or around year 2000 A.D (we are on overtime here). Should we cut the prophecy a little slack, it does state that He will come as a thief in the night when nobody expects Him.

So ... why bother with the reorganization when clearly Christ will do this when he arrives. It is the eleventh hour and it might be a second to twelve or a minute. Even the Angels do not know the exact time this will happen. :book:
Either He declares all denominations faulty and will reorganize his original church, or he will declare one of the existing churches as his and all Christians with true faith will leave their faulty one and join the true.

[Strike For The South]

if the catholics methodists and lutherans just realized the error of there ways and became Baptists it would've already happend

[Rhyfelwyr]

I expect that all major branches of Christianity will unite in the near future.

The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches share so much in common it is not hard to imagine their reconciliation. Similarly, as other episcopal churches begin to collapse through declining memberships, they will cooperate in increasing degress with Rome, eventually leading to them reuniting. Then, many Lutheran churches will follow, although I expect some will retain their independence. This one world religion will also increasingly adopt universalist ideas, and will enjoy good relations with the more moderate ambassadors of other major religions. As living standards improve and people get a bit decadent, they like to alter their beliefs to make them feel good and not conflict with their lifestyles. This will lead to more moderate Muslims picking the bits they like from their holy book, just as many Christians do.

Meanwhile, the reformed churches will follow different paths I expect. Some of the more moderate ones will join the universal church, while the rest will continue to splinter until they are effectively run on congregationalist principles. In the end, Christianity will be so diluted and corrupted in the universal church that the Christians will be driven out, awaiting the return of Christ.

The universal church will very nearly live up to its name. As it grows and dilutes Christianity, its popularity will grow. Secular society will love it for bringing an end to sectarianism, ending bigotry. Those who do not join will be discarded under those accusations. The church will I expect preach universalist beliefs, and this will make it popular with agnostics and the less hardcore atheists - who doesn't want to believe we'll all get to Heaven? For whatever reason, those who 'believe' but only pick the nice extracts from their holy books that are fitting for modern socieity, tend to be popular in the secular world and apparently it makes them clever. And those who do not join this church will of course be hateful fundamentalists.

I think that the situation on earth is increasingly suitable for this to happen, and its already started.

[lars573]

It could happen. Not soon though. When you consider that the Anglican church is in danger of splitting over doctrine issues. The Episcopal church in the US and Anglican branches in Africa are having serious friction with the C of E and the Arch-Bishop of Canturbury. He wants to undertake a number of reforms, along the lines of what Rhyfelwyr was talking about. For the results that Rhyfelwyr was reffering to.

Most talks about reunification with Rome by Anglicans and eastern Orthodox churches always goes no where. They some times try and work together over the big doctrine issues (cause it's all very similar anyway). But actual unification never happens. Why? The Pope isn't willing to give up or share his supreme status. Anglican clergy would be unwilling to take the vow of chastity. I'm sure there is some huge stumbling blocks on the Catholics-Orthodox union side too.

[Koga No Goshi]

My two cents is, I think that for people to even go to the bother of any form of "new, united" Christian reorganization, there'd have to be a lot more people who care about Christian faith than there are. Oh there are a lot of people who profess to be Christian. The ones with a ton of motivation though, seem to spend all of their time, energy and money on pointless moral political objectives rather than furthering their faith in any meaningful way. If anything they turn people off. The rest of the people just mark "Christian" on a survey and go back to work and sleeping in on Sundays.

[Sarmatian]

It could happen. Not soon though. When you consider that the Anglican church is in danger of splitting over doctrine issues. The Episcopal church in the US and Anglican branches in Africa are having serious friction with the C of E and the Arch-Bishop of Canturbury. He wants to undertake a number of reforms, along the lines of what Rhyfelwyr was talking about. For the results that Rhyfelwyr was reffering to.

Most talks about reunification with Rome by Anglicans and eastern Orthodox churches always goes no where. They some times try and work together over the big doctrine issues (cause it's all very similar anyway). But actual unification never happens. Why? The Pope isn't willing to give up or share his supreme status. Anglican clergy would be unwilling to take the vow of chastity. I'm sure there is some huge stumbling blocks on the Catholics-Orthodox union side too.

The primacy of the Pope is the main stumbling block in Orthodox-Catholic relations. That solved, everything else would be easy. But, nevertheless, Bartholomew and Benedict have met a few times, and managed to focus on those things that two churches have in common. Orthodox and Catholics made a few important gestures since 1964. It would take a lot of time, but we may be seeing first steps toward full unification one day...

[atheotes]

outsider view here (born hindu now atheist)....
All the different denominations believe they hold the correct views in all dividing issues... so i dont see them joining together :shrug:

Unless.... there is a greater peril to christianity as a whole.... then all the differences might seem trivial :juggle2:

[Alexanderofmacedon]

if the catholics methodists and lutherans just realized the error of there ways and became Baptists it would've already happend

In a round-about-way I agree. Anabaptists had a good idea on early age baptism. I know it will not happen, but I wish they could all unite...:embarassed:

[Strike For The South]

In a round-about-way I agree. Anabaptists had a good idea on early age baptism. I know it will not happen, but I wish they could all unite...:embarassed:

joke twas a joke

[Sigurd]

If the Christians reorganize and become a great church ...

I think there is even a prophecy about it in the Bible.
Yeah, the 17th chapter in John's Revelation on Patmos ... :mellow:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It could happen. Not soon though. When you consider that the Anglican church is in danger of splitting over doctrine issues. The Episcopal church in the US and Anglican branches in Africa are having serious friction with the C of E and the Arch-Bishop of Canturbury. He wants to undertake a number of reforms, along the lines of what Rhyfelwyr was talking about. For the results that Rhyfelwyr was reffering to.

Most talks about reunification with Rome by Anglicans and eastern Orthodox churches always goes no where. They some times try and work together over the big doctrine issues (cause it's all very similar anyway). But actual unification never happens. Why? The Pope isn't willing to give up or share his supreme status. Anglican clergy would be unwilling to take the vow of chastity. I'm sure there is some huge stumbling blocks on the Catholics-Orthodox union side too.

Good points, the Anglican communion is an interesting case though because Canterbury has done his best to hold the church together and thus far has succeeded, for all the infighting it remains ONE Church. Tuff called his failure to diciplne the Americans a "failure of hierarchy" but I believe that his refusal to come down on either side of the debate has prevented an actual split, which would be far worse.

Excomunication is no laughing matter.

[lars573]

Barely though. He still wants to ordain women Bishops and bless homosexual marriages (the issues that have the US and Africa in a tiff).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Barely though. He still wants to ordain women Bishops and bless homosexual marriages (the issues that have the US and Africa in a tiff).

He doesn't want to bless homosexual marriages. He has stated that personally he believes that the passages which prohibit homosexuality in the Bible are aimed at people who want "variety" in their sexual experiences, not actual homosexuals. He has also said that he will not allow homosexual blessings because the church does not support it and there is no case from scripture for a homosexual "marriage".

As to the women Bishops, well yes the General Synod has passed that. Barely is still better than not at all though.

[lars573]

I'm going to have to try and find that article about the general synod that was in the sunday insert of the local paper. There was something in their about blessing homosexual marriages. If it wasn't that the Arch Bishop of Canturbury being for it. Then it was parishes in Britian doing it, and pushing the rest of the Anglican (whatever you'd call it) to support it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm going to have to try and find that article about the general synod that was in the sunday insert of the local paper. There was something in their about blessing homosexual marriages. If it wasn't that the Arch Bishop of Canturbury being for it. Then it was parishes in Britian doing it, and pushing the rest of the Anglican (whatever you'd call it) to support it.

The Archbishop recently diciplined a Curate for blessing the union of two former priests. That was around the time of either the Synod or Lambeth, can't remember. afterwards his own views came to light in two letters he wrote about seven years ago.