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.

[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.