Chapter 5 -- Response to Doug
Long time no see! I'm, er, back. . . .
I think our paths are more-or-less exactly together on this point:
Exactly. I can't get from multi-denominational hierarchy to mono-denominational hierarchy (at which point the meaning of "denomination" would finally collapse into "catholic" again) without first either solving or overruling all the denominational problems. Surely, there should be some areas in which we could cooperate this way, and I guess those for whom the existence of denominations is non-negotiable will have to keep on trying that.
What I don't understand is the need to do the back-and-forth of "destroy denominations" while embracing a strategy which requires strengthening them. It seems grossly unlikely that, say, a Presby-Lutheran mondo-denomination would feel the need to cooperate with, say, the Methodists that a small-town Baptist church feels to cooperate with the Methodist church across the way. Since when has strengthening a hierarchy ever improved total cooperation?
Seems to me that churches, absent the denominational ties that bind them, would be much more inclined to cooperate with other churches--some based on proximity (and leading to the combination of churches which, while their denominations own their leadership and their facilities, will never happen) and some based on similarity of emphasis, goals, or vision (which will help strengthen and preserve the various gifts in which various groups excel).
I think our paths are more-or-less exactly together on this point:
[Regarding Frame's assertion that issues such as paedo/credobaptism must be solved by "the courts of the one true church"--Doug, did you note the weird plural, there?] Uh, I think not. You aren't going to get a "court of the one true church" until you solve this issue. If this issue is going to be resolved, it will have to be done on a *local, congregational, and ecumenical* level, and by the time Frame's "courts" came into being, this question would have already been dealt with.
Exactly. I can't get from multi-denominational hierarchy to mono-denominational hierarchy (at which point the meaning of "denomination" would finally collapse into "catholic" again) without first either solving or overruling all the denominational problems. Surely, there should be some areas in which we could cooperate this way, and I guess those for whom the existence of denominations is non-negotiable will have to keep on trying that.
What I don't understand is the need to do the back-and-forth of "destroy denominations" while embracing a strategy which requires strengthening them. It seems grossly unlikely that, say, a Presby-Lutheran mondo-denomination would feel the need to cooperate with, say, the Methodists that a small-town Baptist church feels to cooperate with the Methodist church across the way. Since when has strengthening a hierarchy ever improved total cooperation?
Seems to me that churches, absent the denominational ties that bind them, would be much more inclined to cooperate with other churches--some based on proximity (and leading to the combination of churches which, while their denominations own their leadership and their facilities, will never happen) and some based on similarity of emphasis, goals, or vision (which will help strengthen and preserve the various gifts in which various groups excel).
posted by pgepps at 11/08/2005 08:53:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home