I should have included these quotes from Cranmer in the previous post, and I probably would have if I was not in such a rush yesterday. But at any rate, here is Thomas Cranmer writing to Melanchthon and Calvin in 1552, pleading with them to come to England for a general Protestant council in order to reach concord and unity, primarily on the doctrine of the Eucharist.
To Melanchthon:
But it cannot escape your notice, how greatly religious dissentions, especially in the matter of the Lord’s Supper, have rent the church asunder… And it is truly grievous that the sacrament of unity is made by the malice of the devil food for disagreement, and (as it were) the apple of contention. (Miscellaneous Letters and Writings of Thomas Cranmer, Edited by John Edmund Cox, Cambridge, 1846, 432.)
To Calvin:
Our adversaries are now holding their councils at Trent for the establishment of their errors; and shall we neglect to call together a godly synod, for the refutation of error, and for restoring and propagating the truth? They are, as I am informed making decrees respecting the worship of the host: wherefore we ought to leave no stone unturned, not only that we may guard others against this idolatry, but also that we may ourselves come to an agreement upon the doctrine of this sacrament. It cannot escape your prudence, how exceedingly the church of God has been injured by dissentions and varieties of opinion respecting this sacrament of unity; and though they are now in some measure removed, yet I could wish for an agreement in this doctrine, not only as regards the subject itself, but also with respect to the words and forms of expression. (Ibid. 433-434.)
Cranmer wrote similar things to Bullinger in the same year, saying that, “We must not therefore suffer ourselves to be wanting to the church of God on a matter of such importance.” (Ibid. 431.) But of course, as we know, such a council never took place. All three Reformers invited to Cranmer’s proposed council rejected his invitation, stating other affairs to which they must attend as the reason. Calvin for his part did at least claim that he would “gladly cross ten seas” to achieve such unity, only to then politely decline an opportunity to cross just one in order to work toward this most laudable of goals. And in the years which followed the deaths of these three great leaders of the Reformation, the party lines were so solidified as to make such a council well nigh impossible.
One can only say when reading such correspondence: “What if?” What would such a council have accomplished had it actually come together?
Perhaps nothing.
But then again, perhaps something.
These are just a couple of the many pieces of evidence that can be marshalled to demonstrate a general Reformation continuity with the Catholic conciliarist tradition – and thus, to demonstrate the fundamentally non-revolutionary nature of the Reformation, at least in its early stages, on the issue of authority in the Church.
What if the sons of these fathers were to gather in a General Protestant Council? Oh, the possibilities!
When I first encountered conciliarism a few years back, I was pretty excited about it for exactly the same reason. I wondered, why couldn’t there be a pan-Protestant council to iron out some of our differences? It seems so, so, well, reasonable, and it’s so in line not just with the catholic heritage of the Reformation but also with the goals of the original Reformers.
Unfortunately, it now seems to me that the Protestant world is too much in love with separationism to consent to anything like that. What motivation would the 42,000 “solo Scriptura” churches have to come to a Council, especially if they thought they might have to submit their own individual judgments about what Scripture “plainly” teaches to what the Council said?
Anabaptistic types wouldn’t come, anyway, and Baptistic types are too in love with their heritage of glorious individual martyrdoms at the hands of Unfaithful Institutions to put any stock in a common Council. Reformed people seem to love their intra-micro sectarian distinctives too much, as well. Can we really expect the “split-Ps” of the Presbterianoid world agreeing to a common council to issue ministerially binding decrees? Even if we could somehow exclude the “Machen’s Warrior Children” nutburgers who have no problem with hiving off to start a new 2-church denomination because the other one “compromises the Gospel” by interpreting WCF 31 differently than themselves, what impetus do any of the Presbyterian churches have to agree to something visible like a Council? Alas, “blood” does seem to be thicker than the baptismal waters, after all.
Lamentably, a vague, sentimentalistic and aphoristic “spiritual” unity on the terms of a “Gospel” that maximally excludes the “sinners” of other “corrupt” traditions seems to be just fine for most Protestants. It takes far less work to defend and has far more benefits to offer in terms of less personal and institutional sacrifice and forebearance with the “errors” of others. In this context, a Council could never be called, much less survive long enough to do anything significant.
Tim (#4),
You know I feel your pain. But I can honestly say that I am a tad more optimistic than you may be. The picture you paint of the Truth Warriors is accurate, but there are many–and a vastly growing many–who are just not content with this anymore. Heck, I’ve talked to a very large number of future ministers here at one of the evangelical capitals of the world–Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary–who have come to share similar discontentment and concerns, and who have consequently become very interested in studying the thinking of figures like Bucer, Schaff, Nevin, Newbigin, et al., and who are also beginning to seriously consider the ecumenical implications of such ways of understanding the Christian faith and Church.
As more and more people become struck with a vision for the unity and catholicity of the Church, sectarianism will become a thing of the past. Indeed, while the spirit of sect may seem at times to lash out with great noise and fury, these are but the vain spasms of a mortally wounded animal.
Indeed, while the spirit of sect may seem at times to lash out with great noise and fury, these are but the vain spasms of a mortally wounded animal.
I pray you’re right about that, Jonathan. Andrew Sandlin wrote something a few years ago about this subject, and concluded by saying (my paraphrase) that this generation of Reformed whack-jobs would just have to be allowed to die in the wilderness before the rest of us could move on.
Sometimes I just get overwhelmed by the lunacy of the Truth Warrior crowd, and by how much “great noise and fury” they put out, and by how many people seem to be listening to them, even to the point of whole denominations. So I swing back and forth from optimism to pessimism.
Optimism is the only way we’ll stay sane and effective, brother. It is no coincidence that, while they had a basically identical historical-theological paradigm, the consummate pessimist Nevin pretty much fell off the face of the earth after 1854, while the consummate optimist Schaff continued on to enjoy many decades of vast influence in both the academy and the Church. Though Nevin’s pessimism was certainly justifiable–especially considering that no one had any clue what the heck he was talking about half the time (most still don’t!)–it wound up doing him in.
I’ve certainly had my days when the Nevin in me swallows up the Schaff. But I have to remember, as Schaff always did, that Christ is head of his Church, and it is he who is gathering all things together in himself. Even if a reuinion of the churches doesn’t happen in our day, I am certain that our labor toward that end, however meager it may be, will not be in vain… even if the goal toward which we are striving isn’t realized until after the passing of another millenium or two.
And don’t forget “catholic Baptist” sorts that you find at places such as Baylor.
Okay, then I think we’d agree. The problem for me was when you said “catholic Church and the Baptists,” as though they were mutually exclusive. There is something seriously flawed (and yes, uncatholic) within the Baptist theological paradigm, to be sure. But I would very much want to shy away from saying that all Baptist churches are thereby excluded from the Church catholic.
On a minor note: I think your stats may be somewhat skewed. Pentecostalism is growing at a rate which will soon place us all in the vast minority (maybe it already has?).
Guys, I’m sorry for my negativity above and in other recent threads. Honestly, I’ve been having some rough times lately on several fronts, both personally and academically, and I’m afraid that true to a bad form I’ve had for many years now I have let the pressures and troubles of life too easily determine how I write online.
I don’t wish to be this way. I’d rather contribute constructively, not negatively. My apologies to you all.
Tim,
You definitely don’t have to worry about that, my friend. I think it’s safe to say that everyone who reads this blog has seen me in some pretty negative moments myself. And it is impossible to separate interaction on the internet from our own lives. We are real people in real life situations, after all.
We don’t live in a vacuum.
Well, we could argue whether or not they respresent a “catholic” Christianity. But yes, Pentecostalism is a distinctively Christian movement, albeit deviant in many respects. Some forms are heretical, some are not. The AG, for instance, is generally (though vaguely) orthodox in its conception of the Trinity and the person of Christ. http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fundamental_Truths/sft_short.cfm
Of course, I have too many issues with the statement linked to above to even be able to begin divulging them all here. But I think it is beyond question that such a statement lays out a distinctively Christian system of belief.
“Oneness Pentecostalism” is a heretical sect. And the health and wealth gospel is a blasphemous abomination. But such things do not represent all of Pentecostalism. Many Pentecostals are actually quite opposed to such things.
In general, I would describe Pentecostalism as that variety of Christianity which holds the inner experience of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by things such as speaking in togues as the most essential aspect of the Christian faith. It may or may not be orthodox with regard to its understanding of the Trinity and the person of Christ.
I do have a good number of AG friends who are entirely orthodox (though we disagree on many points, of course), and even rather historically and theologically astute. And honestly, their piety and fervor puts me to shame. One of my AG friends here at GCTS even believes in the Calvinistic conception of the Real Presence and has a keen interest in the early Fathers as well as the magisterial Reformers. The former academic dean here was also AG, and thoroughly orthodox.
Many of the caricatures by which all Pentecostals are lumped together simply are not true.
They’d say that there were true Christians throughout the history of the Church, and that the Church has always really existed, but the church for over a millenium just lacked the power which comes from the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” (though they would hold that some individual believers still experienced this). God has chosen in more recent years to pour out this blessing, for whatever reason. Some would say it is a mystery, others would say that it is because people began truly seeking the power of the Spirit once again.
Unsatisfactory, I know. But it at least betrays an attempt to understand themselves historically, and to not completely discount the pre-twentieth century Church.
As for a general protestant council:
It is hard to see it todays world. The church order has always mirrored (and sometimes created in part) the civil order, and given our current civil order, I’m not show if a GPC would make any sense. It might, but it seems to me that the more basic question that need be attended to by all denominations is what should the church look like, in the various contexts faced today. Are the models that have been used to develop what we think of as church (say, what we have modeled a minister on) still sensible, and in what ways? These sort of questions need not be revolutionary as in doing a ‘totally new thing’, and a ressourcing of various traditions would be necessary, but we are all clearly operating within ecclesial skeletons of an also skeletal (though largely ignorant of that fact) and somewhat confused civil order.
I do put a lot of the blame of a failure to carry out a GPC at the feet of the gnesio-Lutherans, but I bring them up for another reason. They, as with some of the crazy reformed of today (and then, to much smaller extent) are a great example of how a tradition will entrench itself and constantly engage in repristination. Within the first few generations of the Reformation, a GPC would have made sense, but time can be a devil for all traditions: traditions tend to operate like bureaucracies(an can in fact become so, simplicitir) with all the nepotism and unprincipled self-protection of the structure alone characteristic of such institutions.
Ryan,
I agree for the most part. I think a prelude to even discussing the possibility of a GPC would have to be churches of different confessional traditions coming together for discussion at a local level and perhaps ecnouraging a similar phenomenon in different regions. Even having all the different local representations of Presbyterianism and Reformed come together across the US would be a huge step in the right direction. If this were to really start taking place, we might begin to see movements toward things like inter-denominational regional synods (a far off possibility, I know). And only after this sort of thing were to begin happening, could we start to really discuss the possibility of a general council.
In short, so many things would need to take place that it is unrealistic (aside from a miraculous outpouring of the Spirit of Truth and Peace) to expect a GPC within our lifetime. But we can at least begin working towards that goal so that there might be hope for future generations to undertake it.
Not a perfect organization by any means, but worth looking into: http://www.christianchurchestogether.org/
The Fellowship of Mere Christianity is another fledgling grass-roots movement to build catholicity among Protestant churches across sectarian boundaries. Andrew Sandlin who is known to many around here was instrumental in its founding and is the Moderator Emeritus. Michael Craven of the Center for Christ & Culture is the current moderator. Its website (sorry for the following very long URL, perhaps the moderator can just hyperlink it to the word “website”?) (http://web.mac.com/pandrewsandlin/iWeb/Fellowship%20Official/Welcome%20to%20the%20Fellowship.html) describes it as a group of “Evangelical churches united in orthodox belief, respect, charity and accountability.”
Its core principles are:
+ Orthodoxy without fundamentalism (historic Christian belief, with charity toward all)
+ Catholicity without compromise (organic unity with all Christians)
+ Protestantism without sectarianism (finality of the Bible, salvation by grace through faith in Jesus alone)
+ Diversity without divisiveness (on comparatively secondary issues as eschatology, sign gifts, sacraments and ordinances, church government, liturgy, and music styles)
+ Accountability without denominationalism (local church priority yet contact with wider Christendom)
+ Kingdom message without a social gospel (Lordship of Jesus in all of culture)
Sorry the link for the Fellowship of Mere Christianity cut off in the previous comment. I’ll try again:
http://web.mac.com/pandrewsandlin/iWeb/Fellowship%20Official/Welcome%20to%20the%20Fellowship.html