You know, Dave - Kensington Community Church allows women to preach in the main service - and they are involved with Willow Creek - which means they are die-hard egalitarians in their views of women's roles in the church.
Is this acceptable in the eyes of the RCC? As long as they are ecumenical? I always find it interesting that the most ecumenical Protestant churches are the ones that have pretty much decided to abandon the teaching of doctrine.
Their website says: "...Maybe you think going to church means being scolded, subjected to boring sermons, and having your wallet emptied. We don't blame you. In fact, we think one of the biggest barriers to getting to know God has been the church itself." I wonder if that definition includes the Catholic church?
I just thought it was very interesting choice considering their stance on females in pastoral roles. It almost seems like some Catholics are willing to compromise a little in the name of ecumenical unity.
...unless, of course, the gender thing is a secondary and unimportant issue.
David
I find it fascinating that you would assume that because someone is trying to be ecumenical with other Christians, that they, therefore, agree with everything that the other Christians teach?
OF COURSE we do not and would not, by the very nature of the Protestant-Catholic divide.
If you tell me what denomination you belong to, I'll be happy to tell you some areas where they are dead wrong, too, according to the history of Christianity, the Bible, and apostolic doctrine.
So what is the difference? One tries to rejoice in the common ground that can be had, while respectfully discussing the differences (if one is friendly enough to allow for apologetic discussion).
I'm pretty sure I never said you agreed with everything they taught. I certainly don't think you do. That's an assumption on your part - not mine. The question is - how far can a church compromise in the name of ecumenical unity?
I guess my point is - where's the line? In terms of teachings, I mean... What's an important enough issue where I say, "You know - there's just too much of a difference here". There are things I agree with in the Mormon community, but that doesn't mean I could accept the Mormon church as christian.
The thing is - that many Protestant churches have split over the female role issue. So beyond a superficial and surface ecumenical show - do you really think a church like that and the RCC could more deeply unite? I don't think it could go much deeper.
I really do get the idea that 2 churches could work together without agreeing on every single theological point. The question is - what goes beyond a secondary issue and really effects the church? Where's the line? What doctrines are too important to ignore?
I'm pretty sure I never said you agreed with everything they taught. I certainly don't think you do. That's an assumption on your part - not mine.
Not in so many words, but something along those lines was implied in your words:
"It almost seems like some Catholics are willing to compromise a little in the name of ecumenical unity. ...unless, of course, the gender thing is a secondary and unimportant issue."
Since the post is about this ecumenical endeavor and I am involved in it, and you are commenting on my blog, a reasonable assumption is that you think I am somehow involved in some sort of "compromise". That was perfectly reasonable to conclude. But I happily accept your clarification.
The question is - how far can a church compromise in the name of ecumenical unity?
I would say not at all, and neither I nor Fr. Riccardo has compromised in the least. It's an attempt for sincere, conscientious Protestants to better understand their Catholic brethren. The doctrines of Kensington were not discussed at all in the video.
I guess my point is - where's the line? In terms of teachings, I mean... What's an important enough issue where I say, "You know - there's just too much of a difference here".
People can talk and seek to understand one another no matter how much difference there is, no? Why does talking somehow imply in some people's minds that compromise must be taking place, as if the only response to folks who differ from us is lack of talking, and hostility? Why do you make this connection?
There are things I agree with in the Mormon community, but that doesn't mean I could accept the Mormon church as christian.
I agree, but you can accept Catholics as Christians, and that is the whole point of this video.
The thing is - that many Protestant churches have split over the female role issue. So beyond a superficial and surface ecumenical show - do you really think a church like that and the RCC could more deeply unite?
This is not about institutional union but about spiritual "common ground."
I don't think it could go much deeper.
However deep it goes, it is a wonderful thing in and of itself. I wish there were a thousand such attempts.
I really do get the idea that 2 churches could work together without agreeing on every single theological point. The question is - what goes beyond a secondary issue and really effects the church? Where's the line? What doctrines are too important to ignore?
Catholics believe that all doctrines are important in the sense that there is one truth that can be ascertained. In some areas we haven't claimed to know what the one truth is (such as Molinism vs. Thomism, etc.). But we deny the notion that there is such a thing as "secondary doctrines" (such as baptism, Church government, or the Eucharist) where Christians can freely disagree and that is fine. At some point that becomes relativism, and is wholly unacceptable.
they are die-hard egalitarians in their views of women's roles in the church
I think this is the right view for them. They see pastors as people who have the talent and training to do certain things - like preach. Given that view they should not exclude qualified women from that role.
For the catholic priesthood it is not just about qualifications. It is about being called to sacramentally represent Jesus to His church. So the question of female ordination is very different because what is meant by ordination is different.
Hi Randy,
Even for a Protestant this shouldn't something that should be decided by how one feels about this issue. Even "qualifications" are irrelevant if the Bible is clear on the matter - which it is.
Paul, in 1 Timothy2:11-14, has this to say: "11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."
Your comment makes it sound like one church's teaching is as relevant as another's sacramental beliefs. But the question really is this: what is true? Do the Bible verses I just quoted really mean what they say? I'm not trying to offend you, but to my ears this sounds very much like the relativism Dave just mentioned.
Perhaps I don't understand, but what is the basis for saying a woman couldn't sacramentally represent Jesus to His church?
Is it not the scriptural teaching?
FYI: You know, Dave - down in your discussion with Ken Temple you said the following:
"You can adopt theological relativism on many points, as lots of Protestants do these days (it's very fashionable, and the latest rage). This is postmodernism, and caving into secular notions that religion cannot ever give us religious certainty in its opinions, because of so much internal dissension."
Some of the very churches in Protestantism that might fit this description are "seeker sensitive" churches like Kensington that have abandoned doctrine in favor of entertainment.
The more I think about this the more confused I am that you guys are rushing to "unite" with them. Another thing their website says is "...Instead of ritual and routine, we have compelling dramas, comedy skits, and exciting multi-media..."
So..."ritual and routine" (i.e. Catholic mass): bad. Comedy sketches: good.
I'm NOT saying this means you approve of all their ways - I just don't understand the desire to unite with a church that I imagine you would have nothing but contempt for if you were to visit a Sunday service.
Again, I'm not "uniting" with anyone. But I can find common ground with virtually anyone in the world. I find common ground with atheists all the time, and with New Agers, or my Muslim car mechanic friends. Does that mean I am uniting with them, as if I have somehow changed my beliefs? This is silly.
Whatever they believe at Kensington does not negate what was accomplished in that video. There is no relation between the two.
Sorry you think it's silly Dave so I'll just drop it after one more little comment.
I just think that the quote above is disturbing - "the bad rap that a number of the ex-Catholics attending Kensington were giving Catholicism." So the Protestants at Kensington understood Catholicism better than the "ex-Catholics"? Interesting.
Ecumenical unity seems to mean that Catholics do not have to compromise their beliefs whatsoever. ("neither I nor Fr. Riccardo has compromised in the least")
But the Protestant churches that do engage in this always seem to be the very ones that take doctrine the least seriously.
It's just an interesting observation to me. But that's all I'm going to say about it.
So the Protestants at Kensington understood Catholicism better than the "ex-Catholics"? Interesting.
I don't know if they understood it better, but they probably complained far less. Generally, those who were never Catholic (like myself before 1990) don't care all that much about Catholicism and are tolerant of it. It is the ex-Catholics who have an axe to grind: many of whom were dumb enough to claim that they never heard the gospel at Mass, etc.
It was like that with me when I was in Protestant churches. I was content to regard Catholics as my fellow Christian brethren (I didn't think much about it at all), but it was the ex-Catholics who were always complaining about how boring Mass was, and how dead Catholics are, etc. It's human nature. People who don't want to do the work of reasoning and intelligent comparative theology will carp on and on about insignificant or misguided things, in order to rationalize their own behavior.
But the Protestant churches that do engage in this always seem to be the very ones that take doctrine the least seriously.
It's true that there is some overlap in that way. The less seriously one takes their own doctrine, the more they will tend to be ecumenical. That's a reality we have to live with, and also flows from human nature.
There is a thing that I have called "ersatz ecumenism" that flows from doctrinal indifferentism and relativism, where these doctrines no longer matter very much' therefore it is easy to unite with others equally lax. That gives ecumenism per se a bad rap, but it's like anything else: there is a right and a wrong way to go about it, and the devil distorts every good thing into a caricature of itself. There are always plenty of fools that will be taken in by that.
That's not my motivation at all; I believe in a strong holding of one's views, and defense of them, along with an equal effort at tolerance and understanding of others who disagree.
Groups that have very strong beliefs (fundamentalist Calvinists, LCMS Lutherans, independent Baptists, traditional Orthodox, etc.) tend to be the more anti-Catholic, and therefore less ecumenical. They are stuck in their own false paradigms.
That's one of the million things I love about the Catholic Church. We are very firm in what we believe, yet ecumenical towards and appreciative of others.
The anti-Catholics know this; therefore when they want to knock us on toleration issues, they invariably have to go back hundreds of years and complain about the Inquisition (while ignoring all the scandal of early Protestant intoleration and persecution). So they want to (selectively) live in the past. It's a dream world, disconnected from reality.
Commenting by HaloScan
