Protestant's own 2nd Vatican Council

[Jon_Hus]

The pope will probably someday get some kind of mutual aid agreement with the liberal mainlines (United Methodists, Presbyterian Church USA, United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Anglican Church, American Baptist Churches in the USA and so forth), but that’s about it. The conservative/fundamental/evangelicals have a totally different faith system from the RCC. As a member of that group, I see no advantage in any kind of agreement like this.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

What I meant was it would probably break up before to long.

What I mean by bilateral is essentially what is going on today; Lutheran/Anglican , Catholic/Lutheran, etc. And I think it is safe to say that some of the most significant movement has been between Catholics and both Lutherans and Anglicans, as well as Orthodox.

Could the Catholic Church bridge the “sacrament gap” with those who do not acknowledge the salvific nature of Baptism? :nope: Neither could we.

You’ll have to apporach those that reject creeds.

Darn, I was looking forward to that.

It is really a neat idea, waxwing. I think, though, that there is a better chance of a council with Rome and Orthodoxy than a pan-Protestant one.

Jon

Are you sure you aren’t in the ELCA?

Mike

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Something of this sort would be great, but I would find that today it would almost be impossible. I agree with JonNC that at this stage of the game it is better to form bilateral agreements and move on from there much the same as what the ELCA has done with a couple of other groups.

Realistically, I have to look at my own denominations issues and see how we can try and cement our own divisions. Although sometimes it looks like my Synod has more in common with another denomination than another Synod. I think it is always worthwhile to work with others on healing divisions and having conversations about what still separates us in hopes of some future reconciliation.

JonNC- I really don’t have much hope of ELCA and LCMS building any bridges in the near future especially after 2009 General Assembly. Clearly, it couldn’t even happen with the LBW. Do you think that there ever could be unity even between LCMS and WELS?

Mike

 

[waxwing]

The pope will probably someday get some kind of mutual aid agreement with the liberal mainlines (United Methodists, Presbyterian Church USA, United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Anglican Church, American Baptist Churches in the USA and so forth), but that’s about it. The conservative/fundamental/evangelicals have a totally different faith system from the RCC. As a member of that group, I see no advantage in any kind of agreement like this.

For the most part I agree, though I think there are some denomination within mainline churchs which may fall into he conservative/evangelical camp, ie certain Presbyterian or Reformed denominations. Ideally I think there would be two groups, the Liberals and Conservative, but realistically I can see some churchs who theologically may line up with Evangelicals but due something of ‘trivial’ nature, IE their music is to loud, I don’t like singing out of hymnn books, those preachers sermons are to long, to loud, to many jokes, etc etc. I know it sound cynical but I think little things like this can derail unity

Of course looking into this as just a simply Conservative/Liberal divide could be seen as overly simplistic failing to look into all the subtleties and nuances within the shades of grey

 

[Cat]

I am a convert to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism.

Protestants DO have huge councils that attract representatives from many denominations, including Catholics! They don’t call them “councils;” they call them “conferences.”

The best example is “Lausanne.”

If you say “Lausanne” to an evangelical Protestant who is involved with their church, they will know what you are talking about.

The 1st Lausanne was held in 1974, and was convened by Billy Graham as a conference to teach Christians how to evangelize.

I am not exaggerating to say that all evangelical Christians, and to a certain extent, all Protestant Christians, and therefore by proxy, all Catholic Christians, HAVE been influenced by Lausanne, whether they know it or not. It is probably the closest thing Protestants have to a church council like Vatican II.

Although all are welcome to attend Lausanne, there will be many Protestant leaders in attendance, especially pastors and missionaries. This is why I think that the conference could rightfully be compared to a Catholic Church council. Lausanne is not just a big fellowship get-together singalong.

The next Lausanne will be held in Cape Town. I wish I could go.

Here is a website for more information and the history about this fantastic movement:
lausanne.org/

Another huge conference is Urbana. For several decades, Urbana has been presented by Intervarsity Christian Fellowship. The purpose is to help Christians discover how they can be involved with missions. Christians from every denomination from all over the world attend Urbana, and lives are definitely changed there. I’ve known quite a few people who attended.

I know for a fact that Catholics attend Urbana. I always wanted my kids to go, and I wish that my husband and I could go.

Here is a link about Urbana:
urbana.org/home

There are lots of smaller conferences that Protestant Christians attend. These don’t have the specific purpose of unification of Protestants into one cohesive group, but they do have the purpose of exhorting Christians to work together to accomplish a specific stated goal; e.g., evangelization, missions, etc.

One conference that changed my life and I didn’t even attend was Explo 72, which was presented by Campus Crusade for Christ in 1972. I was too young by one year to go, but a large group of kids from my church attended, and helped make up a crowd of 100,000 young people. When they came back, they galvanized the church into action, and since I was part of the church, I was galvanized into action, and have never stopped serving the Lord.

 

[Contarini]

Hello

Lately I have been thinking about our Protestant brother and sisters, as many of you know they are many denominations within Protestanism and from each branch of the denomination they are further smaller branches. If history repeats itself Protestanism will look more like a Oak tree versus a Palm tree, many would argue we are at that point already. Does any one think that its is possible that all the Protestant churches come together for a serious council, ala 2nd Vatican, to discuss the doctrine, theology, church structure, leadership etc etc. In this council they would basically say this splintering has to stop and they come to an agreement which gives Protestantism a united, stable, strong and from their point of view theologically sound front. Perhaps even amalgamate many of the denominations. I’m Catholic but have a history in the Protestant church and I don’t believe all their scattering of beliefs, people, demoninations etc does anyone any good, Protestant or Catholic.

Any ideas

It’s not going to happen. Protestants are every bit as divided from each other as they are from Catholicism. What I mean is this: find me an anti-Catholic Protestant fundamentalist, and I’ll show you someone who is just as condemnatory of liberal Protestantism (and likely considers Billy Graham and Rick Warren liberals!). Find me a high-church Anglican or Lutheran, and I’ll show you someone who frankly admits to being much closer to Rome than to much of Protestantism. And so on.

So any chances of Protestants getting together are the chances of Christians as a whole getting together. Furthermore, what would be the point of getting Protestants together all by themselves?

Edwin

 

[Cat]

It’s not going to happen. Protestants are every bit as divided from each other as they are from Catholicism. What I mean is this: find me an anti-Catholic Protestant fundamentalist, and I’ll show you someone who is just as condemnatory of liberal Protestantism (and likely considers Billy Graham and Rick Warren liberals!). Find me a high-church Anglican or Lutheran, and I’ll show you someone who frankly admits to being much closer to Rome than to much of Protestantism. And so on.

So any chances of Protestants getting together are the chances of Christians as a whole getting together. Furthermore, what would be the point of getting Protestants together all by themselves?

Edwin

It can happen and it DOES happen. Please read my post and specifically, clink on the link to Lausanne and read the history of this movement.

As for what the point would be, again, read my post and check out the links that I posted.

 

[Contarini]

It can happen and it DOES happen. Please read my post and specifically, clink on the link to Lausanne and read the history of this movement.

Yes, but that doesn’t bring all Protestants together, does it? Just one wing of Protestantism.

That’s my point. Protestantism is incredibly diverse. Even evangelical Protestants have huge diversity among themselves, but at least up to now they’ve had enough in common that it’s been worth trying to get together. I’m not sure that the present category of “evangelical” is going to be too useful in a few more decades–but there will be new categories, of course.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Here’s an example of what some conservative Protestants think of Lausanne.And of course the congress by definition includes only evangelicals.

Edwin

 

[Jon_Hus]

It’s not going to happen. … What I mean is this: find me an anti-Catholic Protestant fundamentalist, and I’ll show you someone who is just as condemnatory of liberal Protestantism…

One the other side of that coin are the anti-protestant catholics who aren’t in any mood to make any kind of good will jestures to the conservative evangelicals. But again, I see nothing for the evangelicals to be gained from such an agreement so it’s a moot point.

 

[Contarini]

One the other side of that coin are the anti-protestant catholics who aren’t in any mood to make any kind of good will jestures to the conservative evangelicals.

Yes, but since the Catholic Church does have a unified, hierarchical structure it is possible for the leaders of the Church to make clear that such folks do not speak for them. And as you can hear on this forum, except for the schismatic traditionalists even the folks who would *like *to take a hard line know that they have to pay some kind of lip service to Vatican II!

Edwin

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What I find interesting here are the Catholics, Fundamentalist, Evangelicals and Protestants living in America are united as Americans. So it is on other continents where Catholics, Protestant and Evangelical missions live side by side although many belong to different national identities.

The point I raise here is how one christian adheres to its national patriotism ( sorry to exclude Jehovah Witnesses here, who are the only so called christians that don’t subscribe to defending ones nation) bringing unity to a people.

Does this national unity shared from its citizens, reflect from the Kingdom of God?

For example; God built his (Kingdom) church upon the 12 apostles and Jesus being the corner stone which the builders rejected.

Today the successors to the apostles in the Catholic church is the only body of believers who are not under the control of any national worldly government, thus the Pope in the Vatican is free to shepherd the flock of Jesus Christ on faith and morals world wide through the college of Bishops successors to the apostles, which is never governed or ruled by any worldly King, national President or Emperor.

Could protestantism stand alone by its own merit, without any identity to a national power or monarch? One example the Anglican Church. What would be the result if protestantism removed its national identity from its christianity? Would protestantism cease to exist from its foundation from emperors, monarchs, etc, who founded them?

I mention this, because if Protestantism truly seeks an equal footing from all in a council, political parties would have to be removed first? But who would be left standing to council without a national identity? to convene a council solely on the christian faith?

Those who are left to covene in council from their own authority as a Christian apart from their national identity can begin the road to unity, by defining unity on christian morals, then how ones faith practices one’s morality.

Apart from ones national identity, these would find their christian morals to be opposed against ones own national laws, one example; legal abortion. If? and when? christian moraltiy can be found uniting all protestantism, the road to unity in faith can begin its course. Can protestantism, evangelicals, fundamentalist christians find unity in morality and publicly declare it as one voice without division?

just food for thought;

 

[waxwing]

What I find interesting here are the Catholics, Fundamentalist, Evangelicals and Protestants living in America are united as Americans. So it is on other continents where Catholics, Protestant and Evangelical missions live side by side although many belong to different national identities.

The point I raise here is how one christian adheres to its national patriotism ( sorry to exclude Jehovah Witnesses here, who are the only so called christians that don’t subscribe to defending ones nation) bringing unity to a people.

Does this national unity shared from its citizens, reflect from the Kingdom of God?

For example; God built his (Kingdom) church upon the 12 apostles and Jesus being the corner stone which the builders rejected.

Today the successors to the apostles in the Catholic church is the only body of believers who are not under the control of any national worldly government, thus the Pope in the Vatican is free to shepherd the flock of Jesus Christ on faith and morals world wide through the college of Bishops successors to the apostles, which is never governed or ruled by any worldly King, national President or Emperor.

Could protestantism stand alone by its own merit, without any identity to a national power or monarch? One example the Anglican Church. What would be the result if protestantism removed its national identity from its christianity? Would protestantism cease to exist from its foundation from emperors, monarchs, etc, who founded them?

I mention this, because if Protestantism truly seeks an equal footing from all in a council, political parties would have to be removed first? But who would be left standing to council without a national identity? to convene a council solely on the christian faith?

Those who are left to covene in council from their own authority as a Christian apart from their national identity can begin the road to unity, by defining unity on christian morals, then how ones faith practices one’s morality.

Apart from ones national identity, these would find their christian morals to be opposed against ones own national laws, one example; legal abortion. If? and when? christian moraltiy can be found uniting all protestantism, the road to unity in faith can begin its course. Can protestantism, evangelicals, fundamentalist christians find unity in morality and publicly declare it as one voice without division?

just food for thought;

Very thought provoking post. Its true we can be united under our nationality, even though we all have different experiences, perspectives, beliefs etc. But seems like we can’t get all on same page on the Church Unity Front. Two thinks came to mind about this, first faith is of greater importance, and secondly faith requires us to do something(I don’t mean to open the faith v works debate) it means to follow Jesus to put him First. We can’t be passive Christians but we can be passive citizens. Those are just couple things that sprung to my mind, I’m sure there are variety of other reasons too but just wanted to add my two cents

 

[Jon_Hus]

It is very difficult to know where to answer you so I will try here:

Today the successors to the apostles in the Catholic church is the only body of believers who are not under the control of any national worldly government, thus the Pope in the Vatican is free to shepherd the flock of Jesus Christ on faith and morals world wide through the college of Bishops successors to the apostles, which is never governed or ruled by any worldly King, national President or Emperor.

Could protestantism stand alone by its own merit, without any identity to a national power or monarch? One example the Anglican Church. What would be the result if protestantism removed its national identity from its christianity? Would protestantism cease to exist from its foundation from emperors, monarchs, etc, who founded them?

I mention this, because if Protestantism truly seeks an equal footing from all in a council, political parties would have to be removed first? But who would be left standing to council without a national identity? to convene a council solely on the christian faith?

just food for thought;

First of all, I’m no expert on the church of England but as far as government interfearence, this would only be a factor in the UK. Outside the UK, the Brittish government has little influence. None of the other non-catholic groups in the US at least are influenced by the government. So I’m struggling to see your point.

Another thing, i tried to hint in a previous post that there is a large portion within evangelical circles that are simply not interested in joining forces with Rome. There are 1000s of independent churches that function, even flurish without an overseeing body. Why would those groups put themselves under the authority of a leader that they have disagreements with and don’t have a need for those services or support?

Not to hurt your feelings, but as I see it, the driving force looking for unity is the RCC. As an evangelical, I see no positives and only negatives with joint resolutions and power sharing.

 

[choy]

there can never be a protestant council

the whole basis of protestant faith is they don’t want to be told what to believe in. they have their own interpretations of the bible and each one believes they are guided by the Holy Spirit, thus they have the truth. a council is anti-protestant because it goes contrary to how each one of them is formed. if they can agree with another about matters of the faith, they wouldn’t have broken off in the first place. but thats how each sect is founded. they either don’t agree with at least one teaching in a certain sect, or they formulated their own beliefs, they run away with it. literally.

 

[Contarini]

there can never be a protestant council

the whole basis of protestant faith is they don’t want to be told what to believe in

Overgeneralized, and who says councils are about telling other people what to believe in? A truly representative council is about discerning what *we *should believe.

As Cat said, there have been Protestant “councils.” But you’re right that none of them are going to include all Protestants.

Edwin

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It is very difficult to know where to answer you so I will try here:

First of all, I’m no expert on the church of England but as far as government interfearence, this would only be a factor in the UK. Outside the UK, the Brittish government has little influence. None of the other non-catholic groups in the US at least are influenced by the government. So I’m struggling to see your point.

Thank you for your concern, but my feelings are not hurt There can only be one shepherd and that is Jesus Christ. Jesus handed his staff to Peter and his successors until he returns (see John 21:15-18). So there can be no sharing of shepherding the flock of Jesus Christ, the shepherding is given by unbroken succession from Peter and the apostles which is only visible in both East and West Catholic Church.

The freedom you reveal here in regards to Evangelicals is not shared in most parts of the world, where only the Catholic church exists. Where the Catholic Church is severly secluded, and suppressed by dictators, never the less the Catholic church remains proclaiming Christ crucified and her mission to teach, and baptise under one shepherd under extreme life and death circumstances.

The reason I mention this, is because with out the freedom from your government, your Evangelical Churches “though rich” are limited to only the free world, and could not stand by themselves alone as 1000’s of independent Churches would not be able to withstand the onslought of dictators without one shepherd to lead them. In other words Evangelicals are powerful as 1000’s in a free world, yet because each one is independent the large number does not qualify because they are not lead by one shepherd. And without a shepherd, your numbers do not mean anything.

Besides I think an independent Evangelical Leader should he be martyred or die by natural causes, his/her church would cease, because should there be another to follow, the belief’s are subject to change, thereby beginning a new path over and over again. We don’t have this problem with our Catholic Church having one shepherd these past 2000 years.

On a side note, Where would the Evangelical churches in (the free world) America today be? if they had not protested the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church from their pulpits and just stand on their own independent teachings? I guarantee you, each of those 1000’s of independent Evangelical churches would not be existing in such numbers without those misinformed Catholics sitting in your pews.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Very thought provoking post. Its true we can be united under our nationality, even though we all have different experiences, perspectives, beliefs etc. But seems like we can’t get all on same page on the Church Unity Front. Two thinks came to mind about this, first faith is of greater importance, and secondly faith requires us to do something(I don’t mean to open the faith v works debate) it means to follow Jesus to put him First. We can’t be passive Christians but we can be passive citizens. Those are just couple things that sprung to my mind, I’m sure there are variety of other reasons too but just wanted to add my two cents

I like what you said here, because it challenges our loyalty to God. Do we first love our country or Love God first? I mean no disinheartenment to ones patriotism here;

If God says do not kill, and ones government law approves the killing of infants or preventing life in government approved laws to killing the mans or womans seed upon conception by contraception methods. Which does the Christian loves first God or government (man)? If every Christian would vote his Christian morality and not his/her governments “freewill to do what ever I want” policy, I am of the opinion that America would never had suffered a 911 crisis.

I love what you said about " We can’t be passive Christians but we can be passive citizens". The Catholic church is full of these witnesses in her Martyrs and Saints in every age. In fact every Pope walks this line when ever dictators and goverments act against our humanity or dignity especially the poor, disabled and children born and unborn, there will always be a Shepherd in all of Christendom to point out man’s errors on faith and morals. The hard part is obedience to God’s revealed Word.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit…

 

[waxwing]

Like herding cats, as has been observed. And there is no one we could all agree on as Protestant Pope. Probably a conservative evangelical who is tolerant and ecumenical, like Rick Warren, might be closest to universally acceptable among Protestants… but many reject him precisely because he is tolerant and ecumenical.

Personally, I’m somewhere in between Pentecostal, Anglican and Lutheran, and conservative on some issues and liberal on others. I probably have as much in common with Catholics and Orthodox as I do with Protestants, but neither will have me unless I buy their whole package, and I don’t think that’s ever going to happen.

That we are all Christians, and all part of the universal invisible church, is as much unity as we’re going to get anytime soon.

I definitely agree that Rick Warren should be included within the leadership at such a council but I don’t think he should be the leader, I would think someone in the mold of a Billy Graham or a John Stott might work out. Someone who has been around, is well respected, no scandals in their past, doctinally sound etc. The thing with Protestantism is that it seems it so prone to “fads”…ie seeker friendly churches, emergent movement, prosperity gospel and on and on. I would avoid anyone with the wiff of this, to me Warren does have bit faddishness (my new word ) in him, although from what I heard from him I kinda like - to be fair to him could be partly my bias against the whole hawaiian shirted and goateed pastor look . In the end one of the objectives would be to reign in these fads.

 

[Cat]

I definitely agree that Rick Warren should be included within the leadership at such a council but I don’t think he should be the leader, I would think someone in the mold of a Billy Graham or a John Stott might work out. Someone who has been around, is well respected, no scandals in their past, doctinally sound etc. The thing with Protestantism is that it seems it so prone to “fads”…ie seeker friendly churches, emergent movement, prosperity gospel and on and on. I would avoid anyone with the wiff of this, to me Warren does have bit faddishness (my new word ) in him, although from what I heard from him I kinda like - to be fair to him could be partly my bias against the whole hawaiian shirted and goateed pastor look . In the end one of the objectives would be to reign in these fads.

The problem with Billy Graham and John R.W. Stott is that these dear men are very old and not in the best of health.

Even Chuck Colson (my hero) is getting on in years.

My feeling is that this will be the task of the younger Protestant leaders, men like Pastor John Ortberg.