What do you think?
Rate this book
Mother Church: Ecclesiology and Ecumenism
Carl Braaten here issues an energetic call for a truly ecumenical church, including a Lutheran rationale forrecovery of the historical episcopacy and papal primacy as servants of the gospel. Quoting Augustine's dictum that "You cannot have God for your father unless you have the church foryour mother," Braaten writes of the church's place in the divine scheme of things and of the variousmodernisms that distort or hide the classical Christian tradition. Tracing his own ecumenical journey, heoutlines an ecclesiology of communion and advances specific proposals for enhancing Christian unity inliturgy, spirituality, and church polity. The confessing movement named after Martin Luther he views interms of its basic intent to reform and renew the church, not to start a new Christianity in a multiplicity of separate denominations. Vigorous, provocative, well and clearly argued, Braaten's case is a formidable and timely contribution tothe ecumenical debate.
176 pages, Paperback
First published November 30, 1997
2 people are currently reading
16 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
April 13, 2025
Braaten wants to be catholic, just not Roman Catholic. Books about ecumenism always start out great, like this one, and flounder to a dismal and disappointing non-conclusion, like this one.
It has to be said that the idea of a single Christianity, one church that recognizes the need for unity with diversity, which shared the Eucharist as its most basic sign of identity, is arresting and attractive. Imagine a church where Pentecostals, Southern Baptists, Anglicans, Copts, Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholics worship together and share communion. That’s great.
The problem, which this book attempts to wrestle with, is how something like that could ever come about. Part of Braaten’s argument is that all Christians will, in order to get to unity around the Eucharist, agree on the necessity of both the historic episcopate (a reach, but fine by me) as well as the historic papacy (good luck on that one). He notes that a pope of the future would not be infallible, as in Roman Catholicism, but would be seen as the first among equals, with teaching and disciplinary authority.
Those two things, teaching and discipline, are in Braaten’s opinion the two things missing from Protestantism broadly. Where do Southern Baptists get teaching authority? What body disciplines Pentecostal churches and is recognized as having the authority to do so? If we had bishops, these two issues would be solved.
Maybe so. Sounds nice, at least.
Braaten never manages though to explain just how you get a Roman Catholic to give up Marian veneration and papal infallibility, while also getting Greek Orthodox to chill out about the filioque clause, Lutherans to reunite with Rome (although he says Lutherans and Catholics basically agree about justification now), and free church Protestants to believe that church hierarchy is not from the devil, all at the same time.
The furthest he goes is to point out that any truly ecumenical change will began from church to church, probably locally. It’s going to take a long time to make big change happen, if that’s the case.
He also hamstrings his argument somewhat when he makes a subsidiary point about issues we “know” the truth regarding. The bishop of Rome only became supreme over time (sure). The monarchical episcopate went through a process of growth and change (yep). Moses didn’t write the Pentateuch (do we know that?). Paul didn’t write the Pastoral Epistles (except that he definitely did). Braaten makes these claims like they’re self-evident, which they are not, and as if they are totally unobjectionable, which they are not.
His desire for ecumenism (laudable) means that he doesn’t take seriously the very real issues of ecclesiology and biblical theology that will divide any ecumenical communion he manages to create. How am I, a biblical conservative on questions of authorship, supposed to take him seriously when he blithely claims that “we all know Paul didn’t actually write any advice to Timothy of Titus”? How is even a moderate Roman Catholic supposed to credit Braaten’s ideas when he says that “we’ll just get past papal infallibility”?
I know Braaten has thought deeply about all of this, and I don’t want to do an injustice to his book or his broader work, but his prescriptions on these things, coupled with a real lack of genuine action items, leaves this book feeling very pie-in-the-sky.
It has to be said that the idea of a single Christianity, one church that recognizes the need for unity with diversity, which shared the Eucharist as its most basic sign of identity, is arresting and attractive. Imagine a church where Pentecostals, Southern Baptists, Anglicans, Copts, Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholics worship together and share communion. That’s great.
The problem, which this book attempts to wrestle with, is how something like that could ever come about. Part of Braaten’s argument is that all Christians will, in order to get to unity around the Eucharist, agree on the necessity of both the historic episcopate (a reach, but fine by me) as well as the historic papacy (good luck on that one). He notes that a pope of the future would not be infallible, as in Roman Catholicism, but would be seen as the first among equals, with teaching and disciplinary authority.
Those two things, teaching and discipline, are in Braaten’s opinion the two things missing from Protestantism broadly. Where do Southern Baptists get teaching authority? What body disciplines Pentecostal churches and is recognized as having the authority to do so? If we had bishops, these two issues would be solved.
Maybe so. Sounds nice, at least.
Braaten never manages though to explain just how you get a Roman Catholic to give up Marian veneration and papal infallibility, while also getting Greek Orthodox to chill out about the filioque clause, Lutherans to reunite with Rome (although he says Lutherans and Catholics basically agree about justification now), and free church Protestants to believe that church hierarchy is not from the devil, all at the same time.
The furthest he goes is to point out that any truly ecumenical change will began from church to church, probably locally. It’s going to take a long time to make big change happen, if that’s the case.
He also hamstrings his argument somewhat when he makes a subsidiary point about issues we “know” the truth regarding. The bishop of Rome only became supreme over time (sure). The monarchical episcopate went through a process of growth and change (yep). Moses didn’t write the Pentateuch (do we know that?). Paul didn’t write the Pastoral Epistles (except that he definitely did). Braaten makes these claims like they’re self-evident, which they are not, and as if they are totally unobjectionable, which they are not.
His desire for ecumenism (laudable) means that he doesn’t take seriously the very real issues of ecclesiology and biblical theology that will divide any ecumenical communion he manages to create. How am I, a biblical conservative on questions of authorship, supposed to take him seriously when he blithely claims that “we all know Paul didn’t actually write any advice to Timothy of Titus”? How is even a moderate Roman Catholic supposed to credit Braaten’s ideas when he says that “we’ll just get past papal infallibility”?
I know Braaten has thought deeply about all of this, and I don’t want to do an injustice to his book or his broader work, but his prescriptions on these things, coupled with a real lack of genuine action items, leaves this book feeling very pie-in-the-sky.
May 29, 2017
provocative - very provocative reading for Confessional Lutherans. Your call as to whether you read it or not.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews