What do you think?
Rate this book
In One Body Through the Cross
Drafted by sixteen theologians and ecumenists from various church traditions, who met over a period of three years in Princeton, New Jersey, this document seeks to steer contemporary efforts at church unity away from social and political agendas, which are themselves divisive, and back to the chief goal of the modern ecumenical movement.
176 pages, Paperback
First published January 31, 2003
2 people are currently reading
15 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 - 3 of 3 reviews
December 4, 2021
This is an interesting take on the modern ecumenical movement. The drafters pull no punches in their criticisms of the World Council of Churches and similar groups while also recognizing the value that such organizations played in beginning the ecumenical movement in the twentieth century. The authors provide a history of ecumenism in the twentieth century, along with a biblical-theology of its importance. They conclude with advice for how to achieve the visible unity the church ought to have without disregarding the genuine cultural, liturgical, and theological differences of various traditions.
One of the more salient points is the concern that my denominational heritage has largely taken the place of our shared Christian heritage. While our denominational distinctives are important, many of them are sociologically or culturally defined. Christian unity can only be achieved when we set aside our commitments to our own cultural expression of Christianity.
One of the more salient points is the concern that my denominational heritage has largely taken the place of our shared Christian heritage. While our denominational distinctives are important, many of them are sociologically or culturally defined. Christian unity can only be achieved when we set aside our commitments to our own cultural expression of Christianity.
January 1, 2020
I found the first half of this book (or statement) delightfully refreshing. The idea of Christian unity being founded in the cross and surpassing denominational boundaries, not only in invisible unity of the Spirit but also in visible unity by this same Spirit, is extremely attractive to me, and I find it to be a biblical truth (John 17). However, what I found as I read was that the practical out-workings of this ecumenism were weak. For one thing, the signers say denominations shouldn't abandon their tradition and heritage, but then urge for churches to craft statements that are "formulated for the widest possible Christian audience." What about confessional churches who have real disagreements and distinctions? This seems to be secondary. The Reformation was also blamed for the majority of "consumerist" woes within the universal church (pg. 39). The overall burden of ecumenism began to shift more to the Protestant side around this point in the statement.
The practical duties of each denominational tradition were revealed in the section "Our Ecumenical Responsibilities" in which Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and Orthodox Christians were given their shared responsibilities in uniting the visible church. The problem was, however, that the Evangelicals shared the majority of not just duties but blame. The Roman Catholics papacy problem was treated with kid-gloves. The statement suggested that the Roman Bishop has a special role to play in ecumenism due to his authority over half the Christians in the world. The statement says, "While the papacy is undoubtedly a continuing stumbling block for many, the bishop of Rome is also the only historically plausible candidate to exercise an effective worldwide ministry of unity" (pg. 54). It goes on to say that the papacy must teach beyond the walls of Rome to the rest of the church; this is the role of the Roman church.
For Evangelicals and Pentecostals, however, the duties are much more comprehensive. They must be more involved in ecumenical efforts (fair enough). They must not presume "others' faithlessness and spiritual death," but "they should discern and celebrate living faith beyond their boundaries." Evangelicals also act out of "isolationist and sectarian spirit," have a "truncated vision of apostolic tradition," and only use resources to benefit their own traditions (pg. 56). If only we recognized the Roman papacy as legitimate, we may have unity? This seems to undermine the actual theological qualms Protestants have with the Roman church. The Orthodox church has its duties as well, but only one: be less divisive and nationally oriented (pg. 57).
I found the first half of the statement to be encouraging and engaging, but the second half to be either theologically naive or intentionally dismissive of actual theological differences. I agree that the Church must be one, and that this unity is "already but not yet." This unity must be visible eventually, but I do not believe that calls for the laying aside of actual ecclesial differences and the trivializing of doctrinal distinctions. Because, as we can see from this statement, not even the Roman Catholic signers are willing to do this.
The practical duties of each denominational tradition were revealed in the section "Our Ecumenical Responsibilities" in which Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and Orthodox Christians were given their shared responsibilities in uniting the visible church. The problem was, however, that the Evangelicals shared the majority of not just duties but blame. The Roman Catholics papacy problem was treated with kid-gloves. The statement suggested that the Roman Bishop has a special role to play in ecumenism due to his authority over half the Christians in the world. The statement says, "While the papacy is undoubtedly a continuing stumbling block for many, the bishop of Rome is also the only historically plausible candidate to exercise an effective worldwide ministry of unity" (pg. 54). It goes on to say that the papacy must teach beyond the walls of Rome to the rest of the church; this is the role of the Roman church.
For Evangelicals and Pentecostals, however, the duties are much more comprehensive. They must be more involved in ecumenical efforts (fair enough). They must not presume "others' faithlessness and spiritual death," but "they should discern and celebrate living faith beyond their boundaries." Evangelicals also act out of "isolationist and sectarian spirit," have a "truncated vision of apostolic tradition," and only use resources to benefit their own traditions (pg. 56). If only we recognized the Roman papacy as legitimate, we may have unity? This seems to undermine the actual theological qualms Protestants have with the Roman church. The Orthodox church has its duties as well, but only one: be less divisive and nationally oriented (pg. 57).
I found the first half of the statement to be encouraging and engaging, but the second half to be either theologically naive or intentionally dismissive of actual theological differences. I agree that the Church must be one, and that this unity is "already but not yet." This unity must be visible eventually, but I do not believe that calls for the laying aside of actual ecclesial differences and the trivializing of doctrinal distinctions. Because, as we can see from this statement, not even the Roman Catholic signers are willing to do this.
June 18, 2022
The sixteen theologians behind this document have provided a good concise call for a more visible Christian unity. Perhaps reflective of their dominant demographic, this proposal may understate the extent to which contextual diversity is an essential ingredient of unity. The point is not absent, it's just a bit muted in light of the dynamics of homogeneity that remain to be fully repented of in the church. That said, this proposal doesn't really put another foot wrong. It is an illuminating read especially for those who paper over current divisions or have fallen for the market impulse to make a name for themselves, ostensibly in the name of mission.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews