Debate: Ecumenism and Humanism

[Eolas Pellor]

I have been asked -- well, volunteered -- to moderate this debate. I wanted to thank Evangelical Humanist and Gluadys for trusting me to do this; I hope I shall not see a mystical hand writing on my wall "Mene, mene tekel uphashin"!

I also wanted to thank Lightkeeper, and all the moderators on IFF for making this a place where people are happy to share their insights and thoughts so openly.

Now, to the question at hand. It was decided that, for this debate, the following question would be discussed:

Resolved: Successful ecumenism and interfaith cooperation must of necessity lead to increased secularism and humanism.

Evangelical Humanist will speak for the "pro" side, defending the resolution.
Gluadys will speak for the "con", disputing the resolution.


When both debaters signal (by PM to the moderator) they are ready to begin, the Moderator will flip a coin to determine posting order. To be fair, and to ensure trust in the process, the Moderator will PM the result of the Toss to Evangelical Humanist BEFORE Gluadys has the first chance (as the participant who was challenged) to "call" it in a PM to the Moderator. The call should be either Heads or Tails, and the position (starting, responding) that Gluadys wishes to take in event of winning the tossd

Now, to a few points.

1) The request was that this be a less structured debate.


2) Following from the foregoing, people will be allowed to make reference to their personal opinions and experiences. Let us try and keep this as objective as possible, however.

3) The first post, from both the pro and con, will be a defintion of terms. I think the minimum that needs to be defined -- if only for the bleachers -- would include: ecumenism, secularism, humanism and "of necessity". I suggest it may also be necessary to define the opposites of some of these terms at least: particularism and religiosity.

4) The debate will last for 3 rounds, followed by concluding statements. If some sort of concensus is reached after 2nd round, the third round will not be debate, but the clarification of terms. Alternately, if no consensus is reached after 3 rounds, input will be solicited from others.

5) A maximum of 4 days will be allowed between posts, after which I will notify the tardy debater, and publish a notice, with a "hardship" day allowed for a response to be made.

6) I will be watching, of course, for the usual bugbears of debate: the strawman and the ad hominem, as well as the lesser informal fallacies. I will not, of course, point out lapses in logic; it is for the debaters to find those! If I see anything I have reason to question, I will invite the debaters, privately, to amend their posts, and will only make a public statement if that is not done in a timely manner.

Well, I think that concludes everything I need to say at this time.

[evangelicalhumanist]

Before beginning, I would like to take a moment to thank Gluadys for taking on the challenge of this debate, and Eolas Pellor for generously agreeing to moderate – and of course, Lightkeeper for making the whole thing possible through IFF, and the membership for their attention.

There will be little “scholarship,” at least on my side of the debate. That is primarily because I am not a scholar, but also because I intend to argue a matter of opinion (mine), which, while not tested in any way that I am aware of, seems reasonable to me. Therefore, with everyone’s assumed permission, I will proceed as if I were defending a hypothesis for which I am trying to attract the funding required to develop a testable, tested theory.

My hypothesis is stated thus: “Successful ecumenism and interfaith cooperation must of necessity lead to increased secularism and humanism.”

Many of the terms in the hypothesis require definition, and I shall attempt, in my first submission, to present my own definitions. I understand that my opponent will present her definitions in her first response, and I will make every possible effort to find an argument that honours as much of the spirit of both sets of definitions as possible.

Ecumenism:
At its most general, ecumenism refers to initiatives aimed at greater religious unity or cooperation. In the broadest sense in current usage, this unity or cooperation may refer to a worldwide religious unity, usually being restricted to the development of shared spirituality across the three Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. (Non-Abrahamic religions usually are excluded). Most commonly, however, ecumenism is used in a more narrow meaning; referring to a greater cooperation among different religious denominations of a single one of these faiths.

Throughout this debate, I intend to aim my comments towards the higher-level, cross-Abrahamic-faith definition of ecumenism. In fact, although I shall not specifically say so during the rest of the debate, I will be retaining in my mind the notion of universal ecumenism, which would include other deistic and theistic religions. Having little enough evidence for my current hypothesis, I will not risk advancing a more robust one with even less evidence.

During the debate, it will be my contention that an ecumenism that consists of little more than agreeing to disagree while sending pleasant notes to each other, or holding inter-church meetings from time to time, while valuable for preventing religious contention, is of little other worth. That is not the kind of ecumenism that I wish to address. Instead, I am interested in a level of religious unity which not only promotes cooperation, but seeks to actually repair schisms of the past.

Is there an opposite of ecumenism? “Particularism” might perhaps be considered, except that it may more readily be an antonym for “universalism” and may thus lead us a bit astray. In particular, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, already seeing themselves as “universal” (the meaning of catholic), also see themselves as ecumenical, and this is not a definition that I would choose to accept for the purposes of this debate. Schism also deserves consideration as an antonym, since the opposite of unity and cooperation are separation and obstruction. I shall, therefore, consider schism to be one antonym of ecumenism, and to mean division, split or formal breach of union.

In my definition, ecumenism does not require the merging of churches, and is thus more consistent with Protestant ecumenical thought than with Catholic or Orthodox. (I cannot speak to ecumenical thinking in Jewish or Muslim contexts.) This view emphatically divorces ecumenism from my notion of orthodoxy, or right belief.

Secularism:
The generally-accepted meaning of secular is non-religious. But it would be incorrect to suggest that secularism thus equates to irreligion, or opposition to religion. Rather, secularism generally means an assertion that certain practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious belief. Alternately, it may mean promoting secular ideas or values in either public or private settings. In the extreme, it is an ideology that holds that religion has absolutely no place in public life.

I shall be using secularism in the first and second senses, but not in the third. I will hold that secularism implies that, while any member of any institution, including government, will inevitably have their views informed by their religious (and all other) beliefs, that there ought to be no formal connection between government and religion. I will not hold that religion has no place in public life – only that, no matter how public the expression, it is a private matter.

Humanism:
Broadly, humanism as I will use it here is that category of ethical philosophies which affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on an ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities – particularly rationality. Humanism is not necessarily secular, and is a strong component of several religious schools of thought. However, I will maintain that humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and moral and ethical values through human means in support of human interests. My humanism assumes a capacity for human self-determination, and therefore rejects transcendental justifications, dependence on beliefs without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. It endorses universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, and affirms that solutions to human social, cultural and other problems cannot be parochial.

Of Necessity:
Without a measure of secularism, as defined above, and without the ability to formulate moral and ethical rules through reference to human interests (rather than to divine purposes, the nature of which are always in dispute) ecumenism is unstable, and is unlikely to continue indefinitely. Everything that is unstable in the universe eventually breaks down. Therefore, I shall attempt to argue that ecumenism which is not unstable must depend, at least in part, on the definitions of secularism and humanism given above.

I shall be making reference, during my argument, to a couple of other concepts that I will also set out here:

Dogma:
A doctrine relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church, or an authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. The opposite of dogma, which will bear directly on my argument, might well be considered to be “doubt.”

Spirituality:
Spirituality is not the same thing as religion, and in fact it is entirely possible for non-deist/-theist individuals to be highly spiritual. Within the context of formal religions, for example, one must look to Buddhism or Confucianism, (which for many would be considered philosophies rather than religions) for examples of very spiritual, yet non-theistic beliefs. My argument will include the idea that neither secularism nor humanism is a threat to spirituality.

Finally, I will need to find means to measure my claims. What would “increased” secularism or humanism look like? By what means shall we know if they should come to occupy a greater place than previously in the great public dialogues? The answers, for purposes of this argument, must remain, unfortunately, anecdotal, and I will try to provide as much such anecdotal evidence as possible, in attempt to overcome its weakness.

Going Forward
In the next phase of the debate, I will try to show, through consideration of the causes and effects of prior and current schisms, and prior and current examples of partial ecumenical thinking, that:

• Dogma leads to schism
• Schism self-perpetuates, strengthens dogmatic though and religious sensibility in public as well as private life
• Concern for human needs without respect to religious, ethnic or political boundaries, and exhaustion from religious strife has been the primary mover towards
• Ecumenical thinking (where private religious belief and spirituality are in no wise discouraged) has always resulted in an even greater emphasis on human concerns, unencumbered by “missionary” urges to convert and change.
• The truest ecumenism must contemplate – and surely accept – that without certain knowledge, dogmatic teaching is unwarranted, and that private faith cannot extend beyond the individual. There must be no coercion in matters of private faith.
• Thinking persons – those for whom faith, spirituality or even scepticism are the result of true introspection and self-discovery – must conclude that this will be true for other, too. Such thought usually assumes similar processes and justifications for others, and accepts that the conclusions reached by others ought to be considered valid, at least for them.

[gluadys]

It is with a little trepidation that I begin this debate. As I have participated in a good deal of ecumenical and inter-faith dialogue, the topic intrigued me. But I also expect that ecumenical humanist and I have more in common than what divides us, so this may be more a conversation than a debate. I want to thank all those involved in setting up the format and hope readers find it interesting.

One reason to avoid scholarship is that, as far as I am aware, no one has researched the sort of proposition e.h. sets out, so there is little to go on but personal opinion and experience. There is also some history that will bear on the topic. I rather like the idea of “defending a hypothesis for which I am trying to attract the funding required to develop a testable, tested theory.”

So what I will bring to the table is my knowledge of the history of the ecumenical and inter-faith dialogue movements (with some minimal documentation), and my personal experience and observations of the effect of ecumenical and inter-faith dialogue on the participants and on wider society. That experience includes, (but is not limited to):
-working with the Ecumenical Committee for Religious Education in the Public Schools (Ontario)
-acting as a denominational representative in several capacities in Canada’s ecumenical community over a period of 15 years
-providing staff support for a local inter-faith group for five years

Definition of ecumenism
I have some difficulty with the definition of ecumenism presented by my opponent. As defined, “ecumenical” and “inter-faith” are more or less synonymous terms. While the inter-faith movement is an extension of the ecumenical impulse, it is my opinion that there are cogent reasons for distinguishing them.

Ecumenism, in my vocabulary, refers to intra-Christian dialogue across Christian denominations. It is grounded in a specifically Christian history and has specifically Christian aims, one of which is Christian unity. As far as I am aware, no other religious community has an equivalent to ecumenical dialogue, or needs one.

Inter-faith, by contrast, refers to conversations among people practicing different faiths. This fits better with e.h.’s definition. The aim is mutual respect and understanding and trans-religious co-operation, but no drive toward either organic or eclectic unity. I wonder if the usual “exclusion” of non-Abrahamic religions is peculiar to the United States, as I have not experienced that exclusion in Canada. I would agree that the most contentious relations are among the Abrahamic faiths, particularly at this time, Judaism and Islam, for obvious reasons. By contrast, some of the most fruitful discussions are occurring between Christians and Buddhists.

Other Definitions
I agree with the observations on the position of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. In terms of vocabulary, Protestant churches which are hostile to ecumenism generally hold a theology of “separation” and it might be appropriate to use their own terminology in this regard.

I agree that the level of religious unity to be addressed is not superficial, but goes beyond cooperation to seek to actually repair schisms of the past. “Schism” however, like “ecumenicity”, really applies to a specifically Christian context. Yet there is repair work to be done on the inter-faith level as well, most notably (for Christians) in terms of Christian-Jewish relations.

I have no difficulty with the definitions of “secularism” and “humanism” as given.

In clarifying what is meant by “of necessity” my opponent seems to have made a subtle shift from the resolution. In the paragraph on necessity he says “ecumenism which is not unstable must depend, at least in part, on the definitions of secularism and humanism given above.” The resolution, however, states that “Successful ecumenism and interfaith cooperation must of necessity lead to increased secularism and humanism.”

To “depend on” something generally requires the prior, or at least concurrent, existence of that on which the activity depends. To “lead to” suggests something being brought into existence which did not exist before. Perhaps my opponent would like to defend both assertions.

I have no difficulty with the definitions of dogma and spirituality.

Outline of the argument
In the next phase of the debate, I will underscore the particularly Christian nature of schism and why it is a deeper theological and practical problem in Christianity than in other faiths. From here, I will look at the roots of the Christian ecumenical movement. Based on the historic origins of ecumenism and its subsequent development, my position in brief is as follows:

Although humanism and secularism became significant in Europe in the early modern era, this movement was essentially independent of the ecumenical movement. It did not instigate an ecumenical movement, and to some degree actually impeded ecumenism. Nor did ecumenism have any major impact on increasing secularism. Inter-faith dialogue has some of the same roots as ecumenism, but became urgent as a consequence of the Holocaust and the soul-searching of Christian churches around that atrocity.

I will specifically dispute the last four points under “Going Forward.”

[evangelicalhumanist]

I could not be happier that Gluadys suspects that this debate may, for whatever reasons, turn out to be more conversation than debate. While acknowledging that we are indeed debating, I confess to a certain lack of competitive spirit – I’m far more interested in the dialogue than in winning. Still, even in dialogue it is sometimes necessary to put forward our best argument. If, at the end of the day, that argument is not good enough, or the arguments from the other side prove more persuasive, then we still stand to have learned something. In that spirit, then, I will continue to try my level best to be convincing.

On the definition of ecumenism, I recognize that I likely went too far, and that ecumenism really is used almost exclusively in a Christian context. In light of that, I will attempt to keep my arguments focused within that context. It will be difficult for me to completely give up on what Gluadys refers to as “an extension of the ecumenical impulse,” that is inter-faith cooperation, so I will continue to at least include it in my definition.

(On a side note, and not to try and elicit sympathy, when I first suggested this as a topic for debate I clearly did not think through my definitions clearly enough. Not, I regret to add, for the very first time. If I could go back, I might have framed the topic just a little differently. Still, having agreed to argue the original resolution, I am determined to press on. There is still reason to hope that I – and perhaps others – may yet learn something from the debate, even if it was poorly framed).

(On another side note, my opponent suggests that, as far as she is aware, no other religious community has an equivalent to ecumenical dialogue, or needs one. The first part of that statement may well be true – I can’t say for sure – but when I observe the conflicts, at the social level, between different sects within both Judaism and Islam, I have some difficulty agreeing that they don’t have the need for an ecumenical dialogue.)

My opponent brings up an important point, however, and that is that ecumenism has specifically Christian aims, one of which is Christian unity. So it is here that I shall begin.

There is currently a difficult dialogue going on within the Anglican/Episcopal church in Canada and the U.S., and this has implications for the rest of the Anglican community around the world. Seven parishes in Canada have so far voted to leave the Anglican Church of Canada, and are seeking membership elsewhere – particularly in South America. St. John’s Shaughnessy Church, one of the largest Anglican congregations in Canada, has voted to seek Episcopal oversight by Archbishop Gregory Venables of the province of the Southern Cone. St. Hilda’s in Oakville Ontario has just voted unanimously to do the same. I will not go through the list, but it is lengthening, both here and in the United States.

As conservative churches in the northern hemisphere align themselves with the traditionally more conservative southern hemisphere, both in the Americas and Africa, the path to true schism becomes better and better paved, and it is unlikely now to be long before a real split occurs – leaving two Anglican communions, very probably divided pretty much by the Tropic of Cancer.

At the simplest level, reasons given seem to be the fight over blessing (not performing) same-sex marriages, and the ordination of a Bishop living in a same-sex relationship. But of course, these are only surface reasons. Underlying these reasons is an understanding of what it means to be a Christian, an understanding of who Christ is, the virgin birth, and other articles of doctrine. At heart, it is because the church leadership appears, to conservatives, to be reinterpreting Scripture, and same-sex issues are merely symptoms of that deeper problem.

Although that was a very simplistic outline, I hope that my opponent will agree with its essence.

Now, as I (an outsider, a mere observer) look at this, what I cannot help but feel is that the two sides have broken down along something like these lines:

• One side is concerned with the inclusiveness of the Christian community, and recognizing that there are areas of Scripture and doctrine which, by definition, exclude some people have come to accept that perhaps Scripture needs to be understood differently in our current context, and perhaps doctrine does need to change to reflect this updated understanding of Scripture.
• The other side is concerned that Scripture and doctrine is the rock upon which the Christian community is built, and is not amenable to change. Bishop Donald Harvey, retired Dean of the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist and bishop of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador, says this: “The doctrine of the church is one thing that cannot be changed and I’ve become quite disillusioned by seeing the attempts to do that.” Bishop Harvey has become moderator of a new umbrella group for Anglicans uncomfortable with their church’s position on things like same-sex marriage.

Now, as an outside observer, I see this as a basic dichotomy between a focus on human concerns and needs with less emphasis on doctrinal authority, and one on doctrinal authority with less respect to human concerns and needs. And, as an outside observer, I also note that it generally appears to be the latter group that is actively schismatic, i.e. that is setting about effecting the split by withdrawing from the union.

Let us also look to other schisms. Naturally, one first thinks of the “Great Schism” between the Catholic and (what be become) the Eastern Orthodox churches. Of course, there were many causes, and I know that I am being overly simplistic here, but high up among the causes were the authority of the Pope over all provinces, and the insertion of the “filioque” clause into the Nicene Creed. Papal authority may certainly be looked at as non-doctrinal (although the Pope would not likely agree), but “filioque,” which for the first time had the Holy Spirit proceeding not just from the Father but from the Father and the Son, is purest dogma.

In the United States during the mid-19th century, both the Baptist and Methodist churches underwent schisms of their own, over the issue of slavery. Again, let me point out that the active schismatics were those who held to scriptural authority (to own slaves) over the concern for the slaves themselves. I will admit that there is a certain element of human avarice that must share in the blame, but there is no question that when the focus shifts away from the needs and concerns of all humans, and towards the concerns of only scriptural authority (or in some cases the concerns of the very few over the concerns of the many), then a split becomes increasingly likely.

“The great cleavage in the Presbyterian Church [1837], known as the Old School-New School Schism, has been presented as the result of a struggle which was concerned almost exclusively with doctrine and ecclesiastical government. The struggle was, to a large degree, of a theological nature.” Robert J. Breckenridge and the Slavery Aspect of the Presbyterian Schism of 1837 – Edmund A. Moore.

I will list no others for now, because I think my point has been made. Schism tends to be the result of a difference in viewpoint, and it frequently appears to be one where the focus of one side – the active schismatics – is on doctrine, dogma, the things of God, and not on the things of man.

Now, it is this observation – and I confess that I have not done the hard, scholarly work of verifying my hypothesis – that has led me to conclude that all efforts to reverse schism, or to effect some kind of ecumenical reunification, to put it another way – must somehow reverse these underlying causes. Either the one side will have to allow that Scripture, doctrinal authority and dogma are more important and put aside the concerns of fairness and justice towards individuals that are not well served by them, or the other side will have to allow that Scripture, doctrinal authority and dogma are not the inerrant work of a deity, but man’s best understanding in his current context, and that that understanding can change over the course of time, events and increased knowledge. They must accept that those like Bishop Harvey are wrong, and that doctrine can change, and ought to change when our understanding leads there. And (and this is most important to my argument) they must accept that even though they might not personally care for the current doctrine or dogma, it is of no consequence, since true religion is not dependent on either.


Now, let me take a rest here for a moment to address one concern of my opponent, that I have subtly tried to soften the meaning of “of necessity” in the resolution. Of course, she is correct, and if I had gotten away with it, my task would likely have been easier.

But let me make an observation. The wording works as well if one reads the resolution to state that “successful ecumenism and interfaith cooperation must of necessity lead to increased secularism and humanism [as a consequence].” That is to say, it was my meaning when creating the topic that secularism and humanism will increase in some measure as ecumenical initiatives are successful. So, I never intended to suggest that ecumenism depends upon humanism or secularism, but that ecumenism will lead to an increased quantity of both.

So, in this debate I must show that for ecumenical initiatives to be successful (and most especially for ecumenical initiatives to succeed in actually repairing the rifts caused by such schisms as I’ve listed above) requires that the focus of attention must turn away from Scriptural authority, doctrine and dogma and towards human concerns and needs. If I can do this, then I believe that I will have shown that when such initiatives are successful, the result must be increased humanism, at the expense of decreased adherence to superannuated dogma.

That ecumenism might lead to secularism and humanism is, in my mind, a very good thing by the way. I think it must be borne in mind, from my definitions, that secularism does not necessarily imply the loss of spirituality (although I grant that it often does), but rather the removal of the sacred from concerns of public participation, laws and government and from a large part of one’s relationships with others. The secular person, in that definition, is as free to be spiritual – even religious – as is the Ayatollah seeking to run a theocracy. The difference between them is that the secular individual, while perhaps seeking public office, will not seek to impose his or her religious views on anyone else, and will not seek to directly incorporate religious rules into law, unless those religious rules can be shown to conform to human needs and human reason. The laws against murder, against theft etc. require no divine injunction. They speak directly to our human concerns.

John Harris’s test of moral verifiability says “For a moral judgement to be respectable it must have something to say about just why a supposed wrong action is wrongful. If it fails to meet this test it is a preference and not a moral judgement at all.” (John Harris, Wonderwoman and Superman, Oxford University Press, 1992, p.42). Scripture itself calls us to overturn Scripture, and Jesus himself said that Scripture was made for humanity, and not humanity for Scripture. “We should not, therefore, have to torture scripture into self-contradictory positions, when it no longer conforms to our experience and truth and value.” (Richard Holloway, Godless Morality: Keeping Religion Out of Ethics, Canongate Books, 1999, p.81)

From a purely humanistic (or secular) perspective, our moral precepts, ethics and laws are (or ought to be) based upon observed consequences, not beliefs, superstitions or preferences. A wrong act is one that hurts others, negatively impacts their interests, violates their rights, or causes injustice. Thus, laws mandating store closures on Sunday (or any other day defined to be holy) are unjust, in that they immediately set the concerns of other groups with different holy day traditions aside. Similarly, I would consider it to be a wrong act on my part, although not illegal, to enter a mosque without removing my shoes. I do this, not because there’s a rule in place, but because I recognize the interests and sensitivities of others, and respect them. That is a humanist attitude.

Ecumenism, in my mind, must entail the abandonment of dogma, the relaxation of doctrine, the abandonment of holiness codes, little by little, principle by principle. Without doing so, it is my contention that the original causes of separation will recur, because humans are humans, and will not long have their individuality denied. Thus, for ecumenism to hold – to be successful, in other words – it must not deny human individuality, and to the extent that it does so, it will sow the seeds of its own future failure.

Can there be any question whatever that it is dogma (things which must be believed) that has been the underlying cause of all the multifarious schisms and splits that have given us, today, 38,000 Christian denominations? Can there be any doubt that as long as religion requires any dogmatic belief at all, schism will continue, and ecumenism will remain an impossible dream? Can we not see that, in the absence of any clear way to unambiguously understand the nature of God, or God’s purposes, plans and commandments, that a focus only on those things which we cannot clearly understand, and a following assertion that those are the things that are most important, that schism, which ecumenism seeks to cure, must be the result?

Successful ecumenism, then, may never be possible if we presume that religion, almost by definition, contains notions about the nature and desires of a deity, which eventually become creeds which must be believed. If this is the case, then all ecumenism is doomed to eventual failure, and while this does not prove the resolution of this debate, it certainly provides a case denying the consequent. This may be a logical fallacy, but it contains some measure of truth, in any case.

Summation of my argument to this point:

Schism (the breaking of ecumenical union) is primarily the result of different views of things which cannot be proved, and that the active schismatics are generally those who conservatively adhere to Scriptural authority, doctrine and dogma, while those who seek to change doctrine and dogma do so primarily for humanistic (inclusive) reasons.

Where ecumenism is successful, and schisms are repaired, then by definition there will be less focus on authority, doctrine and dogma, and more on human concerns -- as a consequence, not as a cause.

(Last edit to insert them missed word "more" in the first paragraph.)

[gluadys]

What is dogma?

The basic difference I have with my opponent on this segment of the argument is with his use of the term “dogma”.

Formally dogma is doctrine defined by an ecclesiastical authority as necessary to be believed. The clearest statements on formal dogma come from the Catholic church which has the most systematic procedure for defining dogma. Dogma
While all dogma Is doctrine, not all doctrine is dogma.

Whether Protestant or Catholic, there is surprisingly little doctrine that is formalized as dogma beyond the Nicene Creed. Virtually none of the controversies that have rocked the Church in the last two centuries have been over defined dogma. From the abolition movement in the 19th century to the feminist movement in the 20th to the current controversies over abortion and homosexuality, none deal with defined dogma. Of course, that doesn’t prevent the participants in these controversies from defending their opinion dogmatically.

In fact, it would be fair to say that controversies arise not because of dogma, but because there is no dogma. Dogma is created by the controversy. So the early controversy with the Gnostics led to the formulation of the anti-Gnostic Apostles’ Creed. And the controversy with Arius led to the formulation of the Nicene Creed. Had there been no controversy, there would have been no need to define an authoritative teaching.

On the other hand, while it is conflict and controversy that create dogma, rather than the reverse, it is fair to say that dogma creates schism. The purpose of dogma is to resolve the conflict by affirming one position and rejecting the other as error. Once dogma has been defined and accepted, the side deemed in error must either submit or withdraw.

It is important to note, however, that until dogma is defined, both sides can claim a basis for their position in Scripture and the teaching of the Church. This means that the perspective outlined in this paragraph is incorrect:

Now, as an outside observer, I see this as a basic dichotomy between a focus on human concerns and needs with less emphasis on doctrinal authority, and one on doctrinal authority with less respect to human concerns and needs. And, as an outside observer, I also note that it generally appears to be the latter group that is actively schismatic, i.e. that is setting about effecting the split by withdrawing from the union.

From an insider’s perspective, this is not the case. From an insider’s perspective both sides are focused on doctrinal authority. Both sides make the claim to be following the teaching of the Scriptures and/or Church.

If we look at the 19th century controversy over slavery, the abolitionists based their case just as much on the authority of scripture and were just as adamantly dogmatic about slavery being wrong as slave owners were about it being authorized by scripture.

The same can be said for more recent controversies. Martin Luther King Jr. and other leaders of the civil rights movement saw their position as being biblically-based and were as dogmatic about the equality of all races as the Afrikaners were in defending apartheid. Pro-affirming congregations and theologians today would also reject the idea that they are placing less emphasis on doctrinal authority. As far as they are concerned, they are "rightly dividing the word of truth" and see their position grounded in scripture. Furthermore they are seeking ecclesiastical approval of their position i.e. they are seeking to have it become dogma. So one can hardly claim they are less dogmatic than the anti-gay lobby.

In short, it is a misunderstanding of the progressive position to treat the word “dogma” as simply another pejorative to describe doctrinal positions one does not agree with. Furthermore, it does not reflect the actual motivation of what my opponent would call the more humanistic interpretation of the faith.

Nor can we say that one side is more schismatic than the other. The side that withdraws is whichever one is losing the battle to establish its own perspective as the accepted creed or practice of the church. And that is not always the one with less focus on human concerns. My opponent points to Canadian Anglican parishes which are severing their ties with the Anglican Church in Canada. But on the other hand, we have a formerly Presbyterian congregation in Montreal (St. Andrew’s, Lachine) which withdrew from that denomination because it refused to submit to a ruling that required it to rescind a call to an openly gay minister. And a decade or so ago, a number of American Baptist churches and institutions withdrew (not always voluntarily) from the Southern Baptist Convention as it adopted positions aligning it firmly with the Religious Right.

To sum up this section, it is incorrect to associate a more inclusive vision of Christian faith and practice with less emphasis on doctrinal authority. Those within the Church who support this vision do so because they are convinced it is required by doctrine, not because they are challenging doctrine. That is the very reason they take these issues to the highest authorities in their denominations: to have this more inclusive vision accepted and recognized as dogma. In so far as they are successful, it will appear that those who support a more exclusive Church are the schismatics, since they must either accept greater inclusiveness or withdraw. But where the decision goes the other way, it is those who have the more inclusive vision that withdraw.

Why ecumenism is important to Christianity

I made an statement in my earlier post to the effect that ecumenism was a particularly Christian concern and that other faiths seemed not to have or need an ecumenical movement. This does not mean there are no differences or conflicts in other faiths. It does mean they don’t have the doctrinal urgency that conflict and schism have in Christianity.

Hinduism, for example, is very much a culturally-based faith, much like that of the nations which surrounded ancient Israel. It did not occur to ancient Egyptians or Babylonians or Syrians to seek conversions to their faith from other peoples (nor to the Israelites until around the 1st century). It was accepted that each people had their own gods. Even today, although an outsider may be attracted to Hindu beliefs, the only way to be fully Hindu is to be born within the people, within one of the birth-defined castes with the accompanying dharma. Within the culture, there are many ways of worship, some more popular than others, but nearly all accepted as legitimate expressions of Hinduism and tolerated as such.

Buddhism is a way of life that focuses primarily on practice, not doctrine. There are some sharp differences. Zen is very different from Pure Land and both differ significantly from Tibetan Buddhism. There has been some animosity between Theravada and Mahayana forms of Buddhism. But by and large, these differences have settled into various schools that not only co-exist with each other, but also with other Asian faiths and practices such as Confucianism, Taoism and Shinto. There does not seem to be within Buddhism any felt need to unify these different ways of being Buddhist.

Differences in Judaism are fairly recent (post-Enlightenment) and largely arose as different responses to living outside the ghetto for the first time in many centuries. It may be that living as a dispersed and persecuted people meant Jews needed to maintain a stronger cultural bond irrespective of religious differences. Are the differences growing sharper within the state of Israel? I honestly don’t know. However, as long as Judaism identifies the Jewish community primarily by birth, it is difficult to do more than say an atheist is an unobservant Jew, rather than deny his Jewish identity.

In Islam, the first sharp conflict (including military conflict) was not over matters of doctrine, but over the succession of leadership. Shiites to this day regard Mohammad’s son-in-law as the first legitimate Caliph and consider the three who preceded him as false Caliph’s. Even in today’s Iraq, the Shiite-Sunni conflict is over who will hold political power. Doctrine and worship are essentially identical among the two groups. On thinking over the current situation, however, it may be that something is changing. For centuries Muslim teachers have recognized four principal schools of thought on the interpretation and application of shari’a law. All have been deemed valid expressions of Islam. In recent years the government of Saudi Arabia, which holds to a very strict version of shari’a known as Wahhabi, has invested a great deal in promoting its understanding throughout the Muslim world. Could this be a signal of an impending breakdown in the consensus and the elevation of one of the four schools above the other as “truly Islamic”? Could this lead to a schism in Islam? I don’t know; at this point I can only speculate.

In contrast to these, Christianity has laid a much stronger emphasis on “right opinion” or orthodoxy. It has defined itself by its dogma. At the same time an essential feature of its dogma is that the Church is one. The scriptural basis is set out in John 17 where Jesus’ intercessory prayer includes the petition “that they all may be one … so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” The last clause is particularly important. Unity in the Church is part and parcel of the Church’s witness to the world. For ecumenists then, overcoming schism is not at all a matter of less focus on authority, doctrine and dogma. It is rather an expression of dogma and an affirmation of doctrine based on the authority of scripture.

Summary

To sum up, while I do not dispute that ecumenism may effectively affirm a more humanist version of Christianity, I emphatically reject that it departs from an authoritative doctrinal and dogmatic position. Rather ecumenism is seen as mandated by dogma, a true expression of doctrine and fully warranted by the authority of Christ himself. Dogma is not the preserve of only the exclusive and intolerant. It is the basic teaching of the Church and whether it is inclusive or exclusive in its application will depend on how the teaching is interpreted and put into practice.

Next steps

In my next post, I want to look at ecumenism historically and examine the factors that allowed some schisms to be healed. Finally, I want to look as well at the similarities and differences between the ecumenical (Christian) movement and the inter-faith movement.

[evangelicalhumanist]

After my very worthy opponent’s last entry, I confess myself almost ready to concede defeat. Almost.

Yet, I cannot help but feel we are arguing on opposite sides of a great divide, one with purpose on the one side and outcome on the other. It is, it often seems to me, one of humanity’s more notorious failings that what we achieve seems, at best, loosely connected to what we set out to do. Or, if we achieve what we were attempting, we are frequently confronted with any number of quite unanticipated – desirable or undesirable – side effects.

This debate is coming rapidly to an end. This is my last chance, before my final summation, to make my case. Let me begin, then, with my opponent’s comment on my understanding of “dogma.” I do understand quite well that dogma is not the same thing as doctrine, and that is why (with very few lapses) I have referred to “doctrine and dogma.” I understand, too, that it is the definition of dogma (or of other hard-and-fast positions) that is typically the final step before separation. We may be able to live together in the same house while “agreeing to disagree” on any number of issues. But once an issue is defined dogmatically “necessary to be believed,” or necessary to be agreed to, then the inability to believe it or agree to it must result in one party removing themselves. When no argument or difference will be tolerated, the choice is either obedience or absence. As my opponent says, “[o]nce dogma has been defined and accepted, the side deemed in error must either submit or withdraw.”

To me, this is the first step away from humanism, as it directly and irrevocably denies each individual’s right to his or her own understanding, and grants to the few the “authority” to define whether any person is in fact in an authentic relationship with God (no matter what God thinks about it). Is that not, in the final analysis, what the various forms of excommunication are – an attempt to separate, through denial of the consumption of the body of Christ and other sacraments, the excommunicant’s relationship with God? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “It is not merely the severing of the outward bond which holds the individual to his place in the Church; it severs also the internal bond, and the sentence pronounced on earth is ratified in heaven. It is the spiritual sword, the heaviest penalty that the Church can inflict...”

And all that for presuming that one has the right to opine for himself in matters that others have decided he does not. I may be forgiven, I think, for interpreting this for myself as anti-humanistic thinking of the first order, since our ability to think and form opinions is the most fundamental thing separating us from the other animals (however often it goes unused...). And for ecclesiastic authority to attempt to deny that most fundamental right is deeply offensive to me. Reading one such effort, Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors [1], a mere 146 years old, still makes my skin crawl.

Controversy is just one expression of the human ability to discern for ourselves what seems correct or incorrect. That we may not agree, for example, that Christ was born of a virgin ought not to have anything to do with whether we thought he said some good stuff – or even stuff that ought to be reverenced.

Now, as should be clear from historical debates, scripture can be read many ways – as many ways, I should think, as there are readers. From the examples of slavery, equality of women, acceptance of homosexuality, and many more, we can see that both sides have indeed used scripture to defend their positions. Arguments as hugely diverse as Cardinal Ratzinger’s “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” [2] and Rev. Bruce Lowe’s “Letter to Louise” [3] are excellent examples from the very recent past.

If, as it certainly seems, scripture can adequately defend two opposing answers to the same question, then I am immediately struck with the inadequacy of scripture to satisfactorily answer anything at all. Any argument that leads to mutually exclusive conclusions is called “reductio ad absurdum,” and this would certainly seem to fit when scripture can claim that homosexuals are hated by God and homosexuals are loved by God, or that women may lead in the church and that women may not lead in the church, or that men should own other men and force them to do hard service, or that they should not.

(Mere humans, by the way, have no such difficulty. I know to the penny how much I owe in taxes. I am fully aware of what it is legal and not legal for me to do. I can’t understand why there should be so very much less structure to what many presume to be the most important instructions of all. And for the record, this is one of the reasons that I so dislike the notion of “scriptural authority.” If there’s no precise way to know what it is being authoritative about, it can – and oh, so frequently is – horribly misused. Just ask Pope Innocent VIII, who gave his special commendation to “our dear sons Henry Kramer and James Sprenger,” who “have been by Letters Apostolic delegated as Inquisitors of these heretical [de]pravities.” By which he meant witches, of course, which was the special focus of Kramer’s and Sprenger’s quaint but religiously acceptable little tome, “Malleus Maleficarum.”)

But I will also concede something else, something very difficult for me to do. In each of those cases that I mentioned above, it is absolutely clear that the side which defends human diversity is, from the literalist point of view of scripture, the wrong one. I am forced to admit that, where the Bible is clear, the clarity is on the side of homosexuality as abomination, that women “should be silent in the church,” and so forth. It takes a much deeper, wider, and much more indirect reading of a great deal more scripture to argue the opposite, more humanistic values. To argue that homosexuals should be put to death can be done with a verse or two from scripture. Reverend Lowe's letter supporting homosexuals was much, much longer than Cardinal Ratzinger's calling them "objectively disordered" and sinners when they loved.

But when dogma (or doctrine, or even opinion) contradicts our own innate sense of justice, then “natural religion,” that understanding of God that most closely aligns with our very human notions of right and wrong, will eventually win out. CONFESSION: I cannot prove what I just said, yet I believe it.

I do not believe that it is possible to keep people forever in thrall to what they understand to be deeply wrong, and therefore deeply offensive to their personal conception of God. The fervour, for example, with which the Salem “witches” were brought to trial and punishment, died out with barely a whimper, as if a whole community suddenly found itself embarrassed by what it had been doing. There will always be cranks and exceptions, but I do not believe that the plain common sense of the majority can be forever stifled.

Dogma that is seen to lead to injustice is harder to defend over time, and where there are those who seek to rectify injustice (as is the case of the abolitionists, those who would ordain women, or bless same-sex marriages), it seems to me that the resistance to redefinition of dogma (or doctrine) will lead only to more schism – or to the failure of any ecumenical achievements.

Where schism doesn’t occur, widespread abandonment of the church may be the result, and we can see this most especially in significant Catholic communities today. Millions of Catholics simply ignore dogma about contraception, homosexuality, divorce, sex outside marriage, etc. And in the process, they stop going to church at all. Church attendance in Catholic countries (or provinces like Quebec) has dropped off dramatically as laws that lead to injustice are dropped, and new laws which spread rights more broadly are enacted. In other words, in these largely Catholic (and therefore, by definition, ecumenical) societies, increased secularization is proceeding apace.

Much of the western world (including once-fervently Catholic nations such as Spain) has accepted natural justice, and now rejects such things as capital punishment, permits same-sex relationships (up to and including marriage), allows women to participate equally everywhere, including in leadership roles over men. This is true not just for nations like Spain, which because it is primarily Catholic is by definition ecumenical, but for those with established churches, or those with many religions and denominations. At the national level, it may be suggested (only slightly tongue-in-cheek) that the general set of laws and principles which rule us all are the extreme of ecumenism, since everyone participates equally. And at that extremely ecumenical level, religious ideologies appear unable to stop the march towards humanism and secularism.

In her last entry, my opponent argued I was incorrect in stating that the side which usually leaves (what I called the “active schismatics”) is usually the one seeking to establish God’s law in spite of injustice at the human level. She stated, “Nor can we say that one side is more schismatic than the other. The side that withdraws is whichever one is losing the battle to establish its own perspective as the accepted creed or practice of the church.” What I notice from this, however, is the bald assertion that differences cause such splits, that holding doctrine, based on scripture, “authoritatively,” when the other side sees the scriptural authority differently, causes schism. Very well, then, I agree. But as I’ve tried to show, scripture can prove the need to burn helpless women to death, for the good of all, so what else might it not be twisted to command “authoritatively?”

If scripture gives many answers to the same questions, then orthodoxy must be either mis-named, or must be based on that which can be known. It cannot be "right belief" if it establishes as fact that which is manifestly incorrect. Eventually human needs, justice etc. Dogma that does not do that, dogma that actively causes injustice, cannot provide a basis upon which a stable union can stand. It is sand, not rock. Thus, ecumenism that is stable will have to be built on the rock of what the majority can continue to agree on, in spite of the deep deliberations of the theologians. And as I noted earlier, the state of Catholic adherence to doctrine in very Catholic Spain or Quebec are perfect examples.

On the other hand, if the only authoritatively declared dogma were made out of Christ’s commands to “love one another” and “feed my sheep,” as opposed to all those “thou shalt nots” and “abominations” and sexist and jingoistic twaddle, then it could very well yield an ecumenical movement that cannot fail in spite of the best efforts of a few cranks.

And such an ecumenism would – of necessity – be humanistic.

And it will be secular because all of the “thou shalt nots” that we accept in our lives will be those that we – all of us – decide upon through our jointly-elected governments.

But of course, I cannot prove any of this. My observations of humans, on finding themselves free to think and decide on their own, leads me to suspect strongly that they will not easily give up those freedoms, and that every agreement to “live together” will be based on that which will support, rather than deny, that freedom.

As I said at the beginning, I am almost ready to concede. Yet I keep hoping that we will somehow find our “ecumenism” in a deeper understanding not of “what God wants” – which I contend we cannot know from scripture which can make opposites right at the same time – but in what we need, in what is right for us, which is just and compassionate towards all. And that we can only truly understand from a human viewpoint. (And, unfortunately for scripture, I’m afraid that it must be humans alive today, with the knowledge, the science, the history, the diversity and everything else that we have today. What humans wrote thousands of years ago may well have been adequate for their time, their context, their needs. They are not adequate to ours.)

NEXT

Although I cannot yet claim to have proven my case, I feel confident that I have laid a strong groundwork upon which to build. In my summation, I hope to bring all together, so as to convince the reader that my hypothesis that ecumenism leads to humanism and secularism, is at least deserving of further study.

Notes
1. Syllabus of Modern Errors, Pope Pius IX, 1862
THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX
2. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons
2. A Letter to Louise, Reverend Bruce Lowe
A Letter to Louise

[gluadys]

It was with a great deal of trepidation that I took up this challenge, for I believe my honourable opponent and I agree on much more than we disagree on. So it is with some surprise I find him almost conceding defeat. He suggests we are looking at things from the different viewpoints of purpose and outcome. Certainly, purpose i