United we can to more than we each do individually or congregationally.
This is the part that frightens me the most--the idea "we can do more". Historically when we "unite to do more" it has translated into more death and destruction, including when "the church" has been more united. The Roman Church in its unified days of hegemony unleashed some awful things against the neighbor. Likewise, the Eastern Church does not have a sterling reputation among its neighbors for actions taken during times of its hegemony. None of us think "bigness" is particularly a good thing in most facets of life. Our nation went through a "trust-buster" period against "big business". Some believe today that Wall street has gotten way too big. Others are of a mind Big Labor is a problem. Monsanto is believed to be much too big. One party rule has meant problems for many countries. Too much concentration of power and authority in fallen human institutions peopled by fallen individuals has not meant good things for the greater populace. It is simple hubris to believe these facets of human nature do not apply to the very human institution we call the "visible church." I think one of the reasons God has allowed the disunity to predominate is because it is safer for His people. If we could actually be unified as one as the father and Jesus are one it would be a different story but until God actually does that by raising us to new life, it best remain our prayer rather than become our agenda.
When the church was united with itself - the first 300 years. It was an effective witness in a world of heathens. When the church became united with Empire. Then death and destruction came. As the saying goes: "Power tends to corrupt." The church gained power. A quote I read, but can't remember where, is that the Christianity changed from being a religion we were willing to die for, to one we were willing to kill for. Another author suggested, and I agree, that Constantine's conversion was more about changing Christianity than about changing Constantine.
Thank you for supporting my contention. We live in the post-Constantinian age. Pandora's box was opened. The cat is out of the bag. People think in terms and categories consistent with that age. Some in the church think all would be well if we all were united, but the only unity we know is the unity of Rome we embraced so many centuries ago. Rome was not christianized so much as christianity was Romanized. We have all returned to being creatures of law, attempting to force, coerce, negotiate, and compromise our way to some sense of a visible unity rather than soaking in the unity provided by the Lord and radiating that same unity out into the world.
Nope, we know the unity in the Spirit expressed in scriptures - before Constantine converted the church. Some experts say that we need to get back to the pre-christendom mindset if we are to be effective in our non-Christian world.
A few years ago I heard Diana Butler Bass speak. She made reference to
The Future of Faith by Harvey Cox. He presents these different understandings about the Christian faith:
0-400 CE – faith IN Jesus – people trusted Jesus
400-1900 CE – faith ABOUT Jesus – fights occur over right theology
1900 CE –
experience of Jesus – this began with the modern Pentecostal experience
Ironically, in recent discussions, how often were "liberals" criticized for talking about "experiences"?
I believe that it was Bass who mentioned in exact date in the 400 when the church changed. The date was when a Christian killed another Christian for not having quite the right doctrine of Christianity. The faith had become one adherents were willing to kill for rather than one they were willing to die for - as it was in earlier generations.
In those early years, Christians didn't have time or energy to be fighting one another, because they were at war with the world. They were united in their simple confession: "Jesus is Lord." (In some places they might have added, "and Caesar is not.") We have a model of a united church that was not Rome based.
