One of the benefits of hosting the Carnival of Christian Reconciliation is that many (if not all) of the posters will submit two posts, one of which is a response to a question posed. However, I unfortunately overlooked the announcement (sorry) that a host had been found, and haven’t got a second post ready. But this month’s question is interesting. That is the following:
Have you read articles, essays, or books by a Christian of a denomination other than yours — and found yourself agreeing with much of what he or she wrote? How has this changed your understanding of the divisions in Christianity?
My answer can be found … below the fold. The first part of the question is trivial, in that I have difficulty understanding how the reverse might be true, that is how could one restrict one’s reading to just that produced inside one’s denomination. The question is not why a person would not do this, but more, how. How could a Roman Catholic not read books by Moreland, N.T. Wright, Mahaney, Zizioulas and so on. How could a Protestant refuse or not read Chesterton, Merton, John Paul II, Benedict, or Lossky. Or an Orthodox not read … well most of those mentioned above (except the two Orthodox snuck into the lists). This not to mention writers from past ages who’s thought is thought more aligned with one or the other, e.g., Augustine or Aquinas and Catholicsm or Maximus and Orthodoxy for example.
The second part of the question is more interesting. From personal experience (as requested) this is somewhat telling. For, while the reasons I fell away from the Christian faith are varied, after I married and my wife and I had children, we began attending a church (Anglican/ECUSA) regularly even though I didn’t believe. Three years ago, I returned to the fold. For this question the reason of my return is significant (which is my excuse for recounting this). For it was Chesterton’s little book Orthodoxy, which woke me up. Chesterton, recall … was Roman Catholic. And since then, I’ve been reading voraciously enough to come to the idea that those ideas which are in common between us outweigh those differences. At the same time, it was largely my reading which led me away from communion with my former denomination to a new one. But, still, I think that books will not bring us together as much as they might keep us apart. Book in the end, might prove neutral in the ecumenical swing in the 3rd millenia if it does indeed take place. Only by communing together, in Eucharist, in face to face dialog, perhaps via the net, and in sharing our lives will we be convinced not just our minds, intellecutually, but more importantly in our hearts that we must be together.
I too believe that “unity will not be attained at the snapping of fingers, but at the breaking of bread.”
Books (and other non-interactive means) are good for preparing oneself for these face-to-face encounters. But they certainly can’t replace actual (or virtual, via the internet) human contact.