Pub Date : 2003-01-01DOI: 10.1163/2468-1733_shafr_sim170220058
Jill K. Gill
Robert Bilheimer headed the International Affairs Commission of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. (NCC) during the Vietnam War. His experiences illustrate that Christian liberals were divided over what constituted ecumenism and the methods by which churches should confront sociopolitical crisis. As a traditional ecumenist shaped by the World Council of Churches, Bilheimer struggled with activist new-breed leaders over how the NCC should witness against the Vietnam War. Ultimately, the churches' captivity to cultural pressures, the hegemony gained by new-breed ideas, adherence to top-down communication methods, the turf-driven nature of the denominations, and the era's divisiveness sunk Bilheimer's efforts and the traditional ecumenists'vision.
{"title":"The Decline of Real Ecumenism: Robert Bilheimer and the Vietnam War","authors":"Jill K. Gill","doi":"10.1163/2468-1733_shafr_sim170220058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2468-1733_shafr_sim170220058","url":null,"abstract":"Robert Bilheimer headed the International Affairs Commission of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. (NCC) during the Vietnam War. His experiences illustrate that Christian liberals were divided over what constituted ecumenism and the methods by which churches should confront sociopolitical crisis. As a traditional ecumenist shaped by the World Council of Churches, Bilheimer struggled with activist new-breed leaders over how the NCC should witness against the Vietnam War. Ultimately, the churches' captivity to cultural pressures, the hegemony gained by new-breed ideas, adherence to top-down communication methods, the turf-driven nature of the denominations, and the era's divisiveness sunk Bilheimer's efforts and the traditional ecumenists'vision.","PeriodicalId":39220,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Presbyterian History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64420512","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The conflict over homosexuality is fundamentally over religious authority, whether PC(USA) unity should be based pri- marily on theology or polity. As these realms function in the Church, they have served as two contrasting strategies of defining and shap- ing doctrinal debates. Since 1927, the Church has allowed disagreement by not defining doctrine nationally, preferring "polity," with local governing bodies deciding "essential" theological tenets. This functioned adequately in maintaining theological peace until the 1960s, when serious conflict emerged, lead- ing to theological confusion, drift and mem- bership decline. Two developments, the Book of Confes- sions in 1967 and tighter ordination vows after reunion in 1983, changed the theological context, creating a possible middle way be- tween authoritarianism and anarchic individu- alism. This made the Confessions a public, consensual and reformable "authoritative in- terpretation" of religious truth, allowing for a "progressive orthodoxy," although few in the sexuality debate realized this. Amendment B was in part designed to encourage a process of theological unity. The history of theological debate demonstrates that only by making the- ology primary, by working through the Con- fessional texts, can the PC(U.S.A.) avoid polar- ization and create a theological center based on civility and conviction.
{"title":"Making theology matter : Power, polity, and the theological debate over homosexual ordination in the Presbyterian church (U.S.A.)","authors":"Fred W. Beuttler","doi":"10.2307/3512109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3512109","url":null,"abstract":"The conflict over homosexuality is fundamentally over religious authority, whether PC(USA) unity should be based pri- marily on theology or polity. As these realms function in the Church, they have served as two contrasting strategies of defining and shap- ing doctrinal debates. Since 1927, the Church has allowed disagreement by not defining doctrine nationally, preferring \"polity,\" with local governing bodies deciding \"essential\" theological tenets. This functioned adequately in maintaining theological peace until the 1960s, when serious conflict emerged, lead- ing to theological confusion, drift and mem- bership decline. Two developments, the Book of Confes- sions in 1967 and tighter ordination vows after reunion in 1983, changed the theological context, creating a possible middle way be- tween authoritarianism and anarchic individu- alism. This made the Confessions a public, consensual and reformable \"authoritative in- terpretation\" of religious truth, allowing for a \"progressive orthodoxy,\" although few in the sexuality debate realized this. Amendment B was in part designed to encourage a process of theological unity. The history of theological debate demonstrates that only by making the- ology primary, by working through the Con- fessional texts, can the PC(U.S.A.) avoid polar- ization and create a theological center based on civility and conviction.","PeriodicalId":39220,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Presbyterian History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"1999-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3512109","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68507305","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：