The Future of Multilateral Ecumenical Dialogue

This article offers an overview of work undertaken in multilateral ecumenical dialogue, as it has been conducted at the international level by the commission on Faith and Order of the World Council of Churches (WCC), to clarify the issues discussed in this dialogue and the methods used. In particular, the article analyzes the statements on unity made at various WCC assemblies. While they demonstrate a certain continuity regarding the key points of church unity they identify, they clearly mark a shift in the overall understanding of how unity is conceived. The second part of the article examines the current ecumenical situation and its importance for this dialogue, to show how Faith and Order has responded and what further progress in multilateral dialogue might look like.     

Mere Metaphysics: An Ecumenical Proposal

This is the second part of an essay that appeared in Modern Theology in October, 2018, entitled “After Heidegger and Marion: The Task of Christian Metaphysics Today.” Whereas the first part made a case for the importance of metaphysics to Christian theology (specifically in the form of an analogical, proto‐Christological metaphysics), and hinted at its ecumenical potential, the point here is twofold: first, to provide a more detailed argument for analogical metaphysics as the kind of metaphysics Christianity in fact implies; secondly, to elaborate its ecumenical potential – now, though, more specifically, with regard to the Christian East. Whereas the previous essay sought to overcome while respecting the difference between Catholic analogy and Reformed dialectics by arguing for a dialectical analogy as the proper form of Christian metaphysics, here the specific task is to show a formal compatibility between the analogical metaphysics of the Christian West and the sophiological metaphysics of the Christian East. Accordingly, the goal is to show that there is such a thing as a mere metaphysics – a common metaphysics – of the Christian tradition, notwithstanding real differences and mutually enriching emphases.     

The Orthodox Church in the Contemporary Ecumenical Dialogue

Since its beginnings, the ecumenical movement has been influenced by the Orthodox Church, as seen, for example, in the 1920 Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Two convictions have underpinned the ecumenical commitment of the Orthodox Church: the need for better mutual understanding between churches and the desire of the Orthodox Church to witness to the truth in its ecumenical relations. There have been instances where the Orthodox Church has not been able to assert its views, and indeed its dialogue partners have come to decisions contrary to the principles of the Orthodox Church. However, this article will focus on the extent to which the Orthodox Church has been able to present its message and effectively influence developments, something that can be observed mainly in two areas: (i) the early church creedal tradition, specifically the Nicene Creed, and (ii) the liturgical heritage, particularly the relationship between baptism and chrismation.     

Justification within Recapitulation: Irenaeus in Ecumenical Dialogue

Justification has a relatively minor place in Irenaeus's thought. He discusses it particularly in his polemics against Gnostic approaches to the Scriptures and to the law. Justification typically serves for Irenaeus within a broader, participatory framework of salvation. When we take these aspects into account, unexpected ecumenical possibilities open up between Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants. One of the most important lessons from Irenaeus's discussion on justification, therefore, is that justification should not be treated as an insulated doctrine. Instead, it is an aspect of participation in Christ's recapitulation and as such serves to uphold and strengthen our deifying union with God in Christ.     

Orthodox–Reformed Dialogue and the Ecumenical Recovery of Theosis

Agreement about theosis in Orthodox–Reformed dialogues played a small but strategic role in the ecumenical recovery of the patristic doctrine of deification and its emergence as a locus of Reformed theology. Ecumenical dialogue helped dispel the idea that theosis is a distinctively Orthodox doctrine incompatible with the Western tradition. This idea was first propounded in the 19th century by Albrecht Ritschl, Ferdinand Kattenbusch, Adolf von Harnack, and others associated with the Ritschlian school. It was later appropriated by émigré Orthodox scholars. Orthodox–Reformed dialogue helped correct this and other misconceptions about theosis. This began informally in correspondence between Thomas F. Torrance and Georges Florovsky and continued in formal dialogue meetings. Orthodox–Reformed dialogue also highlighted patristic ways of thinking about salvation that were not then prominent in Reformed theology. However, as the Reformed participants consulted the works of John Calvin, they realized that he shared those patristic ways of thinking. Today, Reformed theologians are eager contributors to the ecumenical recovery of theosis. They increasingly discuss theosis as a doctrine native to the Reformed tradition.     

齐文化的特征、旨归与本质--兼论齐、鲁、秦文化之异同

齐文化是先秦时代的东方大国——齐国所创造的文化系统。这一文化系统以广收博采、融合创新为特征,以富国强兵、诏令天下为旨归,以实用主义为本质,与鲁文化与秦文化相较有着自己的鲜明特征。鲁文化是道德的理想主义的文化,秦文化是建构的功利主义的文化,而齐文化是实用主义的文化。然而,齐文化由实用主义流衍为功利主义,复由功利主义流变为享乐主义,致使其在政治上没能完成统一中国的大业,文化上未能由区位文化上升为中原文化的主体。