Blog-level schism? Reformed Catholicism and Evangelical Catholic split
The blog Reformed Catholicism has seen schism as several members start a new blog, Evangelical Catholicity. The presenting issue seems to be the question of methods for evangelizing Mormons, but these things always run deeper.
The split seems amicable as is reported by both sides. From Evangelical Catholicity’s initial post:
This blog was started by a small group of Anglicans and Presbyterians who share a common hope for the reunion of Christendom. For information on who we are and what this blog is about, please look at the “About” and “Contributors” pages. We hope that this blog will facilitate irenic dialogue between Christians seeking understanding of and union with those from other confessional backgrounds with whom they may disagree.
Reformed Catholicism’s equivalent post is indeed longer. Comprehending it is left as an exercise to the reader.
One piece of hype surrounding the Christian sector of the so-called blogosphere is “blog-level ecumenism.” That is to say, according to the hype, that Christians who would ordinarily be bound by bricks-and-mortar churches or stone-tablet confessional statements cannot encounter one another in the setting of the institutional church. However, blogging breaks down these barriers and we can see Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed Christians talking together or Baptists and Catholics sharing Bible studies online. See the hope of “irenic dialogue,” above.
My general approach to blogs tends to be one that shies away from hype and hucksterism, so glowing reports of a reunited, digital church don’t immediately appeal.
Could the Reformed Catholicism-Evangelical Catholicity split be one of the first examples of “blog-level schism?” That is, we now have an act of division (however small) within the church that would not have existed without blog tools.
January 2, 2008 at 10:56 am
[...] PGP Key ← Blog-level schism? Reformed Catholicism and Evangelical Catholic split [...]
January 2, 2008 at 11:38 am
Using the word “schism” in conjunction with blogging is a bit of an exaggeration to say the least and any “split” in the blog world was precipitated by existing separations in the reality of the broader ecclesiastical world.
Regardless as to our status via blog or by virtue of the actual communions, the bonds of Christian brotherhood are still unbreakable.
January 2, 2008 at 12:12 pm
The word schism in its formal and technical sense is certainly too strong a word. I don’t mean to use the term to suggest that Christian fellowship has been somehow actually abrogated. I meant the word in a looser sense, meaning not much more than “division among Christians.”
I intended to compare the term against the word “ecumenism,” the Internet version of which is much looser than the formal conversations between ecclesiastical administrations.
One of the pieces of hype around Christian blogging is that “existing separations…of the broader ecclesiastical world” can be easily overcome through bits and bytes. The fact that real-world divisions are reflected online is far less surprising, but shown in microcosm in events like this.
My apologies for making confusion out of this. Again, I don’t mean to offend. I thoroughly enjoy reading Reformed Catholicism and look forward to reading Evangelical Catholicity also.
January 2, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Bro. Jason,
I agree that those who think that disunity can be overcome through blogging are misguided. I assure you that I am not one of them, and I don’t think Kevin is either. Both Reformed Catholicism and now Ev. Catholicity exist for the purpose of conversation and building of understanding. As you admit, there was no “schism,” strictly speaking. There was simply a movement of some to do the majority of our blogging at a different location. However, we still confess each other as brothers, and still desire ongoing discussion with each other for the sake of greater understanding (at least I do), though this will undoubtedly now look somewhat different.
And the issue was not over evangelizing mormons, actually. Neither was it over any particular doctrinal disagreement, as we have all been aware for quite some time that we see many things differently. The primary issue which led some of us to desire an alternative site was different perspectives on how strictly a group blog should be moderated both for commenters as well as contributors, and a desire for a more irenic tone of conversation. Initially, a “split” was not what was desired, and I still don’t look at it this way. Both Kevin and myself, as well as the others involved in this whole thing, though differing on some important points, still share the same desire and goal for Christian unity, and thus remain together in this regard. I at least don’t think it will ever be acheived through blogging, and I am actually quite opposed to internet “fellowship,” if by this is meant a sort of virtual alternative to the tangible reality of the visible Church. If interent discussion ever comes anywhere near approaching anything like that for me, I pray to God that he will grant me the grace to completely quit all internet activity. And if I lack the ability to do this, I pray he will destroy my computers and make it utterly impossible for me to have an internet connection in my home again. That would be worlds better than to be so dillusional as to think that internet discussion is a valid alternative to the nourishment and fellowship provided by the presence of Christ made manifest in the visible church and her ministry of Word and Sacrament.
January 2, 2008 at 1:34 pm
[...] 2, 2008 by Jonathan Bonomo I was waiting for it to happen. It was inevitable, really. But the charge has now been made that the beginning of this new blog is a result of (gasp!) a “blog schism” between some [...]
January 2, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I would add my “Amen” to Jonathan’s comments.
January 2, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Dear Jonathan,
Thanks for picking me up and posting this on your blog.
I have been a casual reader of Reformed Catholicism for some time. As such, I’m likely misinterpreting the events. Disagreements seemed to find their focus on apologetics and Mormonism and the falling out seemed to have been more irenic than it came across to me.
I try to be as aware as possible that I write and speak from a point of view (casual reader) and not from an insider, priveliged point of view and certainly not objectively.
I agree that “fellowship” is a very plastic term, flexible and having many meanings. I cannot see how “fellowship” in the sense of theological or sacramental communion can exist via Internet. The loose and sloppy sense of “fellowship,” that of coffee and donuts after worship, certainly is here, but coffee and donuts certainly are no manifestation of the visible church!
Peace!
January 2, 2008 at 3:04 pm
[...] (HT: [lab]oratory) [...]
January 3, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I participate in a new Christian blogging community that crosses many denominational and non-denomination barriers. It’s great, for now. But, at any point someone might split off if certain things are expressed in certain ways. If 2 or more of these split of at the same time, you got yourself a schism. It’s as ancient as the Church (some belonging to Paul, some Apollos,…) and will last until Christ comes again.
March 21, 2008 at 7:27 pm
thanks much, bro