RAMANAM
In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.

I proposed:

Is not the Church – as distinguished from the churches in the sense of denominations, counting Vatican among them — in need of a Third Church Ecumenical Council, after Nicaea and Chalcedon, to formulate and promulgate a creedal/confessional statement that aims to preserve the intent of those Councils — Jesus as the Christ (Nicaea) and Jesus as of Nazareth (Chalcedon) — but with more accurate, or perhaps better put, less distorting, conceptual tools?

This observation was received:

“… it appears that the Body of Christ is more interested in division than in unity these days (if not since the eleventh century).”

I replied as follows:

Perhaps it is accurate to affirm that the leaders of the churches are more interested in division than unity these days and that the Leader of the Church, the Body of Christ, is indivisible by nature and therefore definition, regardless of whether that reality is recognized.

It has seemed to me in this present situation of world-wide dis-ease that the divisibility of the leaders of the churches, to include the embodiments, personal and structural, of their teaching in systems of education, government and industry, serve as avenues of exploitation by social and ideological forces desiring dominion, wealth and/or women, the usual gods and goals of aggression.

Thus the thought that perhaps a leonine voice from the depth of the Church represented in Council affirming the indivisibility of God, which works out by theology to the indivisibility of culture, religion and morality, could close the avenues of attack currently under exploitation, and from a center of power and meaning that transcends them, and thereby truly lead the dimensions of spirit and history forward and upward.

A set of discursive tools suited to the task is needed. Surely our secular discursive tools foster division and our Christian theological discursive tools do not all still communicate the central paradox (= that which is unexpected, not that which is absurd, illogical or nonsensical) of God taking/putting on humanity.

[Is there] such a set of discursive tools?

I think of the developed and, as I have observed its use, inspiring ontological approach of Paul Tillich, because it is traditional, descriptive and genuinely ecumenical (inclusive), but of course, it contrasts radically — which is a good thing, given the meaning of that word — with the entertainment speech that is nearly lingua franca in the revivalist, literalist and scientific or nominalist contexts built out during the last century.

Update 1: Why The American Church Should Go Off The Grid.

AMDG – VICTORY