tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post4468708261002098324..comments2024-01-09T12:59:32.666+01:00Comments on Narrative and Ontology: Israel and the Divided ChurchPhil Sumpterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-48714686689771292542008-04-08T16:58:00.000+02:002008-04-08T16:58:00.000+02:00Thanks Eric, I hope you enjoy the book. I'd love t...Thanks Eric, I hope you enjoy the book. I'd love to read it too, one day ... <BR/><BR/>Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I'm no historian, so I appreciate your input. By "divided", Radner means "not in communion." Was that the case before 1053. As for that date, you are right, it is also an example of division. The sub-title of Radner's book, however, says "... in the West," so I'm guessing he just wanted to focus where is expertise is. <BR/><BR/>I don't think Radner thinks the Spirit has totally abandoned the church. I don't know the details how this works, but he does talk of light breaking through and God working with the situation as it is. Which would pose a large view of God, one able to work with brokeness, though only to a degree. <BR/><BR/>Was there a sharp downturn in the church's witness after 1053? I wonder how one would measure that.Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-39093207359854878532008-04-07T17:34:00.000+02:002008-04-07T17:34:00.000+02:00PhilSpeaking as a historian... Irenaeus may have b...Phil<BR/>Speaking as a historian... Irenaeus may have been speaking in the time of the "undivided church", but the Church has been divided from soon (historically speaking) after his time and ever since. Several of the Eastern Churches base their existence as distinct bodies back to the 4th and 5th Century controversies. Why pick on the Reformation specifically? Was the Great Schism of 1053 not a meaningful division in the Church? The events that precipitated it were certainly far from examples of Christian love and charity, and it has left a legacy of distrust and suspicion that continues to the present day.<BR/>To put it simply, Radner's thesis, as you have summarised it, would seem to imply that the Holy Spirit left the church at least a thousand years ago, if not 1500...<BR/>This seems to me demonstrably untrue, to display an extremely small view of God, and to require a very strange interpretation of Church History...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-66423435628412725202008-04-06T23:22:00.000+02:002008-04-06T23:22:00.000+02:00Radner's essay sounds fascinating, despite its pot...Radner's essay sounds fascinating, despite its potential shortcoming mentioned in your post. I would have to agree that the divided church truly does veil the gospel in its divisions, especially from itself. If theology truly is the grammar of ecclesiastical life, then such realities can only be properly understood in their embodiment. Thanks for the post! I'll have to look into reading Radner's book.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com