Factions, ecumenical, Papacy etc

Hans Kung bravely (for a Catholic) has a go at the whole office of the Pope in the Roman Catholic church. Perhaps, says Kung, if the Papal office were more about serving the church and less about securing power, protestants and the Orthodox would rejoice. He lists Peter three temptations as those that tempt those in the Petrine office: the temptation to pull Jesus aside and tell him better (papal infallibility), the temptation to assert unfailing devotion to Jesus, the very moment the denials come, and the temptation to look at the task and of others (in John), instead of loving Jesus and caring for his sheep.

"In this respect, it must be pointed out finally that each Church in virtue of its history has its own peculiarities which are not accepted in the same way by others: each has, so to speak, it's "speciality". These "specialities" however are of varying importance. The Catholic "speciality" of course is the Pope. But Catholics are not alone in this. The Eastern Orthodox also have their "Pope": this is the "tradition". For Protestants it is the "Bible". And finally "freedom" for the Free Churches. But as the "papacy" of the Catholics is not simply the Petrine ministry of the New Testament, neither is the "tradition" of the Orthodox simply the apostolic tradition, not the "Bible" of the Protestants simplt the Gospel, nor the "freedom" of the Free churches simply the freedom of the children of God. Even the best password is misused if it becomes a party program with which men march out to fight for power in the Church. A party program that is often linked with the name of a leader. A party program which necessarily excludes others from their own church....... If we were to permit ourselves an anachronism here, we should undoubtedly indentify the Catholics with the party of Cephas, which would any case be right as against all the rest in virtue of his primacy, his power over the keys and his pastoral power. The Eastern Orthodox would be the party of Apollos, explaining revelation in light of the great tradition of Greek thought more spiritually, more thoughtfully, more profoundly and even 'more correctly' than all the others. The Protestants would certainly be the party of Paul, who is in fact the Father of their community, the apostle par excellence, the unique preacher of the cross of Christ, who laboured more than all the apostles. Finally the Free Churches would be the party of Christ himself, free from the constraints of all the other Churches, their authorities and confessions, relying solely on Christ as the one Lord and Master and in the light of this developing the fraternal life of their congregation"
Hans Kung "On Being a Christian" pp502

What is Paul's answer in Corinthians? All things are your in Christ Jesus. All the gifts of God belong to all of God's church. To guard the gospel is not to assume that you 'own' it.

How to change and stay the same

" a church can lose its soul by being so progressive that it fails to remain what it is in all the change, or by being so conservative in remaining unchanged that it does not become anew what it ought to be"
Hans Kung "On Being a Christian" pp35

This book is beautiful (so far). It has one of the most compelling introduction I have ever read.

The political agenda of Christians

"But might there not be an enormous significance for both the individual and secular society, for the whole field of public and political life, for people in evey position, in every office and in all ranks, as also for structures and institutions,...in the light of Jesus Christ

on the identification with the weak, sick, poor, underpriveleged, oppressed and even the moral failures?

on forgiveness without end, mutual service regardless of rank, renunciation without a quid pro quo?

on the removal of barriers between associates and non-associates, distant people and neighbors, good and bad, in a love that does not exclude good will even to opponent and enemy?

on the norms, precepts and prohibitions, which exist for the sake of men, and on the men who do not exist for the sake of norms precepts and prohibition?

on the institutions, traditions and hierarchies, to be relativised for man's sake?

on God's will as supreme norm, which aims at nothing but man's well being?

on this God himself who identifies himself with the needs and hopes of men, who does not demand but gives; who does not oppress but raises up; who does not punish but liberates; who establishes the absolute rule, not of law , but of grace?

on this death finally and it's forsakenness and on the hope of new life and the consumation in God's kingdom?

Does it need much imagination to see that things would look different, not only in man's heart, but also in society, its structures and institutions, if this message were really lived? or indeed that things look different even now whenever this message is lived? We do not really lack a fundamental Christian program, there is nothing wrong with this Christ Jesus himself: it is entirely the fault of Christians if too little is changed in the world.

Christians

themselves are the strongest argument against Christianity: Christians who are not Christians. Christians themselves are the strongest argument for Christianity: Christians who live a Christian life. Faced with the familiar and hardly pleasant history of the Church, we often forget the very much more encouraging history of Christians- unfortunately only to a very limited extent an object for the historian"
Hans Kung "On Being a Christian" London:Collins, 1977. pp558