It may surprise many, but all my talk about ‘ecumenism’ and ‘Muscular Christianity’ is not new; these are things that have emerged within the body before, and I am often (certainly with my ecumenism) accused of things that are more appropriate to what I would like to term the ‘old ecumenism.’ So forgive me, I pray that I write a slightly self-indulgent article to explore the contrasts and similarities between the ‘old and new’ regarding ecumenism and muscular Christianity.
So, let’s start by talking about the old ecumenism, which has found its form today in what is called the ‘World Council of churches.’ This group had its origins in the 1910 world missionary conference, which was born in response to the late missionary surge of the Catholic Church and the recognised need for vast unreached people groups brought home to western protestants because of the colonial empires. This group, which embodied more than 100 churches (all protestants; most reformed), voted in 1938 to form the World Council of Churches; groups which had emerged between 1910 and 1938 like ‘Life and Work’ and ‘Faith and Order’; groups dedicated to exploring ways that Christians can live, work and worship together; were absorbed into the world council of Churches. The WCC gave birth to a university of sorts in Switzerland, which specialises in the study of ecumenism and ecumenical exploration. Also, the Commission of the Churches in International Affairs is a body that supposedly speaks to international concerns with a collective voice of the churches. Naturally, the Council got involved in the politics of the day – providing a forum for east-west discussion during the Cold War; it opposed apartheid in South Africa and played a role in cultivating ‘evangelism’ and ‘alms’ work around the world. The WCC of churches has hundreds of affiliated Churches, mainly Protestant, but with many Orthodox churches. The RCC has cordial relations with the WCC, often sending delegates to its meetings.
The World Council of churches approach is leadership-based, and very sadly, like much of the Church, as we have often opined on this blog, it was more formed by the Enlightenment than by the Apostle’s teachings. The limitations of the WCC broadly reflect that of the broader body of Christ in their acceptance of and commitment to Liberalism and the religion of Humanity, and this permeates the group and all of its activities. The focus of the WCC today is, for example, on the following:
Church and ecumenical relations: This is a series of meetings, papers, and statements exploring Christian unity and offering common Christian positions on matters of common concern, such as studying and praying together and empowering women in church leadership, particularly across Africa. They seek to speak up for ‘indigenous’ people across the world and combat climate change, social injustice, and the scourge of war through ‘walking together’ on a ‘pilgrimage of peace.’ Nearly all of its ‘activity’ is ‘educational’ and reflective; it would not be unfair to call it a giant talking shop, and an echo chamber whose concerns are those framed with the progressive liberal mainstream.
Is that what I mean by the ‘new ecumenism’; no, certainly not! The new ecumenical movement is a lay movement; very few Church leaders subscribe to it, but many lay Christians – those in the pew – agree with it. It is not an institution but a movement, and its concerns are based on the following matrix. What threatens Christian values and beliefs in society, whether Liberal Progressive militancy, or the militancy intrinsic to Islam, with incumbent oppression of Christians, or the threats of Marxist or ethno-nationalist ideology? The new ecumenism recognises that the Church has real enemies who seek to harm the Church and hamper her work. It calls Christians to unite from a purely practical position in the face of such enemies to overcome them. It seeks to stand up against cultural or political projects that are directly opposed to Christian values and beliefs, like abortion, trans-ideology, or a liberal framing of multi-culturalism, xenophobia, or racism! The new ecumenist is not concerned with institutional unity but rather unity on the field of battle in the culture war!
The new ecumenism emphasises activism over discussion. We are not concerned with an endless cycle of discussions but rather principled political activism connected to the axiom of overcoming the enemies of the Church and the Christianisation of society. We do not deny our differences; we do not pretend there are real issues to debate and discuss. Still, we find such discussions on our understanding of the sacraments as of secondary importance to either the concern of preventing the spread of Sharia law or reversing the cult of self’s grip over culture today and those doctrines that unite us as Christians.
The new ecumenist does not seek dogmatic unity but accepts the reality of differences between us. We value all that unites over all that divides and work with charity, compassion, and love to cover the distance between brethren on these matters whilst not breaking ranks with one another in the face of common threats. Thus, we do not seek a reconciled view of the sacraments; we hold our differences in tension with our love for one as is whilst seeking to encourage one another to be disciples of Christ. Any such discussions between us are done with the belief that such issues of difference are not salvific.
We require nothing more for our doctrinal unity than belief in the plain reading of the Nicene Creed, with or without the filioque and with whatever understanding of baptism is held by the one reading it. It would be fair to say our unity is the ‘simple Christianity’ of Dr. William Lane Craig and C.S Lewis. We vehemently reject those who seek to pit Christians against Christians as profoundly poor in judgment at best and, at worst, disciples of Satan, the accuser of the brethren! We seek to deliberately emphasise all that is in common or can be held in common with some creative tension. We are happy to work together in a common cause outside of the formal structures of our denominations, in ‘secular’ groupings, whether purely relational or institutional.
We reject the hijacking of the World Council of Churches to the Liberal Progressive agenda; instead, we fix our eyes on a vision of society that could broadly be termed a new Christendom. Ours is a unity based on the desire to see a Christian nation and confederacy of nations working together to embody in law, culture, economics, arts, and society Christian values, beliefs, and practices, borrowing from the history of the Church in local cultures; to help make such things real. We consciously reject the religion of humanity, the cult of self, and its influence on the old ecumenism.
So, what then of Muscular Christianity? What was the old Muscular Christianity, if I can now speak of the new Muscular Christianity? I should point out that when I started speaking of ‘muscular Christianity,’ I had no idea that others had framed it before, and my intellectual project, and anything that forms out of it, is in no way the fruit of the old Muscular Christianity. We share a phrase in common and quite accidentally synergize in some respects. The old and new share no relationship.
The Old Muscular Christianity emerged as a protestant movement around the 1850s. It emphasized patriotism, physical athleticism, self-discipline, and self-sacrifice. It was a protestant spirituality; one could think of it as an update on the code of chivalry for the modern man now that the time of the knight was over! It flourished in the Victorian Public School system and was about spiritual and physical formation to produce the kind of man – suited to how Victorian England saw itself. Theodore Roosevelt was said to have been raised in a home that consciously practiced this spiritual formation, and authors like Charles Kingsley, Ralph Connor, and Thomas Hughes have been associated with it. It built upon and probably took too literally the Apostle Paul’s reference to the Athlete pummeling the body to be fit to run the race and win the crown. However, it embraced the Renaissance’s humanism and gave value to the aesthetics of pagan Roman culture and the idea of the ‘ideal’ physical frame. The school of thought was simple: physical discipline leads to spiritual discipline, and physical sports, especially team sports, were a way of cultivating Christian discipline, practice, and values. It was an attempt to frame a masculine spirituality within the framework of a modern liberal nation-state.
The new Muscular Christianity contrasts in that it is more about ideological purposes – the establishment of a new Christendom and the defeat of the enemies of the Church- than a spirituality of formation of what it is to be a Christian man. We owe more to Francis Schaeffer, R J Rushdoony, Gustavo Gutierrez, and Catholic Integralism than any author of the old muscular Christianity. It is true that because we believe that we should confront the enemies of the Church – on whatever field they choose to bring the battle to us – we also appeal to a masculine spirituality that seeks to combine martial disciplines and physical fitness to clear ideological goals. We seek to embody a Christianity unfiltered by the Enlightenment. Our patriotism is to mother church alone, the people of GOD, and the body of Christ, wherever she is in the world! We believe that men should be formed – in virtue and physique, but not because we esteem the physical form, but out of the necessity of being able to defend the faith and the Church. We emphasise holy suffering more than any ideal of the body. We emphasise mental astuteness and being deeply rooted in the faith through knowledge over being physically active – but we encourage the latter as much as possible.
The Church is a body of people – not an institution, and as such, it needs to mold itself to the needs it faces from age to age. The collapse and death of all the Christendom of the world has meant that the people of GOD have no state protector or backer. We have increased hostility and no haven, and, as such, we must work together to re-establish the connection between the Christian faith and the state (preferably multiple states at the same time) or some other model of social governance. The persecution of Christians requires greater solidarity amongst Christians of all denominations and a much more spiritually and physically robust formation of the Christian man. Therefore, we seek a modernised revival of the chivalric code, not as in the past, to turn warrior brutes into gentile knights of the cross, but to turn weak and cowardly Christians into gentile warriors of the cross. We want the Church to be known by all as the group in society who does not start trouble, but with whom, you should not seek to start trouble – as it would be too costly to do so!
So, in closing – I invite you to embody these two ideals – a new ecumenism with a new muscular Christianity and work for a new Christendom!
