The Goal of Ecumenism 3: Ecumenism and Ecclesiality

This is the third in a sequence of posts based upon Chris James' blog post  The Goal of Ecumenism: Why and how to be one .  The first of these posts is  Why Are We Divided? and the second is The Visibility of the Church .

Section IV of the post explores 'Ecumenism and Ecclesiality'.  Here James contrasts the view that the churches are united through a common baptism with the view that no church is in itself complete.  This incompleteness is expressed through disunity amongst other things and requires repentance as the root of the ecumenical vision.

It is extremely difficult to find a definition of who we seek unity with, which draws a clear line between those who are Christian and those not considered to be Christian.  Indeed this is an enterprise that is doomed to failure.  For example, there is no consensus about what constitutes a sect rather than a denomination.  Most of us would put Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses outside the Christian family and for different reasons the Unitarians.  But what about Seventh Day Adventists?  Many would say no, but some say yes.  Some Protestant Christians do not consider the Roman Catholic Church to be Christian. 

Common baptism is an attractive possibility but how do we define baptism?  Despite a near universal recognition of each other's baptism, there are still some who do not accept infant baptism, to the extent of rebaptising believing adults.  Unitarians baptise but in the name of the unity which is why they are usually placed outside the boundary.  Seventh Day Adventists baptise but attach conditions, such as food prohibitions.  Is this really acceptable?

Then there are two denominations in Britain who are accepted as members of the British national instruments but don't practice baptism at all.  They are the Society of Friends and the Salvation Army.  I suppose it depends on what sort of a tidy mind you have.

James follows Newbigin's argument that if we gather together everything ecclesiality (not a word I've encountered outside James' post so I won't attempt to define it) demands, no church alone will meet these exacting standards.  James writes: when each church can confess that it has failed and is only a church by God's grace, it can also recognise that, despite the failures of others, they too are the church, by God's grace.

It is through conversation that churches will recognise each other's witness to the faith and, whilst perhaps always short of perfection, can move towards a fuller ecclesiality, making each other complete.  This is perhaps parallel to Wesley's teaching about perfection; something in principle attainable but always ultimately elusive.  This view of Newbigin's seems remarkably close to the recent development of receptive ecumenism .  Receptive ecumenism focuses on the churches dependence on each other to make each other complete.

Churches will do this by sharing traditions which might be helpful, as well as through conversations generating new initiatives and ideas that enable closer collaboration and greater visibility of the church.  This is I think close to Newbigin's understanding of ecclesiality as those who have been called "my people" by the God who calls things that are not as though they were.

This is in Newbigin's view a call to repentance and this is what is needed for conversation  to take place.  Conversation works where those taking part do not know the answers before the questions are posed.  To converse in a spirit of learning requires deep humility, the sort of humility that leads ultimately to perfect love.

Comments

[Chris James]

Chris,

Thanks for highlighting, this, which I think is one of the most original contributions of Newbigin to the ecumenical discussion. It allows us to extend ecclesiality to all whom we can not deny God has called church. The logical next step is then to willingly call them siblings in Christ. If God has called them the church, we must call them family. And if the unity of our family is a primary witness to the gospel of reconciliation, how then can we not strive to be in a very real and tangible sense "one"?

[Chris Sissons]

Of course this is the crunch question. Not all churches subscribe to Newbigin's analysis. You write earlier in your post about the visible church (Roman Catholic and Protestant sects) who do not see other Christians as a part of it.

This is why I have difficulty with the concept of 'extending ecclesiality'. I'm not sure what is being extended or who has the authority to do the extending. Indeed some churches would not recognise these authorities.

This means our focus needs to be on process rather than structures (implied by 'ecclesiality'). Doug Gay, a member of the United Reformed Church and previously Brethren, lectured about this a few years ago. I blogged about it some time ago, you might find it interesting. http://chrississons.typepad.co.uk/exploring_ecumenism/2009/02/problems-with-free-church-ecclesiology.html