Exploring Ecumenism

Elements of Mission 4: Obedience

Elements of Mission is a term used by Timothy Radcliffe at the CTE Forum a few weeks ago.  I have previously discussed his thoughts on doctrine and morality and added my own about community.  Before I finish I will add one more of my own; obedience.

Why?  I suppose Radcliffe's reference to Sachs on obedience brought this to mind.  In my last post I briefly mentioned the word obey does not feature in Biblical Hebrew.  This means the concept only appears in Aramaic and common Greek scriptures.

Alternative Ecumenisms

Apart from ecclesiology I suppose there are three main reasons for divisions between Christian traditions.  Of these, theological differences and historical persecutions immediately spring to mind but in recent years ethical divisions have become more prominent.  It is interesting that traditions otherwise divided find unity of purpose on ethical grounds.

Apocalyptic Community

Each of Kim's three interpretations of community correspond to ways of understanding the term 'Body of Christ'.

• 'Body of Christ' is most commonly understood as a boundary condition for the Christian community.  The Christian community is defined as the 'Body of Christ'.  Those who do not conform to the community's interpretation of truth are not a part of the 'Body of Christ' and so, not heard.
• Alternatively, the boundary can be drawn to be all-inclusive.  The whole of humanity is the 'Body of Christ'.  Whilst this addresses some of the issues raised by the first, it is not an adequate response to hegemonic power.  Ultimately, the decision to draw the boundary as all-inclusive is without the consent of everyone included in it.  This effectively marginalises the powerless.
• The first two focus upon the articulate, powerful individual.  Kim's third option is to identify with the marginalised.

Boundaries Overcoming Communities

In my last post, I described the boundary protected community and showed how in neighbourhoods and in the churches these tend to sustain the power of elites, both internal to these communities and external to them.

One way of challenging this is to consciously view community as open to the whole of humanity.  Such a community would seek to overcome boundaries and offer a welcome to all people irrespective of their origins or beliefs.  The problem is that this understanding, whilst theoretically acknowledging marginalised people, still tends not to hear them.

Boundary Protected Communities

Kim, in Christ's Body in Corinth, identifies various approaches to understanding community.  It is common knowledge in British community work circles that there are 114 definitions of the word community.  The number does vary but the point is that there are lots.

This reflects the fact the politically the word community is contested.  Community is universally understood to be 'a good thing'.  So, political parties at local and national government levels want a slice of the action and individual politicians and officers see community as a positive career move.

This means that 'boundary protected communities' result from a complex web of interests; not only a simple model of members of the community seeking protection, belonging and identity through identification with that particular community. 

Unity as a Rhetoric of Control?

Today I intend to change direction and return to the theme of unity and diversity.  I will do this by way of a short book with an interesting theme that links unity and diversity to justice.  The book is Christ's Body in Corinth:The Politics of a Metaphor by Yung Suk Kim.  It examines the metaphor of the Body of Christ in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.

Over the next few posts I will examine what Kim is saying and how it applies to ecumenism in England today.

Before I do that I will review the three dimensions of ecumenism and identify where the divisions are. 

1. The first dimension is divisions between churches.  In Britain and Europe a great deal of progress has been made towards reconciliation between the mainstream churches. 
2. However, when we look at reception of the results of formal talks in the churches, things cannot be said to be quite so successful.  There is a definite sense of antagonism between local Christians and national church leaders.  Formal talks locally are seen as irrelevant and petty whilst church leaders do not take the experiences of local churches seriously or are seen as patronising when they do.  Frustration is manifested at the local level by the growth of fresh expressions and a plethora of small non-alligned churches.  Many of these see themselves as ecumenical, meaning they ignore denominational differences.
3. The introspection on the part of the churches leads to a perception that they do not care about people, about the marginalised.

From the perspective of oikoumene, ecumenism seems narrow and fixated upon relationships between church leaders, and the activities acceptable to them.

Kim argues (page 2) that churches tend to make claims of Christ as a 'boundary marker' and he asks the following questions (page 3):

Who gets to speak about unity?  Is unity an essential goal?  Or is it an ideologically disguised political rhetoric of control?  Did Paul really emphasise unity as we conceive of it today? 

These questions cut to the core of the assumptions made by ecumenists and perhaps reveal something of the tensions between local and national ecumenists.  Perhaps also it reveals something of the assumptions they have in common.  Kim writes (page 3):

... from the perspective of the powerless or the marginalised, unity is often not the solution to their predicaments, because it too often serves a rhetoric of power that sacrifices diversity.

I would argue this happens where the churches have stopped receiving from the poor and marginalised, where the churches have been too concerned with ordering their relationships with each other to the negligence of their relationship with the rest of the world.

Neighbourhood Church 5: Power

The problem is that presence, prayer, practice and proclamation are not always enough.  If churches genuinely care for their communities there are times when they must confront the principalities and powers.

I have already described the participative method Citizens' Organising and in the United States, churches have acted together to change policies that have a negative impact on their neighbourhoods (see Linthicum's Building a People of Power).  In Britain Citizens' Organising has been tried and has not been found to be very successful.  Many of its insights are helpful but a combination of British culture and political arrangements accounts for this.

I still maintain that churches need to take Power seriously.  I have suggested that in their relationships with the world outside of the churches, churches together need to engage in transformational reception.  It is not enough to provide services to our communities, however empowering they may be.  A further step needs to be taken to change things for the better.

So, here are a few points for local churches who wish to exercise power together:

1. Churches need to think very carefully about power and how they use it.  It is easy to use power for conquest.  This is not the example of Jesus.  It is easy to use power to impose solutions on unwilling people.  This is not about Christian hegemony.  It is about the churches leading and organising to bring about change for mutual benefit.
2. Churches choosing to do this need to understand the need for consent.  They do not have the material resources to challenge government policy and so their power derives from organised people.  This means there needs to be an active building of consensus through conversations, the use of force will simply not work.
3. Whilst it is possible to get away with isolated working for the first four Ps, this type of mutual power is only possible where churches are able to work together.  This should be the focus of local conversations.  National leadership can encourage these approaches but have a minimal contribution to make.
4. It is local issues that need to be the initial focus.  As the recession bites and other intractable problems kick in, it is the local focus that will result in some successes.
5. As churches develop this focus, it is possible they might also have an impact at the national level.  But this has implications for how churches work, particularly in terms of leadership. 

The ecumenical vision has to turn outwards if it is to survive.  The luxury of ongoing debates about the minutiae of faith and order are no longer seen as relevant locally.  But the problem remains, identifying what is relevant locally and how churches might effectively work together.  I will in future suggest new approaches and where possible quote examples where new initiatives seem to be working.

Participative Methods 4: Citizens' Organising

This approach was first developed by Saul Alinski during the 1970s.  He worked amongst the poorest communities in urban United States and developed forthright methods of increasing the confidence of people trodden down by poverty.  He wrote two books Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals.

After his death in the late seventies, his work was taken up by the Industrial Areas Foundation.  During the nineties IAF attempted to introduce organising to this country.  Although their may still be a few organisations around I believe the attempt has run into the sand.

I took their leaders training in 1992.  Whilst I had difficulty with the whole package they were promoting, much of what I learned has been helpful in my community development practice.  It is not a method that is written down anywhere.  This is a deliberate policy as it is supposed to be passed from practitioner to practitioner.  A good introduction to the principles is Robert Linthicum's Building a People of Power.

Here are a few of the basics:

1. Organising starts with the churches (and perhaps today any place of worship).  Why?  Because churches are there for the long haul.  In disadvantaged communities they can be the only institutions which maintain a presence. 
2. Organising is based upon an analysis of power.  The Statutory and Private Sectors (and to a lesser extent the professional voluntary sector) access power through organised money.  Communities cannot do this, as they have no money.  They access power through organised people.
3. Citizens' organisations are funded solely through the giving of their member organisations.  The reason for this is that accepting grant aid means they become beholden to the donor organisations.  They must unambiguously represent the interests of their members.
4. This is power tempered by love.  Power collectively exercised is used in a disciplined way so that no-one is marginalised.
5. The people involved are motivated by anger and self-interest.  Anger energises the leaders; ensures that things get done.  Self-interest is the deeper motivation that arises out of realising that I benefit when I work for the benefit of others.
6. Leaders are trained and developed but never occupy any position in the organisation for more than one year.
7. They work by ensuring that people with power, eg local politicians, business people, church leaders, etc are accountable to their own aims.  Citizens' Organisations have no permanent friends or enemies, the aim is always to develop relationships.

I think the problem in Britain was that it is culturally very different from the States.  We have a lot to learn but have not yet developed an approach to organising that suits our own culture.  The churches led with organising in the States and could in Britain lead in developing our own brand.  It is in fact an effective way of encouraging real sharing between churches and ecumenists could do worse than study this method.  I will explore the weaknesses of community development in England further in future posts.

What our Church Leaders think about Ecumenism

It seems to me the key to successful ecumenical conversations is to find common ground.  The reasons for distrust between traditions are varied.  Last time I considered the position of the new small churches and their relationship with the mainstream churches.  The approach I took will be controversial but it is a powerful argument to say that ecumenical relationships are the mark of a true church.

This is a brief note to draw attention to a recent exercise carried out by the Church Times and the Baptist Times.  They asked the leaders of the five main traditions in England, namely the Church of England, URC, Baptist, Roman Catholic and Methodist churches, five questions about their views of ecumenism. 

Follow the link to read an overview and then another link will take you to a page where the details of what each leader said can be found.

The message is that the leaders of our main churches, do not share the emphasis of many ecumenists on formal talks.  Their focus is on local churches.  They all claim to value formal talks although the impression is they are not where the church leaders' hearts are.

This simultaneously opens up some common ground with the new churches but also raises questions about how the conversations of local churches can have the rigour of the formal talks.  For the mainstream churches, allowing for differences of emphasis, it is most important that the church engages in ecumenical talks as a whole church.  The question for them is not whether they should do this, but how.

Participative Conversations

This is where I introduce a new theme, participation; a one word answer to the question, 'how should we conduct our ecumenical conversations?'. 

Participation is a major topic, with hundreds of websites and books about it.  And yet, in almost any church mention of participation, is likely to be met with incomprehension.  There are a few notable exceptions; for instance, some fresh expressions are exploring the use of participation.  I suspect this is happening where younger people are encountering participative methods in other walks of life and expect to find it in their religious life too.

Too many religious leaders start with the implicit assumption they have all the answers.  Many of them do have answers and some of their answers are very good answers; until they encounter the problem of reception.  People do not buy into their ideas, they remain sceptical or ignore the debates.  The famous symptom of this is the idea it is somehow wrong to bring politics into church.

Sometimes there may be consultation, where church members are graciously permitted to discuss something that has already been decided before they give it their consent.  So, we see the great debates, sometimes in the eyes of the media, where a major council of a church has to choose between a prescribed solution, rejection of the same solution and either way threats of schism.

There are of course honourable exceptions.  In the Catholic tradition, there is the practice of discernment.  The Quakers' search for the spirit of the meeting, may be a related approach to discernment. 

But it is time the leadership of all the traditions took a long hard look at how they make decisions.  How many really make the effort to take all relevant information on board?  How many trust their people?  How many listen to them, involve them and genuinely believe this is something worth doing? 

I believe God speaks to us as communities, not individuals.  The will of God for us is discerned through our conversations.  And that is conversations that are generative.  If we want to do this, we need to learn the skills.  A new 'Participation' category to this blog will explore these skills.

Last Saturday we ran a day workshop called 'Participation in Church'.  About 30 people attended from all over the country and we simply discussed what participation means or might mean for us in our churches.  It was a mix of several traditions, including some fresh expressions and other new independent churches.

This file is a brochure we produced in advance of the day, it includes a brief introduction to participative methods.

Download ParticiaptioninChurch-summary