Exploring Ecumenism

A New Ecumenical Vision

In this and the next few posts I want to explore a few scenarios.  I suppose the first post in this series is the one about scenario planning .  One drawback of the method is its costs in terms of people, time and finance.  It would be a major step forward to carry out something like it.  Even within one country, to bring together the widest range of representatives of all types of church to work on future scenarios would be a very significant step.  Whilst this is something which could be attained over a few years focused work, it is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future. 

So, I want to ask what some new scenarios might be like.  The point of this and next two posts is not to suggest a way forward for the churches in Britain, only they can do that, but to show there are positive scenarios available to us beyond traditional full visible unity.

The Goal of Ecumenism 5: Striving for the Goal

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

Newbigin hoped the unified Church of South India would serve, as a catalyst for more local unions.  Sadly, it was largely an isolated event and therefore, according to Newbigin, it "failed in one of its great purposes".

It is worth asking why it failed to be a catalyst.

Two Ecumenisms?

The arrangements put in place by the Roman Catholic Church  to admit Anglicans disillusioned by women bishops has highlighted a couple of other issues about ecumenism in Britain. 

The joint statement  made by the two archbishops recently states what might be called mainstream ecumenism will continue between the two churches.  These are the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC ) and the International Anglican Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission (IARCCUM ).  I am sure they will continue but we need to understand something of the context in which they will continue.

It is significant that this move came as something of a surprise to the Archbishop of Canterbury and I will explore the reasons for this in my next post.  It seems to me that we are moving into an era where we have at least two ecumenisms.

The Goal of Ecumenism 4: Openness versus Effort

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

I must confess to a degree of impatience with the idea that ecumenism is a some sort of eschatological truth.  Of course I understand that the fullness of God's plan for humanity will not be revealed until the end times.  But how practical is it to assert this truth?  It feels like a cop out: we can't do anything about it now because it is an eschatological truth.

Fresh Expressions of Ecumenism

To a meeting of Churches Together in South Yorkshire yesterday, to hear Bishop Stephen Croft, the new Anglican Bishop of Sheffield.  Before Bishop Stephen was consecrated, he was team leader of Fresh Expressions, at the time an Anglican and Methodist initiative to encourage and support fresh expressions of church.

I want to record Bishop Stephen's three priorities for the next period of the ecumenical journey.

1. To sustain the many good things that are happening between the churches.
2. To help these established ecumenical churches engage with newer Christian movements and communities, currently outside of formal ecumenical structures.
3. To examine how we might work together to establish new Christian communities.

There is nothing particularly new here.  It is good to hear a senior figure make the third point because whilst there is much interest in establishing new Christian communities, it is usually seen as a mission activity rather than an ecumenical activity.  He was quite explicit, making the point that it makes sense to pursue this ecumenically and it does not make sense to pursue it denominationally.

I suspect local churches have to learn a lot about working together if they are to make this work but it is good to hear the challenge being put to all churches or Christian communities.

Churches Together in England Forum 2009

Yesterday I returned from Churches Together in England's Forum.  This body of about 300 people meets every three years and provides guidance to CTE about the state of the churches.  The theme this year was Changing World: Changing Church? 

I attended the last Forum in 2006 and dipped into the Forum in 2003; this time I noticed a change in mood.  I was not the only person to feel this and I will try to write a few lines about my take on what was happening.

The Case for Structural Ecumenism

I think I realised only the other day that I am a structural ecumenist.  This has crept up on me silently and I'm not sure I'm happy to find myself in this place.  But here I am.

It is easy to think of this in terms of implementing decisions made by the councils of the churches.  This is what I am paid to do.  I cannot ignore the decisions made by Conference and my role is to do my best to help local Methodist Churches participate ecumenically with other churches.

Is the Tide Going Out for Ecumenism?

Photo by Sten.  Marsh at the small island Vorsø in Denmark. Ebb-tide.

I am grateful to Ian Chisnal for his comment on my last post.  You can read my response if you visit the post.  What I want to do is start here with one of Ian's statements:

'Ecumenism is not about bringing structures together to create a reconciled structure, ecumenism is the recognition that despite our differences (structural or tradition based) that we are one church and despite these we can work together on matters of mission and bring reconciliation between man and God.'

I don't disagree with this sentence except that I wonder whether there is to some degree a false dichotomy between 'bringing structures together' and working 'together on matters of mission and bring reconciliation between man  and God'. 

Horizontal and Vertical Ecumenism

This idea has been around for a long time and I think it is something anyone who is involved in ecumenism will eventually encounter.

Usually we think of ecumenism as a movement to bring reconciliation to the historic mainstream churches.  So, we may be inclined to think of ecumenism as simply agreement between the councils of the various churches.  Such agreement may be a long way off but it is the vision that keeps ecumenism going.

The diagram shows the historic churches as columns but the rows are additional theological positions, which divide the historic churches and at the same time unite Christians with similar views across the churches.  So, for example, evangelicals are found in most traditions and will have more in common with evangelicals across the traditions than with non-evangelical members of their own tradition.

Arguments For and Against Ecumenism

I received a comment the other day which asked for positives and negatives about ecumenism to enable the reader to come to a conclusion.  I'm not sure I can achieve the last part because ecumenism is in its nature something we all have to make a decision about.  The aim of this post is simply to suggest some things you may wish to consider if you are unsure about ecumenism.