Exploring Ecumenism

Called to be One 13: Ecumenical Initiative

This post relates to the thirteenth critical issue in Called to be One: What Now?, Ecumenical Initiative: Whose Responsibility? 

This critical issue follows on from the last and in some ways responds to it.  They write: In the past certain ecumenical networks (often quite informal) have been catalytic in challenging the churches and ecumenical bodies alike.  This implies local churches are making their views known, although it is not easy to grasp what is meant by ecumenical networks (if they are not networks of local churches, what are they?). 

I stand by my last post, confirming 'ecumenical prodding' must come from local churches.  They need to be networked and they need to take the initiative.  This has been the message of this blog from the beginning.

Ecumenism will get nowhere if it is solely the province of church leaders and academic theologians.  This is in no way a criticism of their abilities.  They cannot enable progress independently of fully participating local churches.

Paradoxically, the problem lies in the progress that has already been made.  As more issues are identified and settled in formal talks, the remaining issues become more difficult; the easy things have been settled and now we turn to those entrenched issues, which have so far defeated the best minds.  These issues are difficult because they are about authority and decision making; the thing Christians cannot agree about is how they make decisions together.

This is not as dreadful as it might seem.  Churches can empower people to make decisions together and so now and again Christianity has inspired the growth  of local organisations, co-operatives, businesses, trade unions, banks, insurance companies - you name it.  This wealth of ways of making decisions has been a great gift of God to the world.

These form a generative tension  and so will never be reconciled because this tension is the crack in the broken Body of Christ that allows God's love to flow to the whole of humanity.

This is why the prodding must come from local churches.  As they struggle with the implications of irreconcilable authorities, against the need to collaborate for the Kingdom of God, they are generating solutions and pressing church authorities to relax their regulations.

It is out of this debate that real change will come.

Called to be One 12: The Role of the Ecumenical Instruments

This post relates to the twelfth critical issue in Called to be One: What Now?, The Role of the Ecumenical Instruments .

This critical issue resurrects a debate I thought had been settled decades ago and manages to miss the point entirely.  It seems some of those present at the consultation long for the ability of the old British Council of Churches to work outside of the churches.

The current ecumenical instruments assist the churches in their ecumenical relationships and do not initiate ecumenical activity themselves.  The vision is to seek the commitment of the churches to ecumenism, rather than ecumenism pursued by a minority of enthusiasts.

The case against this culminates in the following: One view being powerfully expressed is that the instruments have been largely reduced in their capacity to act effectively even as ‘heralds’, let alone as promoters, of ecumenism, due to an over-reaction by those in the churches who were determined to have no return to ‘the old BCC ways’ of ecumenical bodies acting ‘on behalf of ’ the churches. The end result, on this view, is that there is now no effective promoter of ecumenism outside the churches themselves, many of whom are happy to acquiesce in this position.

The final paragraph does not effectively answer this criticism, merely reiterating that it is not the role of the instruments to take the lead.  My answer to this is two-fold, a minor and a major point.  The minor point is the claim that the instruments do not promote ecumenism to the churches is ill informed.  The instruments do promote and remind the churches of their ecumenical commitments.  Their focus is upon support for the churches rather than initiating work themselves.  So, it is nonsense to suggest they are not effective in promoting ecumenism.

My major point is that there is an additional effective promoter of ecumenism ignored entirely in this argument: local churches.  Now, it would be rash to claim they offer a coherent single message but the reality is local churches and local Christians are making their point loud and clear.  They don't want the bureaucracy they associate with the national churches, they want to work together on mission and are not interested in anything that does not assist with their mission agenda. 

The message may not be what some ecumenists want to hear but it is being expressed with substantial consistency and insistence across almost the whole of the country.  The instruments know this; I wonder whether the people at the consultation are as aware of what is happening as they claim to be.

Called to be One 10: Relationships Between Roman Catholics and Others

This post relates to the tenth critical issue in Called to be One: What Now?, Relationships between Roman Catholics and Others .

The assumption underlying much of this paper, can again be seen here.  The default position seems to be to assess everything as a move towards or away from global unity.  So, we learn that only agreement at the highest levels can change official ecumenical relations.

So, what?  Local Catholic congregations play a full and valued role in local ecumenism.  Catholics contribute a grounded and practical approach to ecumenism.  Their work on Receptive Ecumenism  as well as Spiritual Ecumenism  and bilateral conversations, is detailed and helpful, demonstrating commitment to ecumenism at all levels.

Whilst I agree the local level needs to be heard, I question the perceived restrictions on local Catholics, implied in the last paragraph.  All churches impose restrictions on local congregations and can seem just as intractable as the Catholics.

I do not disagree there might be some increase in tensions between local and international Catholics about unity, as there seems to be a general tightening of centralised authority in the Catholic Church.  But this should not be taken too seriously because local churches have in practice a lot of autonomy.

Protestants should remember the Catholic Church is a single church with 1 billion members.  Changes in policy towards, for example, sharing of communion, have to be in the interests of the whole church and this will not be easy to achieve.  So, we should value the extensive, albeit limited, freedoms that are already available to us.

Called to be One 8: Ecclesiastical and Ecumenical Ambiguity

This post relates to the eighth critical issue in Called to be One: What Now?, Ecclesiastical and Ecumenical Ambiguity .

This critical issue is a sense of distance between contemporary churches.  It is in contrast to the pre-Marigold  dispensation, presumably up to and including the Interchurch Process .  Is this a really a problem?  Apparently, the following account for this distance:

1. Courtesy can create distance.
2. So can pragmatism.
3. The argument that ecumenism is a luxury we cannot afford.
4. The final point reads: Distance legitimises theological difference and in turn we become comfortable with theological difference. Theological difference in turn legitimises distance and the end result is complacency.

Spiritual Ecumenism

A short break from Called to be One - What Next? to explain Spiritual Ecumenism.  My main source is a short book by Cardinal Walter Kasper (above), President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.  The book is called A Handbook of Spiritual Ecumenism .

Called to be One 6: Leaders and the Whole People of God

This post relates to the sixth critical issue in Called to be One: What Now?, Leaders and the Whole People of God .

Support is offered to local church leaders, through organisations like Churches Together in England.  This includes an annual training conference for new ecumenical officers.  The English National Ecumenical Officers offer support for anyone working ecumenically.  The Methodist and United Reformed Churches have a mentoring scheme for ministers new to Local Ecumenical Partnerships and a retired Bishop offers support to Diocesan Bishops and Methodist District Chairs.  Further work continues to identify resources and opportunities for developmental support.

And yet everyone knows this is not enough.  I don't believe the problem is lack of training and development, resources or even the negative attitudes of some church leaders.  The problem goes deeper.  It resides in a superficial understanding of ecumenism. 

Called to be One 4: Denominationalism and Local Ecumenism

This post relates to the fourth critical issue in Called to be One: What Now?, Denominationalism and Local Ecumenism .

Building on my last post , let me approach consumerism from a different direction. 

Christianity is a faith rooted in history.  Its strength is its ability to adapt to new situations, to be contextualised, or incarnated, in the particular.

Of course, some traditions claim their faith is timeless and must not adapt to context.  But the reality is as faith spreads, it spreads in particular, not generic ways.  The success of many missions was rooted in local people taking on the faith and moulding it to their own culture.  Christianity is good at this, whether or not the missionaries or evangelists approve.

Metropolitan Ecumenism

Yesterday , I referred to a post by Peter Phillips, Reflecting on metropolitan ecumenism and grassroots mission .  The idea of metropolitan ecumenism intrigues me.  Phillips implies he found the term elsewhere but I have found no other references to it following a Google search.  This is Phillips' definition:

So what is meant by metropolitan ecumenism?  Basically, to me it means ecumenism that is handled in London and by central office - hierarchical ecumenism - top down ecumenism.  My own first reaction to the speech was a good example - I went back to statements which had been issued by high-ranking meetings and agencies.  I went to the central tenets of Methodism and agreed wholeheartedly with what David Gamble said.  I argued it was fully in accord with what Methodists say about the Covenant and fits in well with that Covenant (and see the others who say the same within the same metropolitan media-style ecumenical perspective above).  I'd stick with that and I don't think there is anything wrong with such a viewpoint.  But the very danger is that we do stick there.  Sometimes we get set into a kind of networked mindset - where academics involved in a network end up in an ivory tower which is really helpful for their own research but misses the point of what is actually happening on the ground.  Metropolitan ecumenism is only as good as ecumenism on the ground.  We cannot and will not see unity within the Church through the dictat of any Synod or Committee.  Unity comes from the grassroots but can be enabled and empowered by metropolitan enthusiasm.  

On a practical level, metropolitan ecumenism might be a useful phrase to describe what I have tended to call 'central' or 'national' ecumenism.  I think the distinction between metropolitan and local is an important one and I have addressed it several times on this blog under the name of ecumenical reception .

Will Methodism Go Out of Existence?

On Thursday 11 February, Revd David Gamble, President of Methodist Conference, addressed the General Synod of the Church of England.  The impact of his speech certainly brought the Methodist Church to the attention of the media, even to the extent of an interview with John Humphreys on BBC Radio 4's Today programme!

The passage in his speech which sparked the controversy was this one:

Methodists approach the Covenant with the Church of England in the spirituality of that [Wesleyan] Covenant prayer. So when we say to God “let me have all things let me have nothing”, we say it by extension to our partners in the Church of England as well. We are prepared to go out of existence not because we are declining or failing in mission, but for the sake of mission. In other words we are prepared to be changed and even to cease having a separate existence as a Church if that will serve the needs of the Kingdom.

To get some measure of the media response, I recommend a post by Peter Phillips, Reflecting on metropolitan ecumenism and grassroots mission .  Follow the links from this post and others around it, and you will find a number of blogs about the speech. 

The Marigold Book

'Churches Together in Pilgrimage' is better known as the Marigold Book , which alludes to the colour of its cover, or rather it used to, as the book has been out of print for a long time.  It was issued after the 1987 Swanwick Conference, towards the end of the Not Strangers but Pilgrims Interchurch Process , and detailed the new arrangements for ecumenism in the British Isles.

The link is to part of the Marigold Book, which can be found on Churches Together in England's website  (09.10).  This extract covers England only and it will do for now, as my context is England and this will help readers understand something of it.

The first thing that strikes me is, twenty years after it was introduced, the proposed structures seem to have stood up rather well.  Some aspects are being reviewed, eg intermediate bodies and the enabling group, but overall it seems to have served England's churches rather well.