Exploring Ecumenism

Hypocrisy and Humility

I want to develop something I mentioned yesterday.  Why is it Christians need to repent?  It is a question asked from the earliest days of the Christian faith.  Surely those who are saved do not need to repent? 

Indeed the temptation is for those who are saved to cover up their sins.  So often the cover-up is worse than the original sin.  We can all think of times when a politician has lied to cover up some mistake.  The gradual uncovering of the truth by the media is often far worse than the original action.

Righteousness, Justification and Faith in Jesus

Today I want to follow up yesterday's post by asking how Paul understood faith and belief.  The photo, by Niall McAuley, is from SS Peter and Paul's church, Athlone, completed in 1937. This window is in the porch.  It shows Paul's letter to the Romans.  (His other letters are under his cloak.)

My argument is based upon a passage in John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L Reed's In Search of Paul, page 381 onwards.  In this passage they discuss Romans 3:26:

... it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.  (NRSV)

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.

Life on the Knife-Edge: Advantages

The key to keeping going, to living life on the knife-edge is the enthusiasm of those taking part.  This should be understood in the literal sense of enthusiasm, spirit filled.  The spirit filled community shares the same vision, is living in the Kingdom, living eternal life.  So, we see the Jerusalem community in the early chapters of Acts, having everything in common, to the extent that later we learn Paul is collecting for the same (now impoverished) community (2 Corinthians).

This shared vision is presumably meant by Kahane in his fourth generative type of conversation.  This is the type of conversation that creates new things; makes a genuine contribution for the good of society in general. 

The innovation and creativity that is required to keep going on the knife-edge is often expressed in simple structures that allow for future more complex developments.  So, Wesley's societies, classes and bands led in time to the union movement and co-operation.  Simple listening exercises led to the growth of projects for the unemployed through Dark Holy Ground.

I am sure the same spirit is behind Citizens' Organising in the United States.  This movement is grounded in the Churches and is based on a searching analysis of power used with love.

To stay on the knife-edge those taking part need to engage with reality and also with a vision.  Bringing the two together leads to natural creative thinking and practice.  Forward planning is no longer a dry paper exercise, it is something that grows naturally out of conversation.  It also grows naturally out of the powerless finding their voices.

Life on the Knife-Edge: Organisations

To be honest I've misplaced my notes, hence a couple of days respite from Christ's Body in Corinth.  But I think it is worth pausing for a while over this idea of 'life on the knife edge'.  In every age there are Christians who choose to live there and so are to some degree estranged from the mainstream churches. 

Fresh expressions and some house churches are examples.  Some still see themselves as part of a traditional church.  Others position themselves outside of any tradition.  In the Bible we see phrases such as 'new wine, new wineskins; or the image of the seed dying to bring forth new life.

The bonds between members of established congregations can be very stable.  Social capital theory calls this bonding capital.  Much of this is not exactly factional but will appear to be a close-knit community, difficult to access from outside.  Bridging capital happens where bonded communities begin to form relationships with other bonded communities.  This is what we tend to think of as typical local ecumenism.  I think life on the knife-edge happens where Christians choose to take a step further and make a commitment to reach out to the marginalised. 

Complexity theory is the study of what happens at the interface between order and chaos.  I will be exploring this further in a future post but I think it may help us understand the knife-edge to be at the interface between the ordered life of mainstream churches and the world of the marginalised. 

So, John Wesley brought together the first Methodists at the interface between Tory Anglicanism and the new industrialised poor.  These people were beyond the margins of the church and Wesley provided them the organisations they needed to engage with wider society.  Wesley was so successful he expressed fears that the Methodists would become too middle class.

Note this was never intended to be some sort of developmental process, moving the industrial poor over the knife-edge (into societies, classes and bands) and on into the middle classes.  Wesley saw his organisations as the main activity for his movement; they were meant as an end in themselves, not as stepping stones to affluence.

There is a tendency for such movements to gravitate to some absolute version of truth.  As they do so they always begin to marginalise groups who in some way embody the antithesis of what they see as the demands of truth.  Truth on the knife-edge between fragile alliances of people always comes across as some sort of compromise.  The Kara Project in South Bank, near Middlesbrough, is based explicitly on unconditional love; however people live, whatever they have done, they are loved without judgement. 

The demand that Christians be perfect would kill a project like this stone dead.  For marginalised people, in all their diversity, to be included a path has to be found around the demands made by a chaotic array of lives and moralities.  But note absolute truth is a world away from Wesley's understanding of Christian Perfection.  That post and the one following are worth reading because they describe perfection not as an endpoint but as a process.  Through sanctification we become more perfect but never perfect.  The knack is to stay on the knife-edge because it is there that perfection happens.

For marginalised people life on the knife-edge can be seen as the route to affluence.  But for many it is a congenial place to continue to be.  The Dark Holy Ground experience for example led people to say that now they understood long term unemployment to be the best thing that had happened to them.  They experienced no change to their material circumstances but a complete transformation of their lives.

Neighbourhood Church 4: Proclamation

Linthicum's fourth and (sort of) final activity for the local church is Proclamation.  This is, of course, a highly contested area.  The reason is that some Christians have made this part of the Christian faith their own.  I want to state firmly it is only a part of the Christian faith and should not be left as the sole preserve of evangelicals.

Many evangelicals would agree so far.  It is a responsibility for the whole church alongside the much wider activity of mission.  The distinction is that mission relates to sanctification whilst proclamation relates to justification.

I have written a lot about sanctification in this blog and little about justification.  This is not because I think justification is unimportant but that sanctification is less well known and has important implications for ecumenism.

Justification is the experience of the individual who comes to know the power of Jesus and that they are saved.  It is the purpose of proclamation to tell the story and introduce the non-believer to Christ.  This is done in a variety of ways and all can contribute to it.  There are a few points I would wish to make though.

1. Like everything else proclamation should be thought of in terms of a conversation.  The word itself implies a one way transaction from those who know the truth to those who don't.  The reality is that a real grasp of the faith comes out of relationships which are two way.  To discuss the faith should deepen faith for Christians as well as those who do not believe.
2. The idea of Missio Dei is important here.  God is already out there in our communities.  The act of conversation uncovers where God is already at work and so the Christian will learn as well as those who work with them.
3. It is important to remember the commitment is to a community long term irrespective of their response to the faith.  The idea that Christians are saved and others are not is presumptive and offensive.  Christians are called by God to proclaim the faith.  They are not called to judge whether others are saved - their goal is salvation of the whole community not of particular individuals within it.  If lines must be drawn it is to include people, not to exclude them.
4. By making evangelism a specialism, most church people have been de-skilled in this area.  Instead of every member being a spiritual director for others, as Wesley intended, Christians tend to be de-skilled and lack confidence to simply to tell the story.
5. And of course it is essential to tell the story in a way that makes sense to 21st century people.  This is not to water it down but to confront people with the implications of their lifestyles and the call of God to each individual.

If we take these four activities - presence, prayer, practice and proclamation together, they offer many opportunities for local churches to collaborate and many do.  In my view these opportunities could be increased by developing new ways of collaboration and I may look at some possibilities in the future.  However, whilst mission will undoubtedly be enhanced by collaboration, it has to be admitted that collaboration is not essential.  All of these things can happen in a church working on its own and with some success.

However, Linthicum argues there is a fifth activity.  The four usual activities are not on their own sufficient.  There are times when it is essential to bring something else into play.  And this time ecumenical collaboration is essential.

Immortality

One interesting characteristic of Citizens' Organising is its understanding of leadership.  In particular, the observation that good leaders are aware of their own mortality.

In June 1997, I spent a month touring the country visiting community economic development projects.  One in Moss Side was particularly impressive.  It was the only project I visited twice and I was shown around by a recently retired Anglican priest who had spent I think it was over 15 years immersed in the regeneration of that community.

One year later I was writing a paper about the visits and needed some more information about Moss Side, and phoned my contact.  A woman answered and told me my contact had had a serious stroke.  He could no longer communicate.  He had made preparations for the time he would no longer be there.  He had mentored the woman and left her as his stand-in.  She knew who I was and was able to answer my questions.

To put it bluntly leaders die.  A leader who is not mindful of this is invariably a bad leader.  I have seen this many time in community groups and churches, where a leader is effectively immortal.  They begin to personally identify with the organisation and lose the sense of where they end and the organisation begins.  It is a type of possession.

I would go so far as to say that immortality is not a Christian concept.  It comes from Greek Gods.  The Christian God is not immortal but eternal as are those who know the power of Jesus, his power in weakness.  It is our mortality that makes us human and helpful to others.  It is closely linked with the idea of humility.

The Nature of Fundamentalist Theologies

There are three churches within walking distance of my home with over 2000 members.  The picture is one of them.  They spring up in my area because there are a lot of vacant industrial units.  According to Madison Shockley, they are the sign of things to come.  The spread of right wing fundamentalist Christianity to Britain from America. 

Whether this particular church represents precisely that theological viewpoint I don't know.  However, the new evangelical or charismatic churches are immensely successful and have doubtless been influenced by fundamentalism.  I will at some stage look at the evidence for changes in some of the churches in the fundamentalist diaspora but for now we need to note that the influence of this theology in the UK is definitely on the increase.

What I want to try to clarify is what exactly fundamentalism is.  Clearly this is a complex subject and I will return to it from time to time.  The aim in what follows is to identify some of the themes of fundamentalist history and theology. 

1. It seems likely one of the sources of fundamentalism was slavery.  To support slavery puts the Christian in tension with the Biblical text.  It will push them away from social action (sanctification) towards piety and reaction.  The focus will inevitably move towards a supernaturalist interpretation of scripture in an effort to avoid a focus on injustice.  The ethical agenda is focused on matters usually of sex or sexuality rather than the marginalised.
2. It is premised on marginalising or rejecting sections of society that don't fit with their worldview. 
3. A mark of fundamentalism is a rejection of fellow religionists.  Fundamentalist Christians therefore reject other Christians with different theologies.
4. All of this boils down to fear of the stranger.  This fear leads to exploitation by and dependency upon unscrupulous leaders.
5. The reading of scripture is profoundly dishonest.  So, for example, if the Bible disagrees with science about the age of the world, then each day in the genealogies can be interpreted as 1000 years.  The texts are distorted to fit science.
6. And science is distorted to fit a partial reading of scripture.  The obvious example is creationism and I will have a lot to say about this in later posts.
7. Fantastic interpretations of scripture, where a supernaturalist view is taken, such as rapture.  The idea of rapture of course reinforces the idea that the elect are to be saved and those at the margins are damned.

There are of course many fundamentalisms.  These are some examples of common characteristics.  It is important too to understand that not all the new churches are fundamentalist.  Fundamentalism influences many churches which are not themselves fundamentalist.  Some churches are finding fundamentalist theology unhelpful and are exploring new approaches. 

For ecumenists the inadequacy of fundamentalist theologies means that there are new opportunities  for collaboration with the new churches.  I've mentioned before the view that the historical churches can offer the new churches their wisdom.  These shifts may open up a renewal of ecumenical vision in the future.

Self-Interest

To understand mutuality it is important to understand self-interest.  Most Christians would argue that altruism is the highest ethical or moral approach.  It is not.  It may seem counter-intuitive but self-interest is higher. 

The story of St Martin de la Tours illustrates this.  Martin was swift to help the beggar but did not forget that God also loves him.

More generally, self-interest should not be confused with selfishness.  To be selfish is to pursue the perceived interests of yourself to the exclusion of all others.  Self-interest is to understand that I benefit from the good I do for others.  It is this commitment to work collaboratively for the benefit of all that is the mark of lasting positive social change.  It is embodied in the commandment to love your neighbour as you love yourself. 

Lasting social systems do not result from personal greed as the monetarists would have us believe.  It is only those systems that grow out of trust and collaboration that make a lasting difference. 

But surely some die-hard altruists will be saying.  Even if self-interest is as described here, surely altruism is better.  'A greater love has no-one than this, to lay down their life for their friend'.  First, I cannot see how someone lacking self-love could possibly voluntarily give their life for a friend.  Second, I would argue this type of self-giving is based upon self-interest.  If the person who makes this sacrifice were in a position to stop and consider they might believe it would be impossible to live with themselves without making the effort. 

But I don't think it is possible to make any sacrifice that means anything without self-interest, without being conscious of our own limitations.  This is Wesley's teaching about christian perfection.  There may seem to be a contradiction here.  If perfection is about putting others first, self-interest might seem to pull in the other direction.  Two points: first self-interest includes our love for ourselves as a part of our love for others, and second as love grows our awareness of what is in our own interest deepens. 

Self-interest offers us a model for Christian Perfection.  In future posts, I will offer some practical applications which will help us see the dynamic of perfection in practice, or social transformation.

From Structural to Relational Unity

I intend to develop the theme of mutuality further but before I do that, perhaps this is a good point to step back and ask why it is important to ecumenism.

Throughout this blog I am developing a theology of ecumenism based upon oikoumene, the reconciliation of all things to God, rather than the ecumenism which focuses upon reconciliation of the churches.  After the failure of the English Covenant during the early 1980s, the enthusiasm for structural unity began to fall away.  In 1987, the Swanwick Agreement led to the Churches Together approach, an approach based on relationships rather than structures.  Here we are 20 years on and it seems Swanwick was ahead of its time.  The mainstream churches still cling to the old vision whilst other churches and younger generations have abandoned structural unity and are developing their own approach to relational unity.

We need an approach which contextualises ecumenism within the world as we find it.  My approach is to develop a theological approach to conversations.

Clearly if we understand conversations to mean simply talks between churches we will not progress very far.  This is where Kahane's typology of conversations and particularly his generative type of conversation is so important.

Generative conversations embody a collective commitment to act according to a shared vision.  So does mutuality as a shared economic vision.  Mutuality is a word we use to describe generative conversation.

At some time in the future I will introduce the theme of post-Christendom to this blog.  Some churches see their calling as a return to the authentic witness of the first century church.  This is a view with which I have some sympathy but my question is whether it goes far enough.  It is easy for a small congregationalist church to claim authenticity.  Maybe they are right but if they are it is still not good enough.

Why not?  Because our call is not to simply save ourselves but the transformation of the whole of creation.  When the churches ignore this greater calling, called sanctification by Wesley, then things go wrong for everyone.

The reason I focus on issues such as the economy is that I believe it is by focusing on these issues together, the churches will be much more effective than attempting to be authentic alone. 

I have called this dimension of ecumenism transformational reception.