In Britain during the 1960s, new structures were devised to enable local churches to work together as single congregations. These are now known as Local Ecumenical Partnerships (LEPs). Under the old British Council of Churches, LEPs were important because they were visible evidence of united or uniting churches.
This changed in the late 1980s when new ecumenical instruments were developed and the big step forward was the incorporation of the Roman Catholic Church into the ecumenical instruments. The RC Church was unable to form single congregations and so a new looser style of organisation - Churches Together Groups - came onto the scene.
It is interesting that over the last 20 or so years, the new approach has not overtaken the old models but the two have moved forward in tandem. Single congregation LEPs are still popular amongst Protestant congregations. When we look at this history objectively we may have to conclude the new Churches Together paradigm has never really taken hold.
LEPs are attractive because they are visible evidence of Christian unity and after the difficulties most unity schemes have encountered, they are seen as the most progressive approach to practical ecumenism we have. I do a lot of work with LEPs and they are a source of significant ecumenical experience but it is odd that so long after the old BCC was closed this model persists.
Or does it? LEPs are now one tool amongst several which can be used to assist local churches working together. When they are seen as such, they still make sense. Perhaps the old paradigm has moved on and now the focus is about how we do mission together. Where LEPs are helpful they are used and where not they are set aside in favour of other approaches.
This history is worth closer examination because it is an example of how decisions made nationally (in this case the Swanwick Declaration of 1989) are received locally. The study of ecumenical reception helps us understand the ways in which local churches respond to decisions made nationally.
I will look at ecumenical reception in more depth over the next few days and try to show how it has to be conducted as a conversation between national and local churches. I hope also to show that as presently conceived, ecumenical reception as an idea is too narrow.
Comments