Exploring Ecumenism

Leadership in Ecumenical Relationships

Presence on page 10 argues, 'Even as conditions in the world change dramatically, most businesses, governments, schools, and other larger organisations, driven by fear, continue to take the same kinds of institutional actions that they always have.'

The credit crunch is a recent example of this, where in Britain the stated intention of the government, supported by the BBC, is a return to normal.  Which particular normal do they mean?  The last few years where people have been encouraged to take on increasing amounts of debt they cannot afford, massive inflation in house prices and all of this supporting artificially high prices in the stock markets?  On the contrary the credit crunch is an extremely painful return to normal after a few years aberrant behaviour.  No reference is made to climate change or other damage to the environment or human relationships by the behaviour that has delivered us into this problem.

Why do institutions behave in this way?  I believe it is a crisis in leadership.  We lack good role models for leadership and as leaders perceive a loss of their own authority they panic and cease to offer the very leadership they are there to deliver.  The problem is an implicit understanding of leadership as an award for good behaviour rather than as a responsibility taken on the behalf of others.  Many leaders say they believe the latter but observation of their behaviour suggests the former is their real belief.

This has two unfortunate side effects.  First, it means decisions are made by uninformed, leaders who panic because they do not understand why their actions do not lead to their expected result.  Second, many people are left out of the decision making loop who, although on their own would be no more competent than their leaders, together through a pooling of insights might be able to inform leadership.

In general, churches seem to mirror what is happening in society rather than set examples of good leadership.  Too many leaders are fearful of loss of authority and do not make full use of the experience available to them through their congregations.  Within my own tradition, we can look back to a time when lay people had a significant stake in leadership.  Through well ordered societies, classes and bands Methodists not only supported each others' spiritual development but learned how to organise.  Consequently, their learning spread into many working class movements especially during the nineteenth century.  The best leaders based their decisions on their critical listening to what was happening in the local societies.  Perhaps, this continues to the present day although the waters are muddier than they could be.

There is a blessing available to any leader in any tradition who is prepared to listen to what lay people are saying. 

The ecumenical movement should be a movement of lay people.  Indeed my conclusion after listening to the problems encountered by many local ecumenical initiatives is that their success depends upon lay leadership.  So many ambitious ecumenical initiatives hit difficulties, when key ordained leaders leave, because they have not successfully engaged the support of lay people.  Consequently, when the next ordained leader arrives, perhaps with less interest or experience in ecumenism, the previous work is devalued or abandoned.

So, whilst lay people are not trusted on the ground, their contribution to ecumenical policy is also devalued.  Progress to full visible unity is measured by the degree of agreement between senior theologians and church leaders.  As a consequence it is difficult to develop the methodologies whereby people at all levels in the churches might contribute to the growth of ecumenical relationships.

A New Cosmology?

Reflecting upon yesterday's post, about science and theology, I thought this might be a good opportunity to open up another strand of this blog: cosmology.  This is a massive subject and in this first post on the subject I will sketch in outline a theme I will develop in more detail over several (non-consecutive) blogs.

My basic point is simple; the Christian faith has known several cosmologies throughout its history and geography.  There is no a priori reason why a given cosmology might be incompatible with the faith, although there may be better or worse fits.  A cosmology is the people's understanding of how the universe works.  If a faith is incompatible with the prevailing worldview it will make heavy weather and its adherents will be marginalised to a greater or lesser extent.

Medieval European cosmology was quite different from first century Palestine's cosmology.  The latter was the basic 'upturned pudding basin on a plate' model whilst Medieval cosmology had the sun circling the earth and the 3 levels of heaven, earth and hell.  I've never read anything about how this change of worldview happened but I suspect the Medieval worldview grew out of theologians' reading of scripture, as memory of the older worldview faded.  At any event, there seems to have been little problem reconciling scripture with this worldview. 

The problems started with the worldview that grew out of Galileo's and Copernicus' observations, and in time became known as the Newtonian worldview.  This was much more than a new understanding of the shape and movements of planets and stars.  It is a mechanical view of the universe and today is probably still the most current 'gut' understanding of the universe.

This worldview differed from previous ones because it was based on empirical observations of reality rather than conjecture based upon ancient writings.  This should not invalidate it in the eyes of Christians but it has not been easy to reconcile it with scripture.  The best known responses have been to attempt to force science and scripture into a particular reading of scripture (fundamentalism) or to abandon scripture altogether (liberalism).  One of the problems is that in a mechanical universe, all categories are absolute, so God either exists or does not exist - no other possibility is conceivable.  The theological tools exist to deal with this but they are not widely known or understood.

Let me be clear about this - the Newtonian worldview is the current universal worldview.  Even fundamentalists believe in it.  For example, intelligent design is their latest attempt to force science to fit a scriptural mould (or scripture to fit a scientific mould).  Scientists have known about the deficiencies of Darwin's original theory for decades.  It simply isn't true that intelligent design (or the account in Genesis) is the only alternative.  Not only is this bad science it is also bad theology. 

The New Physics, the world of quantum mechanics and complexity theory in particular, is the new cosmology.  In my view this is a much more accommodating worldview for the Christian faith.  At this stage I simply flag this up and express the wish that theologians would take it seriously.  In the terms of classical logic, if the Medieval worldview is the thesis (many hanker after it but it is beyond their grasp; they know too much) and the Newtonian worldview is the antithesis, then the new worldview is the synthesis.  It does not take us back to an ancient mindset but leads us to a new way of seeing things which will make sense of many things that have not made sense for a long time.  The problem is that when we approach it with a Newtonian mindset, it does not appear to make any sense at all.

Ecumenism?  If we want to see full visible unity, my contention is the traditions need to change their worldview; a Newtonian approach can never succeed. 

Science and Theology

At one time theology was known as the Queen of Sciences because it explained all that there was to know.  The loss of this status was to do less with modern science and more with the inadequacy of theological responses to it.  If theologians had made the effort to understand and take part in the growth of science both theology and science might be in different places.

The incomprehension and antagonism of theologians to science is a disgrace.  Christians and especially their leaders have turned their back on scientific method.  At best they may be relatively favourably inclined but how many theologians make the effort to follow science, to keep up to date, let alone actively reflect upon it?

Instead we get a steady stream of of poorly informed statements from church leaders which consistently miss the point.  Science needs to be criticised from a faith perspective but it is rare for this to happen because most theologians don't know what's wrong with it.  By turning their backs on all but a few marginal Christian concerns, the traditions have marginalised themselves from the mainstream of debate.  At worst, some traditions have replaced a positive critique of science with a form of biblical fundamentalism that devalues scripture as well as science and effectively marginalises the Christian faith in terms of its influence for good in the modern world.  Overall, the faith is distorted and God's world is betrayed.

If we had confidence in our traditions, Christians would not fear the findings of science or other faiths or belief systems.  Why are we, the most successful faith on the planet so fearful of anything we do not comprehend or, I fear, can't be bothered to comprehend?

Let's be clear: something is false not because it contradicts a particular (self-interested) reading of scripture but because it devalues people and their place in the universe.

Presence makes the observation that the last few decades have seen the growth of something new in world history, global institutions.  Developments in science and technology have enabled this growth and also the immense damage they are doing to the planet.  They have brought about climate change, the extinction of thousands of species and are poisoning the seas, atmosphere and soil.  None of this will change until there is a change in the hearts of those who control these institutions.  I will return to this some time in the future.

The point I want to make is that the churches together are also a global institution.  This is most notably true of the Catholic Church, which at 1 billion members numbers half the Christians in the world.  But together the churches could be a powerful agent for change.  We could be but outmoded theology, refusal to understand the issues and a focus on internal doctrinal issues makes the churches remarkably ill-prepared for the task.

Recently the Pope formally acknowledged the work of Galileo.  Let us hope we can progress faster than that.  Galileo was never a threat to the faith and neither are Darwin, Newton, Einstein or any other scientist.  Scientists make mistakes but it is Christians who have perceived their work as a threat to the church.  The task is to put a new cosmology at the centre of Christian understanding of the cosmos.  It is possible, it has been done before.  The problem is we haven't got long to do it.

I had not realised how angry I am until I wrote these paragraphs.  I will substantiate what I have written here in future posts.

Pattern Integrity: Views from art and science

Today, as a change, I'm going to offer a couple of insights tangential to yesterday's post about pattern integrity.  Both of them are videos from the TED website.  This site is worth exploring as it includes videos covering a wide range of topics, many of which will interest theologians and preachers. 

The use of hands as an example of pattern interity reminded me of the video The Art of Collecting Stories by Jonathan Harris.  When I first saw this video I was rather bored by the first half but after the first 11 minutes it takes off in a completely unexpected direction.  The artist collects fractions of stories that afford us glimpses of a range of lives that are intensely evocative and somehow transcend their specific backgrounds.

I also commented upon the dificulties attendant upon being inside a system looking out.  The video The Design of the Universe is George Smoot's account of trying to understand the structure of the universe.  Several times the video touches upon the perspective of looking at the universe from a position within it.  Just like Harris, Smoot attempts to observe the universe as it is but this time as a scientist using technology and modelling as methods.

The TED site is a creative commons that aims to share its participants' 18 minute talks as widely as possible, making a contribution to our understanding of the world.  It is worth reading about their purpose.  I have speculated as to whether an ecumenical equivalent might be a possibility.  It would be a massive undertaking but even if it never became a reality it might be a worthwhile exercise to imagine what it might achieve.

Pattern Integrity

For the next few days I will explore a book called Presence by Peter Senge and three others.  The authors are a small group of people who meet regularly to share their experiences of profound collective change. 

In the early pages of the book, the authors identify a number of key ideas.  In an earlier post I discussed convergent and divergent systems.  Their view is that convergent systems determine the way most people think about systems.  Convergent systems are made up of parts.  You can lay out the component parts and then put them together to form the convergent system.  Each part can exist on its own; it is not damaged by being taken away from the whole.

Most systems are not like that because the parts grow out of the whole.  Neither the part nor the whole can exist without the other.  So, they use the example of a hand.  Hands do in fact vary a great deal but all hands are recognisable as hands.  Indeed it would be more accurate to say there is no such thing as a hand because what you have is a 'pattern Integrity'.  The pattern integrity is 'the whole of which each particular hand is a concrete manifestation'. 

I have some reservations about this idea because I fear it may be taken as a manifestation of Plato's ideal types (try this post and a few posts following it).  However, if we accept the pattern integrity does not have any reality itself but is simply the pattern that makes a hand recognisable as a hand, it might serve as an idea.  Far more important is the hand as a manifestation of the whole body; the body as a whole has integrity, the hand separated from the body does not.  Presence quotes Bortoft: 'The part is a place for the presencing of the whole'. 

The point is that convergent systems are observed (by definition) from the outside looking in.  The car mechanic is not a part of the car.  For divergent systems, the observer is inside the system looking out.  This is another distinctive trait of soft systems.

A member of any Christian tradition, approaching ecumenical conversations, does so from within the Christian faith and indeed from within a particular tradition.  Each tradition is a faithful part of the pattern integrity of the faith, complete in itself (otherwise it would not be Christian).  Each tradition is also subject to change.  Just as the cells in the hand change every few years, so the Christians who are part of the tradition will turnover every few decades.  Looking at its history we can see it was very different in the past and yet is still recognisably the same tradition.  The difficulty is to hold together both the whole and the parts in our minds so that we can see our common heritage and our differences.

Paul did this in his analogy of the body.  The faith is like a body with parts; the body is complete with all its parts and its parts are representative of the body as a whole.  When we look at the world soley from the perspective of our own tradition, we cannot see the faith as a whole.  The problem is of course that no-one can see the whole faith, our position within it prevents us from doing so. 

A holographic model of ecumenism.

In my reading over Christmas I came across the following '... the natural world, in which the whole is entirely present in any of its parts -'.  This reminded me of a recent post where I discussed the integrity of Christian traditions.  In that post I did not say much about the relationship between the traditions other than to reject the (allegedly) Protestant view of them needing each other in order to understand the whole of Christianity. 

Many people will be aware of holography, where any part of an image contains the whole image.  Holography offers us an analogy which might be more helpful than that of the jigsaw (see the aforementioned post). 

Christianity in the last analysis cannot be fully known by any individual, there is mystery, something beyond human comprehension.  Each tradition may well be complete in itself, in the sense that it embodies all that is needed for salvation.  But they are also parts of a whole, which can be glimpsed through each tradition.  It is not that all the traditions together make up the whole because they are parts of it, rather each affords us a glimpse of the whole of which they are a part.  They can do this because they are whole and part together.  (Note Sacks' understanding of Unity and Diversity.)

It seems to me there is a dual error at play here.  One is to see the part as the whole.  This is the fundamentalist view that 'our' particular interpretation of Christianity is the only genuine one, that the whole of God's plan for the universe is present in one person's (it is often one person) particular insights.  The other is to fail to see the whole in the parts.  This manifests itself in the desire for full visible unity, at least as it is currently understood.

Over the next few days I will examine this holographic model in more detail.  To reject full visible unity in favour of a vague vision of Christianity seen through its parts is not good enough.  This can only work as a model for ecumenism where Christians are prepared to make it work.  They need the tools to do this and this means the rediscovery of the power of ecumenical conversations.

Plans for Exploring Ecumenism

Just before a short Christmas break, I thought it would be good to summarise my plans.  I've planned this blog with the aim of working out my own understanding of ecumenism.  I'm hoping to add a range of ideas I've come across over the last few years and then to try and make sense of them all.  There is still a lot more to add and here is a summary of what I have in mind for the next few months.

1. More thoughts about conversation and where new approaches are being used inside and outside the churches.  I'm also hoping to explore the place of conversation in Christian theology and how this theology might assist understanding the ecumenical task (whatever it is).
2. Pick up my own tradition and explore some of the implications of Wesleyan theology, especially Methodist understanding of sanctification. 
3. An exploration of the growth of Methodism and other working class movements in Britain in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  My particular emphasis will be on the development of mutuals.
4. An exploration of modern science especially cosmology and quantum physics.  The churches need to address some of these emerging paradigms in their theologies.
5. Particular exploration of Darwinism and evolution. 
6. This will lead me to consider the implications of militant atheism.
7. Detailed consideration of the potential for ecumenism to address key issues - climate change, debt, racism.

This is a general outline and I have every intention of being side-tracked as new issues are drawn to my attention.

A Merry Christmas to all my non-readers.

Why take part in ecumenical conversations?

In the light of my posts last week, especially the ones about the unity of God and diversity of creation and the image of God,  I came across this from the post Father Count - still counting in another blog.   

I have problems with ecumenism on two levels.  One is knowing the Protestant point of view on the subject, that “no one church possesses all the truth, but we possess the entire truth when we come together.”  Since the Orthodox Church does possess all the truth, it makes no sense to get together with people whose idea of “worship” comes dangerously close to worshipping themselves, since they continually “create” God in their own image and likeness.  Why would any Orthodox person want to go there?!

This view and similar ones are common in blogs written by Orthodox and Catholic bloggers, particularly in the States.  (Very few people seem to blog about ecumenism in the UK and if they did I would expect a greater proportion to be Protestant bloggers.)  The perspective on ecumenism I'm finding is very different to what I'm used to and so it is interesting to discover a very different emphasis, where leadership seems to be centred within Orthodox and Catholic traditions.  (These are first impressions, I'm sure I'll learn more as I read more.)

It is this 'Protestant view' that interests me and I wonder where it has come from.  To a degree I recognise it and my first inclination was to think (a) I'm a Protestant and don't believe that, and (b) but I could see some Protestants believing it.

The idea that the traditions don't individually have all the truth and need to come together to discover it seems questionable to me.  It is as if each tradition is a piece of a jigsaw puzzle and once we fit all the pieces together we'll get the right answer.  This cannot be right.  The churches in the mainstream ecumenical instruments in the UK recognise each other as part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church.  How can we be so if each tradition alone is only part of the picture?  Each tradition must have all that is necessary for salvation or else they would not be recognised as a Christian tradition.  Individuals might dissent from this belief but it is the position of all the mainstream Christian traditions. 

So, it may be true that Orthodox Christianity possesses all the truth but so does the Methodist and all the other traditions.  So, why ecumenism?

1. When I enter into conversation with other traditions, it throws light upon my own tradition.  As I reflect I learn more of my tradition, its history, theology and culture.  I can only conclude Methodism has all that is necessary for salvation, although there is always more for me to learn.  I learn this through dialogue with other traditions as they learn of their own tradition through dialogue with me and my tradition.
2. But there is more to be learned through conversation because it will inevitably lead us to new insights, ideas that have not been had before.  The world is bigger than our own traditions and it is when we look outwards, the interactions between our distinctive traditions may help us find new ways of addressing the issues that concern us today.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what the blog means about Protestants worshipping themselves.  As a Methodist I believe our foundation tradition, through John Wesley, addresses this criticism.  I will write about sanctification in future posts and I believe this doctrine shows how Methodists address the problem of idolatry. Idolatry is a problem for all Christians and I find it hard to see how any tradition can prevent its adherents from practising it other than by good instruction and guidance.

Christian Praxis Group

I participated in the Urban Theology Unit study year in 1981-2.  Six of us, who between us were on the study years between 1979 and 1982, met for the first time during 1983 and have met 2 - 4 times a year ever since.  We have met for study and support for over 25 years and call ourselves the Christian Praxis Group.  At first we saw ourselves as a continuation of the study year but have long since stopped reporting to the UTU AGM.

I'm trying to remember why we used the word Praxis in out name.  It is a word that is used where both action and reflection are deployed in a mutually interdependent way.  To act without reflection is known as activism and to reflect without action, verbalism, is a sterile activity, and perhaps a mark of academic theology.

The word is Greek and seems to have been used by Marx and, through the reflection on Marxism which was a facet of Latin American Liberation Theology, the word seems to have found its way into general reflection about contextual theology.  However, the word is deployed in the New Testament, most prominently in the title of the 'Acts of the Holy Apostles', Praxeis ton Agion Apostolon.

Over 25 years the group has covered an immense amount of ground and regularly studies the New Testament in the original Greek as well as exploring community development and adult education.  The category 'Praxis' in this blog is linked to posts that are related to the work of the Christian Praxis Group.  So, unlike other categories, 'Praxis' will include posts which are not themselves about Praxis but relate to matters the group has discussed over the years.

Ecumenical theology has developed in the context of the growth of radical or contextual theology during the last few decades.  I wonder to what extent it has responded to this movement in theology.  Often ecumenical theological conversations seem to take place remote from the local practitioners of ecumenism.  Contextual theology implies the conversations which take place locally, where ecumenism is done, are at least of equal value to the conversations between church leaders.  The practical implications of this emphasis, were it taken seriously, are profound.  Maybe the insights of small groups of Christians seriously discussing their theology would be of value here.

Urban Theology Unit

In an earlier post I mentioned the difference between contextual and academic theology.  This was in the context of reflection upon the image of God embodied in the whole of humanity, rather than any single culture or faith. 

The Urban Theology Unit was founded around 1970 in inner city Sheffield, a few streets away from where I live.  The idea from the outset was to do theology from a specific context.  Students (for the first few decades they were known as the study year) could join in doing theology in inner city Sheffield, hear of other contextual theologies and learn to apply them in their own context.

This approach to 'doing theology' was contrasted with academic theology in the universities.  The idea is that all Christians do theology in their setting, whether or not they are aware of it or even equipped for it.  Inspirations came from Latin American Liberation Theology and by the time I did the study year in 1981-82, contexts such as Feminist, Black, Asian and of course Urban theologies.

Even by the early 80s this approach had become better known to the extent that as the 80s progressed contextual theologies were incorporated into the course work of other theological seminaries.  Soon, it appeared ministerial students were sitting examinations in topics such as the (renamed) pastoral cycle (I knew it as action-reflection or the hermeneutical circulation) and UTU moved on, itself becoming more academic in its approach.  At one time it boasted of being the only theological seminary in Europe with 2 outside lavatories; now this is seen as a bit of a liability. 

I do not in any way wish to criticise UTU for these changes; it has had to move with the times and what was a successful movement for a period in Britain, where radical approaches to theology had an impact on the churches, has moved on and Christians now look to movements like fresh expressions for alternative Christian lifestyles. 

I wonder to what extent mainstream ecumenism was influenced by radical or contextual theology and the extent to which churches together reflect theologically on their context?  If we are different and so able to view the same context from a range of theological perspectives, to what extent do the churches really capitalise on their differences in this way?  If we are seeking the will of God in a situation, it seems likely multiple perspectives would better equip the church as a whole.

Also, radical theology has influenced my life as a Christian.  My understanding of ecumenism must have been formed as a result of my approach to radical theology, formed (4 years after my conversion) by my study year at UTU.