Exploring Ecumenism

New Ecumenical Paradigms

I found this paragraph in an article by Jill Sandham and Hugh Dawes, chair and honorary secretary of the Progressive Christianity Network, Hope for Church in the 21^st century which can be found in Together in Hope: Proclaiming God's Justice Living God's Love, edited by Adrian Alker.  The article refers to Christianity's history of 'self-preservation and justification':

In reaction to that history, it is hardly surprising that in the twentieth century institutional Christianity became so preoccupied with the pursuit and recovery of unity.  We who write shared in that ourselves, and were excited by it.  But the liberation all too quickly turned sour.  In the hands of institutional Christianity, unity, which briefly seemed so exciting and so possible, got twisted into a concern for uniformity of a narrowly doctrinal and credal form.  With the result that today the institutional church can appear more divided and distorted than ever before.  (Page 39)

They look forward to the end of the institutional church and the formation of an associational church.  They argue that Western society 'uses power to enforce obedience'.  Further, 'institutional church governs largely through the clergy in much the same way'.  In an associational church, authority is 'something freely granted and bestowed by others'.

When I started working in formal ecumenism in 2003 there was some excitement about the possibility of a new paradigm for ecumenism.  Overall the thought was that it was not for us to formulate this paradigm; perhaps the generation of ecumenists to follow us would do it.

I am beginning to think it is too late.  The new paradigm is here, perhaps not fully articulated, but many Christians have already made up their minds about ecumenism.  The paradigm cannot be fully articulated by the Progressive Christianity Network or indeed any single organisation because the intriguing thing is there seems to be a consensus of sorts across a wide range of theologies and ecclesiologies. 

If there is a common factor it is age.  Somewhere between 30 and 40 years, there is a divide between older people who still see the traditional denominations as key to ecumenism and the younger who do not recognise denominations in the same way.  This younger group either rejects denominations altogether or moves between them; unwilling to make a commitment to one for life.

The quotation refers to the excitement at the pursuit and recovery of unity.  I hope to try to convey some of that excitement, as well as ask what has happened to it, in a future post.

Perhaps PCN is right and we must look forward to a future associational church.  The problem is that not everyone is going to travel in that particular direction.  It is an idea that is attractive to me but I don't see how we can turn our back on other churches that do not choose this path.  Somehow the ecumenical vision has to be wider than any one approach to the faith.  The ecumenical task has become more complex.

Soft Systems

Is it true that all human systems are divergent?  Soft systems is the term given to human systems; not all divergent systems include human activity and so this is how I will understand the term; divergent human systems.  Of course, there have been times, many times during history when people have tried to forge convergent systems out of human nations or organisations.  This can be seen in companies and churches, in armed forces and nations.  Sometimes it is possible to maintain an image of convergence for a while but always in time, their divergent nature becomes evident.  For those leaders who do not understand how systems work, this can lead to tyranny and oppression.

So, what are the characteristics of soft systems?  They are difficult to measure using quantitative measures.  They are apprehended through stories, views and perspectives rather than things that can be measured.  Neighbourhood regeneration identifies both outputs and outcomes.  Outputs are things which can be measured.  They are what the funding bodies pay for.  They expect to see so many meetings or clients or people into work.  Outcomes though are less tangible but more important.  What has been achieved through the activity funded?

Qualitative data is difficult to analyse and consequently is difficult to use in planning.  However, this is true only where qualitative analysis is constrained by the expectations of quantitative analysis. 

Qualitative analysis is based upon making choices.  Each choice generates more options for other choices but in doing this a picture of the consequences of making choices can be built up, from your own perspective or that of others.

This does mean any individual's analysis will include a subjective element but at the same time it can result in analyses of considerable subtlety and depth.  We have to accept qualitative systems cannot produce objective pictures but it is possible to follow a thread of narrative; it is possible for the analyst to be open about the choice they have made and show how they have arrived at their conclusions.

A big advantage of qualitative analysis is that it allows us to glimpse the world through the eyes of others.  A subjective approach does not constrain us to our own subjective choices but allows us to ask what choices others might make.  It is an invitation to view the world from another's viewpoint.  It is sad that so many formal talks focus on finding solutions rather than seeing from the perspective of others.  The change likely to flow from this is quite different from our usual understanding of change.

Poverty and Empowerment

I spent Monday and Tuesday attending the Urban Forum conference in Central Manchester.  The conference theme was poverty and was in support of next year's Get Fair Campaign.  Monday afternoon included a bus tour of East Manchester.  We saw several neighbourhoods that have had or are having their hearts torn out.  Terraces are being demolished and residents decanted into new housing.  The area is also host to the biggest Asda (Wallmart) in Europe.  On the bus we were told how 75% of the staff were recruited locally through a local recruitment agency; they all live 10-15 minutes walking distance.  Someone else told us later that local shops had closed down when Asda opened (where have I heard that story before?)

I am reminded of Robert Linthicum's stories of churches in the States combining to resist property developers.  I'll post a reference to it sometime soon.  It was notable that we did not meet one local resident all afternoon - I suppose if we had we might have heard a different story but somehow I suspect not.

Today an interesting session exploring the links between poverty and empowerment.  This was led by Liz Richardson of Manchester University and the results will be published in February or March next year.

Just a few reflections on this theme:

1. Someone commented that she was very suspicious of the idea of empowerment as it implies it is something external, rather than something people must reach out for themselves.  I would add my own suspicions that there is an element of control behind this terminology; if it means that someone thinks they are bringing power into the neighbourhood.

2. I was reminded of Dark Holy Ground.  If this is something the government is seeking through its sustainable communities white paper, we might be heading for interesting times.

3. But empowerment seems to me to have a social aspects - those who experience it will tend to be more inclined to collaborate.  This is part of Linthicum's experience of course.  It goes back to Saul Alinsky, the founder of the Industrial Areas Foundation - today no-one had heard of him or his intention to 'rub raw the sores of discontent'.

Churches and Taylorism

I want to clarify what I said about churches and Taylorism in a recent post.  Churches are not and never have been similar to businesses employing a Taylorist approach.  My point is that there are sufficient parallels between churches and traditional manufacturing businesses for there to be a degree of unconscious confusion. 

Aspects of Taylorism have entered the public imagination and often when the role of management in churches is debated I get the impression it is this model that is being criticised as unsuitable for churches.  On the principle that there's no smoke without fire I suspect that a lack of awareness of the range of approaches to management can lead to this confusion shared by some leaders and some of their critics.

Churches can be deeply hierarchical.  An immediate objection is that church hierarchies predate modern manufacturing businesses and so also Taylorism.  Churches were never intended to be led in this way but that does not mean that churches are immune to the influence of this approach.

Another similarity is that just as Taylorist businesses produce thousands of standard products so churches, sometimes across the world, produce standard activities to a timetable or lectionary.  The model of authority descending through hierarchies to be consumed by thousands of consumers must be seductive at least to some leaders.

Despite these similarities churches cannot in practise perform to the Taylorist model.  The reason for this is not theological but economic.  It is the threat of redundancy that enable Taylorist managers to achieve their goal of a standard product.  Workers who will not comply lose their jobs.

Churches face a very different reality.  They do not employ their congregations and although it is possible to discipline their ordained ministers, the members are far harder to control, especially as they pay the bills.  Consequently church hierarchies must resort to other sanctions if they wish to control the beliefs and activities of their congregations.  Leaders with a Taylorist mindset will employ any means to do this but others will see the need to use discussion and debate as a means to arrive at a consensus. 

This is one reason why reception is important.  Decisions cannot be imposed and in even the most top down traditions there still has to be consent from the ground up.  People might accept a degree of coercion but in reality it will not do as a means to conduct long-term change.

I offer this explanation of the tendency for churches to be top down in their approach to change.  This model of change is likely to be the default position of any leader who knows nothing of organisations or management.  For ecumenists, the search for effective ways of finding consent for the results of ecumenical talks is complex and needs close examination.

The People of the Way

The Christian Praxis Group met this weekend and we studied this week's lectionary reading Mark 1: 1 - 8 in the Greek.

Arche means beginning and indicates in verse 1 this is about Jesus.  But there are preliminaries before we get onto Jesus.  The story of Jesus begins with Isaiah (chapter 40) vv 2,3 and then John the Baptiser vv 4-8.  John in particular goes before Jesus calling attention to him.

Idou in v2 means behold, and is a word often used by Jesus in Mark - it means look here or get focused, pay attention. 

Prepare the way of the Lord - the word for way is hodos which means a paved way.  I had a couple of thoughts about this - first is the word an example of onomatopoeia?  For a paved route the remarkable thing would be the sound of horses' hooves.  This might be an allusion to the Roman occupiers as the straightening is not done to the hodos but to the paths - tribous.  Staying with hodos - the first Christians were known as 'the people of the way'. 

The Greek word translated as straight is eutheias which is derived from eutheos which is usually translated as immediately.  See verse 10 for the first use of this word in Mark and note the King James version translates it as straightway! 

Tribous means paths and its origins are with the verb 'to rub'.  In contrast to the paved route; these are the beaten paths.  And note the plural, make straight the paths, all paths are to be prepared not just the one paved road.  There is no equivalent to this in Isaiah 40.  This implies a wide range of people not just those who travel by the established route.

So, what can we make of all this?  The Good News that is to come is for all - not just those who travel on the main roads but by many small paths will come together (we were not sure whether tribous has any connection with tributary).  Attention is drawn to this at the outset as people familiar with Isaiah 40 would note the difference.  The people of the way are invited to recognise the many small paths onto the way.

Convergent and Divergent Systems

It is important to understand the distinction between convergent and divergent systems.  Convergent systems are often thought of as closed systems.  They are in some way separated from the wider universe and so it is possible to control their performance.  To a degree the idea of a closed system is an illusion.  Every system must be a part of the wider universe and will to some degree be influenced by the wider universe.  However, a convergent system will be closed enough to enable the parameters to the system to be set.  So, for example, it is possible to design an engine to specific tolerances because an engine is a system which can be isolated sufficiently to enable engineers to do the calculations and come up with a solution.  Sometimes, the solution will be approximate and the resulting engine will be seen as a step towards the desired engine.

In other words a series of designs (over time or by different engineers) will converge upon certain types of engine.  There may be more than one solution or there may be better designs yet to be discovered but in principle a single solution or set of solutions will emerge.  Technology may be a limitation on these systems, eg Charles Babbage was able to design his difference engine but unable to find parts that were accurate enough for him to assemble a working engine.  Crucible steel was invented when watch makers found contemporary steel was too brittle to make watch springs.

The fact that engineers work within tolerances shows that these convergent systems are to some degree open to wider universe.  Better designs might improve the performance of engines but there will always be limitations; the aim is to minimise them so that systems can be designed within any given tolerances.

Divergent systems are different not because they are less accurate but because there are multiple solutions.  Instead of one or a few possible outcomes there are numerous possibilities and the more that is known about the system the more possible outcomes there are.  In general human systems are like this, so are many natural systems.

It is easy in a business with a hierarchical management system to believe you are in effect working in a convergent system. Employees will do as they are told or else they won't be paid.  If the business involves manufacturing, it is likely most employees will perform a number of repetitive activities.  This is known as Taylorism (after its inventor) and the method deployed is time and motion studies leading to tighter definition of activities for each worker.

But most human systems are not like this and any business with this type of structure today will, if it still survives, find this inflexible structure undermines its long term survival prospects.  The problem is that many managers do not understand this and still have a Taylorist model in mind when they attempt to manage an organisation.  Churches are not exempt from this.

Human systems are divergent.  There is no single model for human systems.  Sometimes these are called soft systems.  It is possible to analyse and understand them but through a different approach to convergent systems.  I will describe them in a future post.

Unity in Diversity

The British Council of Churches between the late 1940s and 1989 was largely Protestant and its vision was of full visible unity.  This vision was supported by other parts of the world where uniting churches, eg the Church of South India, demonstrated that it was possible for Protestant churches to unite.  In Britain this vision was supported by the Methodist Deed of Union in 1932 and the birth of the United Reformed Church in the early seventies.

Since 1989, with the new Churches Together approach, the model of the Council of Churches, decisions made independently of the parent churches, has given way to churches making their own decisions together.  I described this in an earlier blog.

Imperceptibly, the emphasis has shifted from unity to diversity; to unity in diversity.  The problem has been to find a model of reconciled diversity that is not seen as a means to avoid the complexity and difficulty of full visible unity.  Even unity in diversity has to be made real in some tangible way.

I think the problem in part is that the movement from a focus on unity to a focus on diversity is not simply a shift in emphasis.  Unity is a model based upon control.  To place all churches under one model of governance implies this.  It also implies that if we work at it hard enough we will in time solve the remaining problems and find the model that will bring all the churches together.  This is to see the human relations under God as a convergent system.

Unfortunately human systems are divergent.  Diversity implies no single centralised control and no overall solution to the problems we face.  The approach is one of devolved centres that seek to identify and join in the movement of the spirit through their dialogue or conversation.  Unity will emerge from the interactions of many players rather than the reception of decisions made through formal talks.

Clearly this will be unsatisfactory to many but we have to ask ourselves how likely it is that formal talks will unite all the churches (rather than a few) and that they will stay united.  The diversity model implies we will stumble upon unity rather than plan it and this itself might seem unsatisfactory.

Divergent systems are sometimes known as soft systems and it would be helpful for ecumenists to understand them.  They will, I'm sure, be described in a future strand of this blog.

Unity and Mission: some inadequate views

It is one thing to say as I did yesterday that mission is an essential dimension of unity.  But is the opposite also true?  Is unity essential to mission?

There is no straightforward answer and I suspect I will return to this topic many times.  However, it has to be said the most obvious answer to this is no, unity is not essential to mission.  Many missionary enterprises have worked very well (at least according to their own objectives) when practiced unilaterally.  There are many stories of break-away groups being more successful than their parent bodies.  Methodism (many times in its history) is a case in point.  However, it also must be recognised that the Edinburgh missionary conference of 1910 is viewed as the origin of modern ecumenism.  Here a wide range of missionary churches met to explore their missionary enterprises.

Today, I will explore two common arguments which aim to link mission and unity.  The first is the view that by pooling their traditions, churches will be more effective.  The offering of a range of resources for mission (as well as for worship, spirituality, pastoral support ...) will provide something for everyone perhaps even in every neighbourhood.  This could be true but the prevailing image is of churches in competition, rather than collaborating over provision of a range of spiritual services.  Many people have found spiritual sustenance from a single tradition rather than a variety of traditions, inevitably approached superficially.

A second common argument is that so long as churches are divided they offer an impression that Christians are at war.  Love is not paramount and adherence to each tradition is more important.  In theory this hangs together but as I pointed out earlier many successful missionary movements were split from parent churches.  It is almost as if Protestant churches at least, grow from splitting.

Both these arguments are unsatisfactory and I think it's worth asking why.  I think they betray an inadequacy  in our understanding of unity and it is only through understanding unity in diversity that we can find a better purchase on the relationship between unity and mission.

Ecumenical Reception - conversations in three dimensions?

It appears then that conversations take place in two dimensions; between and within traditions.  But this cannot be the full picture.  William Rusch in Ecumenical Reception writes on page 116:

It should be noted that to date there is virtually no evidence of even partial or preliminary ecumenical reception of ethical or gender issues that are now showing the potential of being church-dividing within and among churches.  Until some clarity is obtained on these subjects, further steps towards ecumenical reception will be hampered.

If the aim of ecumenical reception is full visible unity, it has to be asked what would be the consequence of achieving such a goal?  Our local churches wrestle with a range of ethical issues, sometimes as a result of a decision they have made, sometimes because they're forced to and sometimes without understanding what they are facing.  Sometimes local churches do this together.  Usually, we call this mission and sometimes it is asserted that unity is essential for mission. 

So, two churches of different traditions are wrestling together with a local issue.  How would closer agreement about the conduct of holy communion help them to do this?  Let me be clear, I'm not saying communion is irrelevant to the mission of these churches.  I am saying we need to understand how our ecumenical conversations are relevant to local mission.

The churches in Cleveland were able to collaborate over long term unemployment through RESPOND!  I have no recollection of ever discussing the traditional concerns of ecumenical conversations.  The churches journeyed very deeply into practical theology, especially through Dark Holy Ground but I don't think the formal differences ever made any difference.  It is a long time ago and my memory may be faulty but I think many churches jointly engaged in mission today would also fail to see the link.

Indeed formal ecumenical conversations might even inhibit collaboration if Rusch is right and the churches cannot agree about gender and ethical issues.  The cries asking why we always have to wait for the slowest before we can do anything would be deafening.

Of course, most local churches collaborate over mission and ignore the ecumenical conversations as at best irrelevant and at worst divisive.  Perhaps mission is a third dimension where formal conversations are prepared to enter into dialogue with the issues that engage local churches.  As we contemplate climate change, debt and racism (to name three out of many intractable issues of our time) what do our ecumenical conversations have to contribute? 

Ecumenical Reception - conversations in two dimensions

Let me attempt my own explanation of ecumenical reception.  First, what is meant by reception?  Imagine a major political party that decides on a substantial policy change.  Its first task is to persuade its members.  This is simple basic reception, where a decision is made by the governing body of an organisation and it must ensure, for the decision to be effective, that it is accepted by its members.  A number of factors will come into play and not least amongst these would be the members' understanding of the party's founding principles. 

Reception applies within churches too.  Presumably, the early church would have perceived reception as simply working out the implications of their faith as the widening membership encountered new challenges.  Reception should not be confused with evangelism, which is about telling the good news to new people.  Reception is agreeing on what the believers in fact believe.

Ecumenical reception is more complex because members of various denominations are being asked to receive new ideas that do not originate solely from the councils of their own traditions.

William Rusch's in his book Ecumenical Reception offers a variety of definitions of the term.  One of them, from Gilles Routhier (page 61), has the advantage of being short and perhaps straightforward.

Reception is a spiritual process by which the decisions proposed by a council are received and assimilated into the life of a local church and become for that church a living expression of the apostolic faith.

The way I see it is this.  A council for a major denomination with several thousand local churches make a popular decision.  This decision is so popular that every church agrees with it, enthusiastically endorses it and incorporates it into their life.  The chances are we will find several thousand interpretations of the decision.  Usually, decisions are not so popular, are not successfully explained or passed onto the churches and, if more than one tradition is involved the reality will be even more complex.  In the latter case we may find not only that the councils of the 2 or more traditions differ but where more than one local church addresses the change their views might be jointly and severally different too.  Fortunately, a wide range of interpretations might be acceptable and be perceived as creative interpretation but even so churches will wish to understand and interpret this variety.

These are merely the problems ecumenical reception seeks to address but I suspect there are some problems with the way it is framed.  Return to the Routhier definition and note the movement is all one way from council to local church.  There is no real recognition that there might be a conversation not only between the council and local churches but also between local churches. 

A decision made by a council might be itself in response to demands from local churches, who find existing regulations no longer meet the needs of their mission.  Indeed much ecumenical work begins with local churches, who then ask their councils for changes.  But this will not merely start locally, the dialogue has to continue into the later reception period.  And of course if it is a dialogue, who can predict where it might lead?

Ecumenical reception implies then that ecumenical conversations are not only between traditions but also within them.  Neglect the internal conversations and serious problems are likely to be encountered.

But this is in fact a conversation in three dimensions and I will turn to the third dimension tomorrow.