Exploring Ecumenism

Sin and Perfection

Another term for sanctification is 'perfect love'.  This term was used by Wesley and I was interested to encounter it at the core of Benedictine spirituality.

A few years ago the BBC transmitted a series called 'The Monastery', where 5 modern men spent forty days and forty nights at Worth Abbey.  The Abbot, Christopher Jamieson, published a book on 1 May 2006 about Benedictine spirituality because of the interest the television programme had raised.  He published 'finding sanctuary: monastic steps for everyday life' on a secular imprint, deliberately avoiding the usual Christian publishing houses.  On the day of publishing I heard him speak on Radio 4's 'Start the Week' and also at the first Christian Mind, Body and Spirit festival at Coventry Cathedral.  The book had to be reprinted within the week.

In his chapter about humility the author writes about the 12 runged ladder that you 'ascend by falling'.  The 12th rung (I'm not sure if it is the top or bottom as you ascend by falling) is called 'perfect love'.  I don't know whether John Wesley had read any Benedictine spirituality.  I think it's likely he found 'perfect love' there but it is also likely to be a coincidence.  Jamieson writes on page 107,

The twelfth step is for a monk's humility to be evident 'in his bearing no less than in his heart'.  ...  The humble person is known by the combination of both physical and personal attitude.  And what is this attitude?  Nothing spectacular and nothing heroic, simply the realisation 'Lord, I am a sinner'; ... the constant mindfulness of sin is the top rung.  On this final step the monk's mindfulness of his faults is a source of joy, because it reminds him of God's mercy and how much God loves him.  ... his distinguishing mark is a deep awareness of his own faults, a lack of complaint about the faults of others and a constant singing of God's praises in thankfulness for mercy.  Having climbed the ladder, he has come back down to earth, ascending by falling.

Wesley wrote about 'involuntary transgressions' and that 'you may call (them) sins, if you please; I do not.'  He never denied their importance however or that they needed 'atoning blood'.  Runyon writes on page 87 of 'The New Creation':

In the more than two centuries separating us from Wesley we have discovered, with the help of Freud and others, the human propensity to fool ourselves, to cloak from ourselves and others the subterranean motivations that influence our thoughts and actions.  These call into question any rationalistic definition of sin that requires consciousness.  Moreover we have discovered, with the help of Marx and others, that the sins that have the most far-reaching and devastating effects are usually more than individual.  They are perpetrated by social, political and economic structures that are not only beyond the control of individuals but are protected by "ideologies" that make them appear to be inevitable and God-ordained.

So, we must think of perfection as increased awareness of sins especially those we hide from ourselves or as a part of the social systems we find ourselves participating in.  The point is that sin imprisons all of us in a cage of our own making.  Grace frees us and as we become aware of the outline of the cage we can evade its grasp and step outside and act free from the forces that normally control us.  So, the doctrine of original sin is actually a doctrine of liberation, liberation effected by grace ultimately leading to sanctification.  As Runyon puts it as we bring our 'mistakes' to consciousness, we can, with God's grace, overcome them.

Christian Perfection

Yesterday, I mentioned John Wesley's three grand scriptural doctrines.  So what have they to do with sanctification?  The last of the three is 'Holiness', which is another name for the same thing, although often referred to as scriptural holiness.  A third alternative name is Christian Perfection.

One of the fascinations of 18th century theology is the view at the time that any word with less than three syllables was hardly worth bothering about.  Today we're less patient with this type of language, we prefer 5 minute sermons and our theology offered to us as soundbites.  So, what is this phenomenon and why is it so controversial?  Let's start with this paragraph from 'The New Creation', where Runyon tries to show the relationship between the three doctrines:

According to Wesley's metaphor of a house, we are advancing from the porch of prevenient grace, through the door of justification and new birth, and into the welcoming rooms of sanctification wherein we are called to the fullness of faith.  (Page 82)

I don't intend to spend a lot of time on the first two but note here that sanctification is the third of three steps.  These grand doctrines are a progression.  The controversy is that in Wesley's view too much evangelism stops at justification.  'Get them through the door and they're in, saved, born again.  Nothing more to worry about.'  Indeed there is nothing more to worry about in the sense that the Christian justified is saved.  But Wesley argued there is so much more to God's promises.

The word 'perfection' is helpful here because it does not refer so much to an end-point where the Christian is somehow perfected, as a process called perfection where the Christian is in a state of somehow continually becoming perfect.  As the Christian grows in faith, they know God's love better and as a result God's love flows through the Christian into the world.  The perfected Christian is known for their love for others; for putting the welfare of others before their own.  Consequently, the world is perfected through the perfection of Christians; indeed it becomes a New Creation.

I remember Jenny who was a peace activist and in her 70s went to Bosnia during the war.  She was shot at but put the welfare of her companions before herself, risking her life to smuggle refugees over the border.  Even with Altzeimers in a nursing home she still put those around her first.  I remember Florrie in her late 80s and bent double.  She woke during the night to find a young man in her room.  He took her wedding ring from her finger (her husband was long dead).  She made the front page of the Sheffield Star.  When they caught the young man she said he reminded her of her grandson and wrote to him in prison.

Perfection is real and often unremarked.  The miracles God performs through his people are generally hardly noticed or valued.  Wesley sought transformation in the here and now unlike Luther.  Here's Runyon again, a page later:

... God has more in store for us.  God not only justifies, thereby providing the foundation for the new life, but opens up hitherto unimagined possibilities for growth in grace.  God's goal is to create us anew, to transform us, to restore us to health and to our role as the image of God.

John Wesley's Three Grand Scriptural Doctrines

I was at Westminster Central Hall on Monday and saw a life-sized statue of John Wesley.  We often forget that well-fed modern people, at least in the west, are big compared with their ancestors.  It's easy to visualise Wesley as a great orator, literally towering over his contemporaries.  Perhaps he did, perhaps he was a giant in his day.  Today we would think he is extraordinarily small.

I'm planning a few posts about Wesley's doctrine of sanctification.  Last year Peter Robinson, a local preacher in my circuit died.  He was an inspired story teller and so an inspired preacher.  He stood down in 2006 and as part of his final testimony he spoke of how from an early age he had decided to preach about sanctification.  This made his preaching relevant and he commended it to the preachers who heard him.

Sanctification was and is a powerful and controversial doctrine.  I think it is one reason why Methodists show so much commitment to ecumenism and has profound implications for our understanding of ecumenism too.

My guide to this series of posts is Theodore Runyon's 'The New Creation: John Wesley's Theology Today' and as usual details can be found under 'Featured Books' to the left of this post.  This is a few sentences from page 19:

Wesley consistently made a distinction between doctrinal "opinions" and "the core of Christian doctrine" or "the marrow of faith".  Doctrinal opinions allowed for various approaches, but what Wesley referred to as the analogy of faith was that "connected chain of scripture truths" that constitute the very core of Christian teaching, those doctrines essential to the story of salvation.  Included in these are "the three grand scriptural doctrines - Original Sin, Justification by Faith, and Holiness consequent thereon".

I'm sure most people (including Methodists) asked what are the three core Christian doctrines would answer something like incarnation or resurrection or communion ... but Wesley chose these three doctrines.  To our ears they seem perhaps intellectual, separated from the reality of life in a broken world.  But they are not, as I will show in future posts.  So, powerful are these three doctrines that Methodism, with all its derivatives, is the largest Christian tradition after Roman Catholicism. 

As soon as Wesley announced these three grand scriptural doctrines, people argued.  They liked arguing in the 18th century and the arguments have continued until today.

Separation

The discipline of writing a single point most days, which may collectively add up at some future time to something else, is interesting.  Sometimes it is invigorating as I save a post to find a new one spring into my mind.  At other times it seems impossible to say everything and I find the latest post acts as a corrective to the one before.

Yesterday I began to stray into territory commonly known as ecclesiology (commonly amongst ecclesiologists at any rate).  I don't at this stage wish to go any further in that direction but I do want to apply, as ever, a few correctives.

1. Is it legitimate to view the Christian faith as a system?  If we understand it as a sociological phenomenum I think we can.  The growing field of congregation studies does exactly that, for example.
2. Why do I refer to it as the 'Christian faith' rather than the 'Church'?  I certainly don't want to rush to the defence of 'Christian faith' - it's simply the best term I have come up with so far.  The problem with 'Church' is that there is an ambiguity as some traditions refer to themselves as the church, and I wanted a term that unambiguously covers the whole of Christianity however that term might be understood.
3. So, why do I refer to traditions rather than churches?  Most traditions as far as I'm aware are happy to be referred to as churches.  Or part of the church, I suppose.  I think tradition has a time element, it reminds us that traditions evolve through time and are not static, although recognisably of their tradition.

Finally for this stretch of my argument I want to bring together two observations.  Oikoumene understood as the reconciliation of the whole of creation and our traditions.  To be committed to a tradition is to know it from the inside out as it were.  But it is also to experience a sense of separation from other traditions.  People react to this differently.  Some will take great pride in their tradition and assert its superiority to the others.  Others will embrace other traditions either by seeking unity or by experiencing what they have to offer.  Some feel real pain because there is no common communion across the traditions.

The point is though that the same sense of separation is experienced between Christians and the non-Christian world.  If we are serious about the reconciliation of all things in Christ - we cannot have boundaries that delineate the Christian world and separate it off from the rest of the world.  We are surrounded by conflicts relating to race, nationality or faith, by the destruction of the environment because wealth is systematically put before God and disabled by the inability of many to participate in significant decision making because of debt or poverty.  So, what if Christians attained full communion while the rest of the world is in this state?  And which of these should be our priorities?

Never fear, I have a lot more to say about systems and Presence.  But at this stage I need to open a new strand, rooted very much in my own Methodist tradition, Wesley's doctrine of sanctification - as you've (possibly) never seen it before.

What is the Ecumenical Problem?

I want to say more about the whole as it relates to the Christian faith.  It is not an ideal form of Christianity.  It is the whole behind all the parts that we encounter.  It is incomplete without the parts and unknowable in the sense that there is no single interpretation of the whole.

Yesterday I suggested 'networks of Christian traditions' as a description of the Christian faith.  This is not a satisfactory description but may be helpful to enable us to get a hold of what the whole might be.  The problem for those who wish to approach this from a conventional or Newtonian worldview, is that as each of us sees the whole through the lenses of our own tradition plus our personal experience, then everyone is going to see it differently.  Presence on page 51 puts it like this:

The problem-solving mind-set can be adequate for technical problems.  But it can be woefully inadequate for complex human systems, where problems often arise from unquestioned assumptions  and deeply habitual ways of acting.  Until people start to set their own handprint on such problems, fundamental change rarely occurs.

This strongly implies that it may be advantageous that everyone has a different view of the whole.  This does not mean that everyone is equally right or that their view remains static.  Indeed one of the aims of ecumenical conversations is to enable people to learn more of other traditions and hence of their faith as a whole.  Remember also that ecumenical conversations often result in a deeper understanding of ones own tradition.  Clearly there is much more to explore here.

In the meantime we need to take stock of what we do not know.  There are three things (at least!).

We do not know what the whole is ...

It is easy to say the whole is the Christian faith.  Maybe it is but even if it is, we are still left asking what is the Christian faith?  Each Christian (and maybe others) will bring their own insights from their experience, their tradition to bear on their view of the faith.  As ecumenists are we dealing with just this one faith or the whole of creation (oikoumene)?  And whatever it is, how does it hang together, how do we make sense of it?

We do not know what the parts are ...

The easy answer is 'the traditions' but they themselves can be split into many smaller groups.  Or is it the relationships between the traditions?  Or relationships with the wider world?  To choose the traditions as a sort of unit of the Christian faith invites the ecumenist to look inwards.  But how much looking outwards can we endure before the whole vision becomes unmanageable?

What is the ecumenical problem?

Some believe it is 'full visible unity' and argue, convincingly, that it is a favoured goal because it is a clear goal.  Others might argue it is reconciled diversity or even reconciliation with the whole of creation.  Others dissent from all of these.  These differences are not going to go away and ecumenism threatens to become increasingly frustrating whilst they are not acknowledged.  This means we need to find new ways of describing our goal(s) as ecumenists.

Redirection

Yesterday I mentioned the importance of being able to suspend our views in order to make space so that we can hear what others are saying.  Suspension is the first step towards increased awareness or deep listening. 

Suspension on its own does not necessarily lead to great change until the listener begins to see patterns in what they are hearing.  As these patterns emerge, the listener can redirect their attention to them.  This is the second step, known as redirection.  As the boundaries between seer and seen dissolve, the source of the reality they encounter becomes clearer.  (Presence, page 43.)

It is important to be aware of what is meant by 'source' here.  It is the reality of what is behind the object or relationship but it should not be thought of as some sort of Platonic ideal.  There is no single truth underlying the world as we perceive it; because the world is in constant flux. 

1. There is some element of connection between seer and seen.  I am a part of the systems I observe.  This clearly parallels the experience of scientists who study quantum mechanics and have found that as observers they are in fact a part of the system they are observing.  How much more so in human or soft systems, where the observer is inevitably related to the system through relationships and the baggage they bring to making their observations.  Of course this means our experiences will be 'different for everybody'.
2. Similarly these systems, for example networks of Christian traditions, change with time.  This means that all of us have a part in changing the system and of course the system will change us. 

How much easier would ecumenism be if we were able to freeze all change so that we were able to agree to changes?  The problem is that even were we able to do this, changes initiated by us or others beyond our control can render change futile or irrelevant.  As Presence (page 45) succinctly puts it:

When people who are actually creating a system start to see themselves as the source of their problems, they invariably discover a new capacity to create results they truly desire.

This should have profound implications for ecumenists.  It challenges us to be aware that we are a part of the problem but also that when we understand this we might collectively be in a position to map a way forward. 

It seems to me this view takes seriously the challenge of human sinfulness whilst at the same time allowing for the possibility of real change.  I will in a later post show how for Methodists this makes sense as an instance of John Wesley's doctrine of sanctification.

Suspending Assumptions

Here are three more thoughts about immortality:

1. The first quote from Presence in yesterday's post, is in the first person plural.  I was following the theme of leadership yesterday and so didn't focus on how the assumption of immortality affects all of us.  The issue behind the quote from Presence is global warming and related issues.  Yes, there is a sense in which we all live as if we will live forever until something happens that causes us to recognise and challenge that assumption.  Even then it is easy to forget and lapse back into it.  It is of course one of the constraints we all encounter as mortals.  I will return to this when I move onto Wesley's doctrine of sanctification.

2. It is odd though that I should see immortality as a negative.  Christians, our atheist friends never tire of reminding us, believe they are immortal; that they have a ticket to heaven and the rest are left to the vagaries of chance and necessity.  This is deep theological water and I don't want to go into too much detail at this stage.  Suffice it for now, to link this observation to sanctification too and simply observe there is a world of difference between the presumption of immortality and the eternal life Christians participate in as a result of God's grace.

3. And then there is the point I want to focus upon today; the link I see between immortality and tidiness.  The second quote from Presence yesterday, says it all.  To be immortal is to take leave of reality and subscribe to the view that one last push in terms of my ideology or organisation is all that's needed.  Even if it were possible for a tyrant to marshal everyone into a particular mould, what happens when the tyrant dies? 

One of the earliest steps in soft systems analysis is to identify tasks and issues.  Any human system will present many areas for the activist to address.  These are the tasks, the things which need to be done.  Issues are the barriers to implementation of the tasks.  These are the conflicts and disagreements that tend to resist the desired changes.  Sometimes it is more helpful to address the issues rather than the tasks.  The issues address the reality of the soft system; make us remember that ours are not the only interests at play.

In Presence, they write about the ability to suspend assumptions.  I may be perfectly correct about the tasks I wish to undertake but there are others around me who see things differently.  There is always value in asking why they see things differently; are they onto things I need to consider before I act?

Our concern should be to learn from diversity and to see the presence of order in apparently chaotic systems.  This is quite different from attempts to impose order upon systems.  The Christian faith in the early 21st century is undeniably complex, it seems to have become more complex in recent years so that the old approaches can no longer make much difference.  But this is not to say that amongst the chaos there are not opportunities for unity; the challenge is to make them visible.

The Curse of the Immortal Leader

In Presence, on page 24, a question is posed:

"Haven't we come together to answer one fundamental question: Why don't we change?  What would it take to shift the whole?"  "We don't change because we think we're immortal."

The reference to immortality interested me because it is a theme that has recurred throughout my career.  I think the first time I encountered it was at leadership training for Citizens' Organising on 1992.  It was an item on a list of the the characteristics of a leader, 'they are aware of their mortality'.  'I am human and so I am finite' should be the mantra of any leader.  A good sign of a leader who is aware of their own mortality is their preparedness for passing on the baton to someone else.

During June 1997, I travelled around the country visiting community regeneration projects.  One of these was Moss Side and Hulme Community Development Trust.  This was the only project I visited twice during that month because I was impressed by the man who took me round.  He had just retired I think as vicar of the parish but had dedicated several decades to community regeneration in the area.  I am sorry I have forgotten his name and somewhere buried in my files I will find it some day.

What he had to say made a great impression on me at the time but the thing I remember most vividly is this.  One year later I wanted to check something with him about our conversation and so I phoned him. The phone was answered by a woman who explained that he had had a severe stroke and was no longer able to talk or participate in any way.  He had prepared her to step into his shoes and so she was now answering his phone!  She knew who I was and answered all my questions. 

I have met immortal people during my career in community development.  They have one solution to all problems and their aim is to subject everything to that solution.  Often it is a good solution and capable of significant success.  But they do not grow in their position and those around them cannot grow either, there is a sense of stuck-ness. 

I am convinced this is what the ancients meant by demonic possession.  It is a close identification with an organisation that becomes an absolute.  It can do no wrong and is the solution to all the problems.  Everything is tidy and just so; nothing is out of place.  Ultimately, things collapse around them because nothing can be that tidy. 

My fear is that there are many people like this in our churches.  They have an absolute idea of what God is like and so expect God's church to be perfect too, and indeed God's world.  There are so many mistakes in this tragic illusion.  They believe without evidence that God is perfect.  They believe everything God made should be perfect and are outraged that it is not and that other people keep on sinning.  But the worst mistake is the assumption never addressed that they are the perfect mouthpiece of God. 

There is another way; the way of mess, the way trodden by sinners, where a messy God loves a messy world.  Who would want to live in a perfect universe?  Why is their error so damaging?  An answer is on page 29 of Presence:

Most change initiatives that end up going nowhere don't fail because they lack grand visions and noble intentions.  They fail because people can't see the reality they face.

Reactive Learning

I certainly don't want to give the impression that churches don't need leaders.  Leadership is essential.  The problem is that I believe the churches are facing a crisis of leadership.  When leadership is understood as a privilege rather than as a responsibility; it will inevitably result in poorly informed decision making. 

This crisis reflects a more general crisis in leadership in the wider world.  Education generally focuses on the detail of subject areas rather than on the practicality of making good decisions.  Well informed decisions require more than superficial knowledge of a subject area, although this can be helpful it also requires deep listening.

Reactive learning is, according to Presence,  about habitual thinking, seeing the world through habitual categories.  It is odd that this is so common in the churches.  Prayer, whilst in part an inner journey, is completed when attention is drawn outwards.  Good leaders make decisions.  They are not constrained by what others think but take time to consider prayerfully before making decisions. 

Good leadership means that those who are led have a stake in decision making but do not necessarily determine the outcome.  The Quakers are clear that they do not make decisions by consensus.  They listen for the spirit of the meeting.  Where there is a controversial issue, people will naturally turn up to a meeting with their view clear in their own minds.  The aim is allow these to be spoken but then to listen for the deeper truth behind all these presented truths.  This can be done by a single leader or collectively as the Quakers do.  However, the single leader must not make decisions alone and where sufficient are experienced, it is perhaps best that decisions are made collectively. 

Whether leadership is focused on one person or shared collectively, the implications for ecumenism are profound.  Decision making cannot be effective if it is cut off from local churches.  The likely implications of decision-making are so profound for the Christian practice of the adherents to the various traditions, that it is hard to see how conversations between senior people can ever be effective.  The problem is of course that collective decision making is also much more difficult.  Is there any way that everyone can have a realistic stake in ecumenical conversations?  Is it even desirable?