Ecumenism and the U model

There are plenty of precedents for schism in the history of Christian churches.  Falling out over matters of doctrine is always a possibility where our primary focus is on preserving doctrinal insights from the past.  The Presence U model encourages us to focus on the future, on new insights to the faith we have yet to experience.

About a week ago, I started to explore the U model and how it might relate to the Christian faith.  Today, I want to look at how it might help us understand the ecumenical task.

I don't want to forget the many achievements ecumenism has made over the years.  In the UK relationships between the mainstream traditions are very positive.  There is at present a level of positive work together unthinkable before the second world war.  There have been major steps forward, most prominently the Methodist Deed of Union in 1932 and the formation of the United Reformed Church in 1972.  Around the world there are several United or Uniting Churches. 

One problem is that we may be victims of this success.  This success suggests that full visible unity is achieved by uniting churches.  This is achieved through formal talks that aim to resolve differences between churches, so they can move towards formal unity.  Indeed these churches can claim a significant degree of success.  Advances in understanding has done much to remove the suspicion between churches.  The remaining problems are I think these:

1. There remain many significant churches outside of formal ecumenism.  In the UK a major split is between the ecumenical instruments such as Churches Together in Britain and Ireland or Churches Together in England on the one hand and the Evangelical Alliance (EA) on the other.  The EA is a much larger organisation than the mainstream ecumenical instruments, at least in terms of staff.  I suspect there are many churches that are outside the EA too.  These will include Pentecostal, Charismatic and Evangelical Churches that choose to be completely independent.  Also, BME (black and minority ethnic) churches, some of which are 'home grown' and others branches of of movements from overseas.  There are also smaller house churches and fresh expressions which for one reason or another do not join wider organisations.  How meaningful would full visible unity be if it excluded some or all of these churches?
2. Formal conversations are often said to help participants understand their own tradition better.  The downside of this from the point of full visible unity is that as our own tradition becomes clearer we find more obstacles to unity!  Certainly ecumenism can come over sometimes as defensive of traditions, rather than a willingness to make the first move towards unity.
3. Not everyone involved in mainstream ecumenism shares the objective of full visible unity. 
4. For some a movement through bilateral conversations towards one tradition is a move further from another.  For example, women bishops will help the Church of England in its search for unity with the Methodist Church but distances it further from the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.
5. Even where agreements have been made through formal conversations, they are not always acceptable to local churches.  This is not always expressed through forthright resistance, but sometimes by simply ignoring the agreements.

All of these factors and possibly more account for a sense of stuck-ness amongst the churches in the UK.  The churches have had the dialogues and are even contemplating conversations where they try on the shoes of other traditions as it were, through receptive ecumenism.  But trying new things works only when old assumptions are set aside.

Vision according to Presence is not just words, it is something that is discovered in the future by being acted out now.  To perceive something new the churches must find a new route based upon trust and faith.  They must trust one another and have faith that by stepping out together they will discover a new ecumenical vision.  I have called this dimension of ecumenism transformative reception.