Exploring Ecumenism

Problems with 'Free Church Ecclesiology'

But why the emphasis in unity?  Why is it so important that the churches are united?  One common answer to this question is to quote John 17:21, 'that they may all be one ... so that the world may believe that you have sent me'.

This is not in itself an argument.  The main difficulty I have with it is that I don't know what is meant by 'be one'.  It has been understood by ecumenists as structural unity.  Others argue that the traditions should be united in mission and that church structures are helpful in terms of being organised but do not need to be reconciled for Christians to be united.  The problem with their view is that without structural unity, at least as a goal, it is too easy to drift, to lose sight of the goal of unity.

There are of course fast growing churches that have opted out of major church structures and indeed out of the goal of unity.  These are varied churches covering fundamentalist through to radical theologies; including Pentecostal, evangelical, charismatic and house churches. 

I heard a lecture in January 2004, given by Doug Gay, called 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar'.  He described these churches as having 'free church ecclesiology', self-certified and uneasy about unity and catholicity.  He named a few churches where this approach to church had gone wrong, in some instances through abuse of church members.  This can be a heavy price to pay for their failure to find a place in the mainstream churches.  The mainstream churches have a degree of historical wisdom; they know how to negotiate issues of power and conflict.

He went on to state that he believes God provides for the church and that the new churches sometimes refuse to accept what God provides.  He gave three examples of the way new churches might do this:

1. Inertia - the belief that we are the last Christians.  The refusal to believe that God has anything new to offer the church.
2. Amnesia - the belief that we are the first Christians, and so do not believe that there is anything of value in the established traditions.
3. Xenophobia - the belief that we are the only Christians - a refusal to accept the richness and diversity of human culture.

He finished by saying he believed that unity belongs to the future and so it is a union of churches that we should be seeking.  Openness to God is through openness to all churches; it shows that you are in fact a church.

This was a stimulating challenge to the new churches but is there any chance of the older churches meeting them on common ground?  If the challenge to new churches is to take on board the wisdom and experience of the mainstream traditions, what challenges are being made to the older traditions by the new churches?  I will attempt to answer this question in my next post.

Co-creation

I want to go back to some of my earliest posts today.  I have traveled a long way over the last few months and it might be worth looking back to some of my earlier posts about conversations.  I made the link between the first verses of John's Gospel and conversations.  And then to the first verses of Genesis, where I argued we have the record of a conversation between God and creation.  And then on to explore conversations between people, between people and God, between people and the universe.

The context of all conversations is the great conversations underlying the whole cosmos.  Ecumenical conversations are a small part of this ongoing exchange.  We need to understand this in more depth.

Is it possible that Christianity and science might converge on a new understanding of the cosmos based on conversation?  The Newtonian world view is a mechanical worldview.  There is a subject and an object.  The subject initiates and the object behaves in predictable ways.  We may not have enough information to make the prediction, but in principle it is predictable.  If we understand enough about any system we can control it.

The problem is that this is not true.  We are a part of the universe and our actions have a profound effect; much of it not seen by us.  Most profoundly, when the universe responds to us, we respond to it.  We are a part of the things we try to change.  We are not controllers of machines but participants in a conversation.

As we take part in generative conversations, we find the world forms around our actions.  We are no longer outside of it, determining a preconceived outcome, but a part of something generating a new world.  We should think of ourselves not as controllers, but as artists.  The artist has to know their materials and respond to their materials just as their materials respond to them.  So, it is with God in creation, from our perspective God changes as God responds to creation.

When we take part in the conversation, we are co-creators with God.  This is the nature of the calling God has for the many church traditions, the Body of Christ.

Participative Approaches for Ecumenical Conversations

If participation is to help us with our ecumenical conversations, it must move us to a lived vision of ecumenism.  We must understand participation to take place both within formal settings and outside of them.  I think conversations in formal settings (by which I mean any event planned for conversations to take place; don't confuse this with formal talks) are important and indeed the lifeblood of ecumenism.  Without these conversations, we are likely to lose focus.  But outside of those formal settings, there is still a need for conversations and the use of participative methods.

So, what I want to do is offer some understanding of the scope of participatory methods. 

1. Good facilitation skills can enhance participation in almost any meeting.  Of course, it is not necessary to use participative methods at absolutely every meeting.  Good facilitation identifies the most appropriate participative methods to use.    But developing a culture of participation can help almost any sort of meeting to be more participative.  I have seen both more or less participative PowerPoint presentations, for example.  Sometimes, it is a question of checking out basics such as the layout of the room. 
2. There are a number of participative approaches to conferences.  The ones I am most familiar with are Open Space Technology and World Cafe.
3. Social research can be conducted through participative approaches.  The best known approach is Participatory Appraisal.
4. Community development requires participatory approaches and almost any of the methods listed here can be used.  A good example of a method that has grown up to this purpose is Citizens' Organising.
5. Finally, consultancy can be conducted in more or less participatory ways.  A good example of George Lovell's non-directive approach to consultancy.
6. Finally, the big change over recent years, has been the growth of Web2 applications.  One reason formal talks have dominated ecumenism, has been the difficulty bringing together the results of talks at more local levels.  At present, the internet is not used in any formal way even to bring formal talks at the centre to the attention of local churches.  This will change as the churches learn how to pool insights from all levels, reported through blogs and networking sites.

Over the next few weeks I shall visit each of these methods in more detail.

Participative Conversations

This is where I introduce a new theme, participation; a one word answer to the question, 'how should we conduct our ecumenical conversations?'. 

Participation is a major topic, with hundreds of websites and books about it.  And yet, in almost any church mention of participation, is likely to be met with incomprehension.  There are a few notable exceptions; for instance, some fresh expressions are exploring the use of participation.  I suspect this is happening where younger people are encountering participative methods in other walks of life and expect to find it in their religious life too.

Too many religious leaders start with the implicit assumption they have all the answers.  Many of them do have answers and some of their answers are very good answers; until they encounter the problem of reception.  People do not buy into their ideas, they remain sceptical or ignore the debates.  The famous symptom of this is the idea it is somehow wrong to bring politics into church.

Sometimes there may be consultation, where church members are graciously permitted to discuss something that has already been decided before they give it their consent.  So, we see the great debates, sometimes in the eyes of the media, where a major council of a church has to choose between a prescribed solution, rejection of the same solution and either way threats of schism.

There are of course honourable exceptions.  In the Catholic tradition, there is the practice of discernment.  The Quakers' search for the spirit of the meeting, may be a related approach to discernment. 

But it is time the leadership of all the traditions took a long hard look at how they make decisions.  How many really make the effort to take all relevant information on board?  How many trust their people?  How many listen to them, involve them and genuinely believe this is something worth doing? 

I believe God speaks to us as communities, not individuals.  The will of God for us is discerned through our conversations.  And that is conversations that are generative.  If we want to do this, we need to learn the skills.  A new 'Participation' category to this blog will explore these skills.

Last Saturday we ran a day workshop called 'Participation in Church'.  About 30 people attended from all over the country and we simply discussed what participation means or might mean for us in our churches.  It was a mix of several traditions, including some fresh expressions and other new independent churches.

This file is a brochure we produced in advance of the day, it includes a brief introduction to participative methods.

Download ParticiaptioninChurch-summary

Less Ecumenism, more Oikoumene

Throughout this blog I have contrasted the words ecumenism and oikoumene.  I use the English word in the narrow sense of relations between churches, whilst the Greek I use to mean the wider reconciliation of the whole cosmos to God.

When we consider the content, the 'What?' of ecumenical conversations, it is hard for me to resist the call of this wider subject area.  Indeed, oikoumene is the topic of transformational reception, my third dimension of ecumenical conversations.

Of course, what I can't resist is easily resisted by most ecumenists.  Usually ecumenical conversations are about the churches.  How churches differ and how they might change to accommodate each other.  This accounts for many of the difficulties modern ecumenism is encountering.  Most people are voting with their feet because they no longer see the point.

We face a time in the early twentieth century something like the Edwardian era in the last century.  It was a logical continuation of the Victorian era, brought to an abrupt end in 1914.  Similarly, we have seen a growth in wealth, primarily but lately not exclusively in the West, which has continued throughout my life, effectively since the end of the second world war.  We all know it cannot go on for ever.  So far our political leadership has kept up the pretense that we can continue with business as usual.  More people learn each day that all of us are living a lie.  So, now what?

Let's face it the churches have colluded with the politicians.  The call of transformational reception is to address this wider oikoumene, to bring the inherited wealth and wisdom of our traditions to bear upon what is happening to humanity.  The contribution ecumenism can make to oikoumene is to bring more than one approach to bear.  Through ecumenical conversations, we have all learned much more of our own and others traditions, let's use that knowledge for the benefit of all.

Does this mean I'm advocating the abandonment of our formal talks?  Not exactly.  What we need to do is recognise that our traditions do not stay the same, what we see as the same tradition 100 years ago is significantly different to the tradition we know today.  Why do traditions change?  Because of their encounter with the world, the wider oikoumene.   

Now we have an opportunity to move forward together.  A complex interplay of traditions entering into a complex exchange with the wider world.  This is God's call to God's churches, to respond to his call to move onto the wider oikoumene.

Who should take part in Ecumenical Conversations?

So, yesterday I answered the question, why conversations?  Conversations are not just playing with words, they are at their best generative of something new.  We will return to this many times but it is worth asking to what extent ecumenical conversations are generative of something new.

Over the next few days I want to address three similar questions.  We have covered 'why?', the next is 'who?'. Following on their will be 'what?' and 'how?'. 

So, who should take part in ecumenical conversations?  In today's ecumenical movement, it is hard to escape the sense that it is the formal talks that count.  The idea seems to be that you place your best theologians at the centre, and they meet with best theologians of other traditions.  Once they agree it is taken for granted the traditions are in agreement.

This leaves aside the question of ecumenical reception.  Why should local churches, perhaps thousands of them accept what has been decided, often behind closed doors?  This is compounded by the problems these centralised talks get into.  It is often difficult for local churches to understand why the centre has got to where it has. 

I once sat through a fascinating conversation about the shape of the table for these talks.  Apparently, if it is a round table it sends out a different message to a square one.  Maybe it does, after all round tables do have advantages over square or rectangle ones; as a person who is hard of hearing I'm all for round tables.  But if the usual people are sat around the round table, does it make any difference?  Precious little in my view.

If we are to make progress, then conversations at all levels of the churches have to be regarded as of equal value.  Obviously it is in the nature of things that some conversations will go better than others, so what I mean is that we should not expect the answers we're seeking to come solely out of central conversations - everyone has a contribution to make and has a similar interest in the outcome.

There are two immediate problems people will have with this.  First, not everyone can be trusted with the niceties of the theological debate.  Truth is not determined by the majority but is perhaps determined by the few who are right.  I'm not suggesting a free-for-all.  Any group of Christians undertaking serious conversations have to start where their churches are, not where they would like them to be.  They must be challenged to engage with the reality of where they are.  This objection boils down to a lack of trust the leadership has in the majority of Christian people.  This problem isn't with the people, it is with the leaders.

The other problem is if there are hundreds of conversations, how can we keep track of them all?  There are a few methods that can be employed, some used by growing movements across the world addressing issues such as climate change.  I will explore these later.  The other big change is the rise of Web2.  The use of blogging software, can enable conversations not only on line but also through posting of in the flesh conversations.  

Does this mean we don't need leaders?  No, it doesn't.  We need new leadership skills to enable conversations to take place freely but mindful of the real issues facing the traditions.  We also will still need academics, particularly those able to undertake empirical research of qualitative data.  It should keep them going for a while! 

A Taxonomy of Conversations

Yesterday I wrote 'This is not an end to ecumenical conversations but a fundamental change to the way we conduct conversations'.  Today, I will introduce a 'taxonomy of listening' although I think it is more appropriately thought of as a taxonomy of conversation. 

It is from Adam Kahane's solving tough problems and is also described in Presence, pages 74f.  At this stage I want to briefly review each of the four types of conversation.  More detail will follow later.  See pages 91 -92 and beyond of Kahane's book for more information.

1. The first kind of conversation is downloading.  This is where we listen from within our own story and consequently hear only what supports it.  I wish I could say this approach to conversation were absent from our churches.  I suppose it is a bad habit of highly creative and motivated people.  As a local preacher I am challenged to ask myself how I can get beyond this type of conversation in my services.
2. Next comes debating.  This is where we listen from outside, dispassionately weighing evidence.  It is a marked improvement on downloading.  It requires the debaters to think about what they are saying and what the other person is saying.  It is a gateway to types three and four because it requires listening to others and marshaling our arguments to meet theirs.  The problem is that like downloading it admits of nothing new.  This is why so many debates go on for years because neither side can ultimately hear what the other is saying.
3. Reflection is where we listen from inside and hear ourselves reflexively and others with empathy.  This is where receptive ecumenism displays great potential.  It invites traditions to try on the insights of other traditions and see if they might work for them.  It invites a more subjective understanding of unfamiliar traditions. 
4. Generative dialogue is where we hear not just ourselves and others but also the whole system.  We see ourselves within the whole; the role we play for good or ill.  This can be highly motivating when people experience it together.  Once in conversation with a Quaker, I was told most firmly that Friends do not make decisions by consensus.  Consensus still means people come to the meeting with arguments prepared.  Friends seek the Spirit of the meeting, I was told, the new insight that changes everything.  I agree, generative dialogue is where we encounter the Spirit of God.

The Process and Content of Ecumenical Conversations

A few years ago there was a craze for wearing wristbands with the initials 'WWJD?'.  What Would Jesus Do?  This was not something I found particularly helpful but upon reflection it did seem to me they were asking the wrong question.  A wristband with the reminder 'HWJDI?' might be more helpful.  How Would Jesus Do It?. 

If any of my non-existent readers have been wondering, in their hypothetical way, why this blog is different from most writings about ecumenism, here is my answer.  It is different because my interest in ecumenism is more about process than content.  Usually, ecumenists write about the differences between traditions and the content of conversations aims to reconcile these differences.  My interest is in how these conversations are conducted.

Obviously form and content are not independent.  The way we conduct our conversations will affect content and indeed content will determine process.  Where mindsets are about control, typical of many traditionalist approaches, then it is not surprising that the way conversations are conducted is also about control.

Each to their own I suppose, but it does seem to me this top-down approach to ecumenism accounts for the much reported stalling of modern ecumenism.  In my experience ecumenism is dead amongst people aged under 30 (or is it under 40?). 

I've done a lot of reading today and lost track where I read something I jotted down on a post-it note - so apologies to whoever wrote it.  It went something like this: '...not theological dialogue in isolation but in lived and growing communion in the life and mission on the part of the whole people of God'. 

This is another example of the lived vision I have been writing about recently.  If we are moving to a new ecumenical paradigm it has to be through this type of lived vision.  This is not an end to ecumenical conversations but a fundamental change to the way we conduct conversations. 

Control comes out of a non-biblical fixation on rules or morality.  Living vision, or faith, does not need rules or people to enforce them.  The ability to live according to love comes through the Christian community, people seeking perfection together. 

Wesley was able to leave his societies, classes and bands to meet and act as spiritual directors to each other because in the main they were able to do it.  Yes, in the main, does mean they needed some help and this leads us to ask what kind of leaders Christian communities need.

They are leaders who are there not to police or control but to ensure that process does not fall into the hands of those who want to police and control.  Who are those people who want to control?  They are all of us; people like me.  Control is not always in the hands of priests; we are all prone to thinking we know better than the Spirit.  This is why we need to learn more about conversations; to understand how good conversations free us from the need to control.

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.

Conversation between a Christian and a Secular Model

Over the last few days I have been comparing the Presence U model with the ancient hymn in Philippians chapter 2.  In this post I want to take a step back and ask to what extent this is a legitimate exercise.  I don't think I'm going to be able to come to a conclusive argument either way but I think it is important in any theological work to reflect on the methods deployed.

I have already stated several times that I do not think the U model and the hymn are the same thing.  They are images of each other and whilst I don't think it is even desirable to reduce them to a single process, it may be helpful to allow them to inform each other.

There is no copyright on the U shape.  The pattern of death and resurrection can be found in many faiths.  Indeed, Christian mission would be more difficult if this were not the case.  This congruence between faiths allows for the exploration of common ground.  Theologians and missiologists call this inculturation.

The U model was devised for use in businesses by people asking how they might meet the challenges of climate change.  It is not a religious exercise, although it has religious connotations.  This in itself is an opening for conversations about matters of faith. 

However, we should be aware that it is possible the U model might consciously or unconsciously have been influenced by Christian theology.  In places the book resonates with allusions to gospel material.  None of the authors in their biographies lay claim to a Christian faith although it is hard to imagine they have been shielded entirely from its influences growing up in the United States.  But these images are a part of our culture.  Anyone exploring matters of psychology, spirituality or philosophy is likely to encounter them.

We should also be mindful of Missio Dei, where it is understood the spirit of God goes before us into communities (similar to if not the same as Wesley's 'prevenient grace').  The issues facing us are so severe say the authors they cannot identify any power other than business able to effect the necessary changes.  In terms of how God may be working through humanity to mitigate climate change, it is not impossible that businesses have a crucial part to play in it, especially considering their role in causing it.

So, let me try to summarise the mutual advantage of an interplay between these movements.  It seems to me that Presence is a timely reminder to the churches of the power of conversations to effect change.  They offer us an opportunity to recall how the spirit transforms our values and helps us work collaboratively for the welfare of humanity and the whole cosmos.  In return, the Christian faith offers a challenge to Presence - is it likely that setting aside our assumptions and picking up new ones is enough?  Sooner or later the challenge will be to make material sacrifices.  Certainly it is apparent current global financial systems cannot last if they are to be fair and far less exploitative of the enviromment.  This implies a move towards a mutual approach to economics.  This will require a spiritual change which seems to go beyond what Presence has experienced so far.