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!
Comments