I'm not attempting an in-depth analysis of the current economic crisis. My focus in this post is as always the implications for relationships between the churches. They are profound for two reasons.
First, the churches are compromised themselves. The mainstream churches have investments and participate in the same markets as everyone else. Absolutely, stipends and pensions have to be paid but this does raise questions about where the interests of the churches lie. For some churches, aware of the criticisms, the stance is of quiet embarrassment. For others, wealth is evidence of God's favour and so should be shouted about. So, we hear about American mega-churches which include shopping malls, branches of McDonald's, etc. We also hear from time to time of instances of corruption as TV evangelists are found out.
Which brings me to the second problem. Whilst the emphasis of formal talks tends to be upon (broadly) Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, these are not the divisions in the church I really feel. I can live without sharing communion with my Catholic friends because we can share in other things and when I see them take communions I see fellow Christians declaring their faith as I do when I take communion. I appreciate some people have more of a problem with this, eg interchurch families, but this is how I feel - a consequence of my history. What I find difficult to accept is the fundamentalist praxis of some Churches.
My problem is not with their politics so much as their theology. When I read their words or learn of their activities I see a fantastic interpretation of scripture which places our disparate understandings of communion in the shade. We might not be able to agree about communion but broadly we can agree about right and wrong. There are Christians who I believe call evil good and good evil. I'm sure they feel much the same about me.
If only it were as simple as saying these people are not really Christians and so do not need to be included in the one church. The problem is this is exactly what they are saying about me and the other mainstream churches. We don't accept their partial reading of scripture and so we are the ones who are damned in their eyes. How does it help if I believe the same about them? Fundamentalism is premised on the rejection and marginalisation of others.
Our vision of one church comes adrift on this issue. Do we abandon marginalised people in order to embrace fundamentalist Christians? I think not. So, what can we do? Especially compromised as we are.
The criticisms from atheists will be different. They seem to be saying Christians are all the same. They do our ecumenism for us! But even though we are compromised, we are not the same.
Take the Church of England. A major problem for some Christians in the English ecumenical movement is that it is an established church. Undoubtedly it is compromised in terms of its investments but I think it unfair to take this critique too far. This church does not accept there is one reading of scripture. Historically it is a compromise between many theological perspectives from Catholic to Evangelical, taking in various streams of liberal and radical theology. Further, its relationship with the state is expressed through its parish system which in principle makes it the voice of everyone in the country. It is as representative as any church can be not of the state understood as government but of the state understood as the people. Just like Dr Johnson's observation of the dog walking on its hind legs, the point is not that the Church of England does these well so much as it attempts to do them at all.
These pillars of the Church of England and wider Anglican movement are under attack. This is expressed through those who will not compromise on their theological positions, eg women priests or sexuality. Also those who would erode the parish system in the name of mission. These enthusiasts should take note of the words from the song 'you don't know what you've got till it's gone'.
Comments