Ancients like me will remember the Monty Python sketch, why accountancy is not boring. Many Christians today would gladly attest that next to ecclesiology accountancy is rather racy. If you tend to agree, here are a few thoughts, which might helpto change your mind.
First, after a long excursion into science and cosmology, I thought it would be a good idea to run a series on a subject much closer to the heart of ecumenism. I will be covering a lot of ground, examining a variety of different ecclesiologies, perhaps provoking a few passing readers to stop by and tell me their's is not at all as I describe it. I also hope to look at a variety of takes not just on formal ecclesiology but also on informal ecclesiology, the type that arises from the culture of individual congregations. I will also examine how each type tends to view the ecumenical task - a risky undertaking, I'm sure.
Ecumenism is to ecclesiology what technology is to science. In a very real sense ecumenism is applied ecclesiology. If we understand ecclesiology to be the theology of church structures, ecumenism deals with the consequences of seeking reconciliation between them.
Let us be clear, no theological difference is so likely to cause divisions between churches so much as ecclesiology. The British Methodist Deed of Union in 1932 was possible because, despite major theological differences, the churches involved agreed about connexionalism. The 1972 union behind the United Reformed Church was easier because they shared the reformed tradition and their conciliar ecclesiology. Put the two churches together, which for all sorts of reasons makes sense in many places, and the most likely problems have nothing to do with their Arminian and Calvinist theologies but their different approaches to decision making.
The amount of paper that has been consumed during this raft of interlocking debates must be immense. Much of it is obscure, certainly to the non-expert. My aim is to skate over the surface and provide a sort of rough guide. Naturally it will be controversial but the aim is to provide some orientation in a difficult and little known field.
Up to now I have been seeking to open up new angles in ecumenism. This sequence will open up more traditional material but as I explore it, perhaps the need for new thinking will become clearer.
Comments