Another dimension to ecclesiology is to do with the culture of congregations. Formal statements of doctrine are set through each tradition's councils (with some degree of influence from ecumenical councils). However, the reception of these by local churches is not as straightforward as it might first appear because churches have different cultures and will interpret their formal doctrine according to their culture.
One simple way of visualising this is horizontal and vertical ecumenism. Imagine a table where the rows are a list of the various church traditions, eg Anglican, Methodist, Roman Catholic, etc. The columns are theological positions, independent of the church traditions, examples might be evangelical, liberal, conservative or traditional. The point is that congregations of a particular church tradition will also have a theological position. Those with similar theological positions may have more in common than congregations of a given church tradition. Each congregation is shaped by both its church tradition and its theological position.
Many factors in its environment and history will form a congregation and the stories it tells about itself. This is one reason ecumenical reception is so difficult. The receiving churches are not all the same and will interpret the world according to their own culture. A definitive account of the cultures of congregations can be found in Congregation by James Hopewell.
Local ecumenical work can encounter strange incompatibilities between churches of similar theological positions, and at the same time churches far apart theologically might be compatible culturally. The latter can be problematic where an initial compatibility is betrayed later as diverse basic assumptions about church governance can come to the fore.
For example, Methodist and URC congregations often find they are culturally close. Once they form a single congregation partnership, for example, they find their church traditions can be at odds. So, for connexional Methodists the church council makes final decisions, whilst for reformed Christians it is the church meeting. The two groups can find themselves in situations where they are at odds over whether or not a decision has been taken. Usually, these problems are overcome swiftly, particularly where the people involved understand each others ecclesiology, but it does illustrate the practical difficulties attendant upon unity.
This is suggestive. It appears one of the strengths of the Christian faith is its flexibility. Even belief in the inerrancy of scripture does not lead to belief in the inerrancy of interpretation; ultimately no-one can insist their way is best because all ways are subject to error. Consequently, diversity is natural to the Christian faith; together we comprise the Body of Christ. Our task is to find different, non-coercive ways of expressing our unity.
Comments