Ecumenical Ethics

It is odd that Christianity has a moralistic public image.  One of the problems St Paul faced in his letters was to explain the impossibility of adherence to every detail of the law.  Indeed, the law does not save people, it shows us what is right and wrong but it is not possible for anyone to practice it in full.  The Christian faith replaces law with spirit.  Non-Christians are prisoners of the law; Christians are freed by the spirit.  We would therefore expect Christians to be, whilst not uninterested in morals, at least distinguishable from those whose faiths prescribe precise moral positions.

This seems to be problematic for many Christians who feel behaviour is important.  Clearly behaviour is important.  How do we know whether someone has faith except through what they do?  Christian ethics is forever crashing into this contradiction.  We expect Christians to behave in certain ways but cannot impose such behaviour upon them.  As the Christian discovers more of their fallen nature and consequently of the forgiveness of God, they will naturally adjust their behaviour as the spirit becomes a part of their life.  But when legalistic interpretations of moral positions take centre stage we must be suspicious.  Is this something of the spirit or someone's legalistic frame of mind?

Any attempt to enforce ethical behaviour is likely to be counter-productive because then a person will be attempting to live according to law through their own efforts, rather than allowing the spirit to work through them.  On the other hand, Christians need to be challenged to remain faithful.

What we forget is that ethics are not just personal.  All of us are subject to the powers and principalities, entirely real forces caused by the summation of human sin through society.  It is the easiest thing in the world to conform to these forces whilst believing we are acting ethically.  The purpose of sanctification in the individual's life is to remove the chains of societal pressures so that the Christian can live a new spirit filled life in the world.

For Paul the Pax Romana, peace imposed through military victory, was a key problem of his time.  When the devil takes Jesus to the top of the mountain in Matthew 4, he shows Jesus all the countries of the world.  These countries were conquered by Rome.  They were all under the peace of Roman rule.  God's rule, the Kingdom of God, is a place where there is peace through justice, not conquest. 

The devil in the story, at this point reveals his name is Satan.  At the time these words were risen, Satan was just another angel; the angel of Rome.  To worship Satan was to worship Rome and Rome's ways of doing things.

The Christian Church, the Body of Christ, is divided because it is through divisions that we are able to demonstrate what unity is.  Unity is not the same as uniformity, it is where people of conviction, can love one another. 

Unity is no more demonstrated through structural unity than it is through rejection of traditions we do not believe are genuinely Christian. 

As a Methodist in England, I find I am in a covenant with the Church of England.  Through that covenant, an agreement has been made on my behalf under God.  It is not something any Methodist can take lightly.  So, I am concerned the Church of England is true to itself so that the Methodist Church can enter into a relationship with it.  In the same way, Methodists best serve the Church of England by being true to their traditions.

The failure of the English Covenant in 1982, damaged the ecumenical movement in England.  This damage is still being done because many still seek structural unity, which is not always the best way forward and certainly not essential for Christian unity.  These days those opposing structural unity might show a healthy determination to love despite differences, but frequently claim post-denominationalism, where differences are ignored.

The world is fractured between a range of fundamentalisms.  We have to find ways to live together.  Neither structural unity nor post-denominationalism can possibly address the problems we face.  I think Wesley was in the right track with the Catholic Spirit and perhaps we should all look again at how we relate to each other in the light of that sermon.

Comments

[FrDarryl]

This is well reasoned and passionate post by a Methodist brother in Christ who takes his ministerial role very seriously.

We disagree on fundamental principles but it's a valiant attempt to defend denominational and personal autonomy (literally: law unto oneself) using the classical Wesleyan principle of the primacy of holiness.

I studied Wesley's sermon The Catholic Spirit for my MDiv at Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University in Dallas. I found the reasoning quite compelling and persuasive. It certainly made my classmates far less anti-Catholic if they'd been theretofore inclined.

But by that time I was an Anglican Papalist, and ineluctably convinced - in a Newmanian cumulative case sort of way - of the logical and revelatory weight of the classical Catholic understanding of the additional criteria - or 'marks' - of catholicity and apostolicity underlying true unity. They necessarily include structural, indeed episcopal, elements, not just according to patristics (e.g., Ignatius of Antioch: 'Letter to the Smyrnaeans', Irenaeus of Lyon: 'Against Heresies') but also a common sense approach as well, using the analogy of a vertebrated mammal with a skeleton.

But despite my predisposition against the necessity of denominational pluralism, thank you for a fascinating read!

Your Brother in Christ and Covenant.

[FrDarryl]

Sorry, I posted too hastily.

I meant the analogy of a vertebrated mammal withOUT a skeleton, i.e., as something far from good in itself because it fails to function according to its ideal design.

St Paul said it far better: the Body of Christ has many members (1 Cor 12-14). St Paul didn't need to mention the skeleton in that context, but I think in this day and age he would have done.

[Chris Sissons]

Thank you for your response, it is very stimulating. I started this blog last November to work on the question, is there a coherent alternative to structural unity? Are we asking the right questions? Do we know what we mean by structural unity? After 8 or 9 months I think the jury is still out with little sign of a return in the near future. Please don't think I'm necessarily against it, perhaps if the counter arguments can be pushed hard enough, the arguments for structural unity will become clearer and more coherent. Post-denominationalism, the latest in vogue alternative in England does not seem to me to be anywhere near an alternative.

You've made me think again about Wesley's 'Catholic Spirit', it has to be said this sermon was written a long time ago and I would not want it to bear too much of the weight of any argument. The close relationship of the churches we know today was not even on the horizon in Wesley's day - his emphasis seems to me to be upon inter-personal relationships.

The problem is that as we grow closer, we must learn to love the other as an institution, just as we love our own institutions. Why should I want my ecumenical partners to lose their identity any more than my own tradition? Eg, it is simply not good enough, with some protestant denominations, to accept (some) Catholics as Christians but not their church.

Your analogy of a vertebrate without a skeleton is seductive but all analogies break down at some point and so we have to seriously ask the question: why is a single structure a necessary condition for unity? What we forget in the 1 Cor passage is the Body of Christ is broken. Kim's book (seventh from the top on the left) is very helpful and my series of posts on the book, starting 31 March, might be worth a glance.

Unity is a gift from God. This is not an excuse to do nothing but wait for God to make the first move but it does raise questions about our priorities as churches together.