Is the Tide Going Out for Ecumenism?

Photo by Sten.  Marsh at the small island Vorsø in Denmark. Ebb-tide.

I am grateful to Ian Chisnal for his comment on my last post.  You can read my response if you visit the post.  What I want to do is start here with one of Ian's statements:

'Ecumenism is not about bringing structures together to create a reconciled structure, ecumenism is the recognition that despite our differences (structural or tradition based) that we are one church and despite these we can work together on matters of mission and bring reconciliation between man and God.'

I don't disagree with this sentence except that I wonder whether there is to some degree a false dichotomy between 'bringing structures together' and working 'together on matters of mission and bring reconciliation between man  and God'. 

It is currently in vogue to argue that the tide is going out for ecumenism.  It seems:

1. mainstream churches are ignoring traditional structural ecumenism; and
2. the new churches already view themselves as Christians together and so have no need for traditional ecumenism.

From a traditional perspective the second is puzzling because the new churches seem to be saying contradictory things.  They wish to be separate and at the same time to work together.

There is something in the idea that the central focus must move to local churches; Christians working together.  However, I am not convinced either position, ie traditional or Christians working together, actually conveys the whole picture.

First, when we say the tide is going out for ecumenism, it implies that the traditional structural approach to ecumenism is the only game in town.  When that stops there is no more ecumenism.  On the contrary, the new churches are saying we're Christians together, theirs is a spirit filled ecumenism.

We need however to take great care if we intend to leave the matter there.  The problem is that it ignores the contribution structural, or faith and order, ecumenism has made.  Despite the sceptisim, the freedom of Christians to work together is founded upon advances made by formal talks.

Go back in time, not so many years, and there was enmity between churches both locally and nationally.  Go back even further and Christians who were not part of the Church of England could be imprisoned.  Even further back and Christians were killing each other.  Now stay in the present and note there are still intercommunal tensions on English soil, for example in Merseyside, stronger feelings in Scotland and still more tension between Christian communities in Northern Ireland.  Overall, European churches have experienced reconciliation between churches that can only be dreamed of in other parts of the world. 

The positive informal relations between local churches can be seen as founded upon the ecumenical vision of the nineteen sixties.  That vision has paved the way for positive relations in the present.  How can we possibly forget the Swanwick Agreement in 1987, for example, bringing the Roman Catholic Church into full commitment to ecumenism in Britain. 

The problem formal talks are experiencing are problems of ecumenical reception.  However, reception is not simply attempts to persuade local churches to accept the agreements made between the councils of the mainstream churches.  The topics these talks cover have drifted away from the everyday concerns of local churches.  Many no longer recognise the authority of these councils.

I have posted elsewhere about the conversations that need to take place.  Conversations within traditions are increasingly urgent and must be two-way.  The days of church leaders agreeing change and imposing it upon the church are long gone (if they ever existed).  There must be genuine listening on the part of church leaders and a genuine open ended conversation which is not terminated when the leaders decide to go into closed session.  The paradox is these internal conversations need to be ecumenical because of the linkages established between members of local churches over many years and the many new local churches whose voices need to be heard.

This should not be framed as a move to full visible unity.  Possibly it is about the church being fully visible amongst its many parts.

One last point.  The interaction between the traditional, or historic, churches and the new churches is important because it will result in generative conversations.  Complexity theory shows how new complexity grows out of the interaction between order and chaos.  This is paralleled in the sometime maturity of the historic churches and latent energy of the new.  I think new ecumenical structures, true to the integrity of the participants, will grow out of these talks.  I will offer a real life example of what I mean in a future post.