In this and the next few posts I want to explore a few scenarios. I suppose the first post in this series is the one about scenario planning . One drawback of the method is its costs in terms of people, time and finance. It would be a major step forward to carry out something like it. Even within one country, to bring together the widest range of representatives of all types of church to work on future scenarios would be a very significant step. Whilst this is something which could be attained over a few years focused work, it is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future.
So, I want to ask what some new scenarios might be like. The point of this and next two posts is not to suggest a way forward for the churches in Britain, only they can do that, but to show there are positive scenarios available to us beyond traditional full visible unity.
Some Christians might respond and argue they are already living a new scenario. This may be true but the aim here is to find new scenarios for the country as a whole, not only small groups spearheading new ways of being church.
Full visible unity has never been examined as a scenario. The likelihood is it would be seen as impractical, perhaps an inspiring vision but not likely to become real. The idea that we can somehow bolt together every Christian tradition into a single structure is unrealistic and may not be desirable. I don't intend to explore extensively why it is unrealistic in this post but there are two reasons which we need to consider in order to understand my first scenario.
First, there is a dislocation between national and local ecumenism . (I'm keeping the focus on Britain for practicality; international ecumenism adds more complexity.) National conversations are largely insulated from local conversations. They have difficulty hearing and responding to local developments and a major problem of ecumenical reception once they reach a conclusion. This does not seem to be widely understood or seen as a serious problem. Problems such as interchangeability of ministry are taken much more seriously. But most Christians are not even aware these problems exist let alone understand them. This separation of national and local concerns is serious and routinely ignored.
Second, national mainstream churches converse together, unable to include significant numbers of small churches that have local but no national presence. To put it bluntly, in attempting to get the Meccano-model to work, national ecumenists are not seeing the many bits that have dropped off the model.
There are many other intractable issues around full visible unity and I will return to them another time. These two are enough to be getting along with.
Do we need a new vision where local churches lead the ecumenical debate? It is not that national conversations are a waste of time. They need to be re-framed to meet the needs of local churches working together. In particular we need new structures to enable collaboration between a much wider range of church communities.
What does it mean for a number of local congregations to be the church in a given area? This assumes local congregations are able to overcome temptations to rush to judgement, to disbelieve in the integrity of the other or even to fear them. It means finding real opportunities to share without breaking the rules that govern each tradition because each has something to contribute out of its peculiarities.
What structures do congregations need, to be enabled to work together? How do they learn from each other and plan together? If they are to do this, there can be no hierarchies of decision making. There must be genuine participative meetings, using methods available to all who take part. A new ecumenical vision needs structures but its focus must be on process rather than the niceties of belief.
Comments