Today I will make a few more comments on the paper by Colin Davey and Martin Reardon .
Reflections
Yesterday , I described the enormous Lent 1986 course, where 100 000 questionnaires were completed by Christians participating in Lent study groups. This information was complemented by a specific question directed at the national level of participating churches. Twenty six out of 32 churches responded and this was edited by Vincent Nichols, now Archbishop of Westminster, into the volume Reflections: How Churches View their Life and Mission .
In his introduction he described it as ‘a unique collection: churches confessing to one another, in charity and honesty, their self-understanding and their reflections on their relationships with each other.’
This spirit has continued to the present day. Friendships between the leaders of the participating churches are common and, whilst formal agreement remains elusive, an informal code of 'courtesies' persists and perhaps looks back to this exercise.
A Community of Disagreement
A third publication, Observations on the Church from Britain and Abroad , completed the three publications following the interchurch process. This book included observations from outside the mainstream churches. Davey highlights Christian Aid's observation that the aim of ecumenism should be to seek to create a 'community of disagreement'.
It is worth suggesting this phrase, perhaps rooted in times before the interchurch process, is a good description of where the church leaders are today. Davey insists both words are important. There is a community between church leaders; and indeed many people working for the churches at national level find a natural community amongst their peers.
But it is also true there is disagreement, Some of the frustrations in modern ecumenism have been the slow progress made in removing further barriers to ecumenism; barriers formed around areas of disagreement.
Four Nations, Four (or Five) Councils?
If we have Councils in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland do we need a fifth for all four countries? This debate has had a rather protracted history and still resonates today. My interest in this paragraph , is in the final sentences:
How do we now understand and view one another?’ ‘Do we see our different, distinctive traditions and insights as "held in trust for the rest"’ as the Religious Society of Friends suggested? And, ‘Are we ready to receive whatever God may give us?
Am I alone in hearing in these sentences something of the approach of receptive ecumenism ?
Intermediate Bodies
A paragraph at the end of page 11 , tells the story of the Intermediate Bodies. These have been something of a success story. This approach is unique to England and has survived since the launch of Churches Together in England down to the present day.
They are not all equally resourced and the impression is church leaders blow hot and cold. However, no county has lost its sponsoring body and all counties have County Ecumenical Officers except during an interregnum.
These County Ecumenical Officers are reservoirs of local ecumenical knowledge and between them they represent an invaluable resource for the churches and the wider community. They are also supported by a number of denominational ecumenical officers who bring expertise about the peculiarities of their own traditions.
Given the events of the 1980s and the survival of these organisational structures, why does it feel as though ecumenism in Britain has run into the sand? In future posts, I will explore this question with reference to a more recent document.
Comments