Called to be One 8: Ecclesiastical and Ecumenical Ambiguity

This post relates to the eighth critical issue in Called to be One: What Now?, Ecclesiastical and Ecumenical Ambiguity .

This critical issue is a sense of distance between contemporary churches.  It is in contrast to the pre-Marigold  dispensation, presumably up to and including the Interchurch Process .  Is this a really a problem?  Apparently, the following account for this distance:

1. Courtesy can create distance.
2. So can pragmatism.
3. The argument that ecumenism is a luxury we cannot afford.
4. The final point reads: Distance legitimises theological difference and in turn we become comfortable with theological difference. Theological difference in turn legitimises distance and the end result is complacency.

There may be some sort of distance in the heads of the authors but none of these arguments, if that is what they are, stands up.  The implication is that theological difference is a problem.  You can almost hear tidy minds clunking into inaction.

If only, they say, Christians did not disagree about so much.  If only we could all agree about everything, we would soon cross those distances and become close.  This is nonsense.

Take the relationship between the British Methodist and United Reformed Churches.  They are arguably two of the closest churches in the country.  Theologically they are poles apart, Arminian and Calvinist.  Theology has never, in my experience, been a problem in local churches.  The problem is ecclesiology.  The ways we organise our decision making and where we find authority are the things that matter; they are where we make heavy weather of practical unity.  Debate about the finer points of Calvinism or Wesleyan theology are largely good natured and positive.  Debates about how we make decisions together can become entrenched and destructive.

If there is greater distance between the churches since 1990, I think we need to look elsewhere for the reasons.  Paradoxically, I don't think the problem is between churches.  Conversations continue between the national churches and mission projects are common between local churches.  The problem is that national and local activities are not communicating.  Local churches ask for change and national churches are unable to deliver it and sometimes seem deaf to these calls from local churches.  This introduces unease into interchurch relationships.

Local churches are seeking practical approaches to unity that church leaders seem unable or unwilling to address.  This is the relationship that needs attention if the ecumenical movement is to move forwards.