Exploring Ecumenism

Called to be One 13: Ecumenical Initiative

This post relates to the thirteenth critical issue in Called to be One: What Now?, Ecumenical Initiative: Whose Responsibility? 

This critical issue follows on from the last and in some ways responds to it.  They write: In the past certain ecumenical networks (often quite informal) have been catalytic in challenging the churches and ecumenical bodies alike.  This implies local churches are making their views known, although it is not easy to grasp what is meant by ecumenical networks (if they are not networks of local churches, what are they?). 

I stand by my last post, confirming 'ecumenical prodding' must come from local churches.  They need to be networked and they need to take the initiative.  This has been the message of this blog from the beginning.

Ecumenism will get nowhere if it is solely the province of church leaders and academic theologians.  This is in no way a criticism of their abilities.  They cannot enable progress independently of fully participating local churches.

Paradoxically, the problem lies in the progress that has already been made.  As more issues are identified and settled in formal talks, the remaining issues become more difficult; the easy things have been settled and now we turn to those entrenched issues, which have so far defeated the best minds.  These issues are difficult because they are about authority and decision making; the thing Christians cannot agree about is how they make decisions together.

This is not as dreadful as it might seem.  Churches can empower people to make decisions together and so now and again Christianity has inspired the growth  of local organisations, co-operatives, businesses, trade unions, banks, insurance companies - you name it.  This wealth of ways of making decisions has been a great gift of God to the world.

These form a generative tension  and so will never be reconciled because this tension is the crack in the broken Body of Christ that allows God's love to flow to the whole of humanity.

This is why the prodding must come from local churches.  As they struggle with the implications of irreconcilable authorities, against the need to collaborate for the Kingdom of God, they are generating solutions and pressing church authorities to relax their regulations.

It is out of this debate that real change will come.

Called to be One 12: The Role of the Ecumenical Instruments

This post relates to the twelfth critical issue in Called to be One: What Now?, The Role of the Ecumenical Instruments .

This critical issue resurrects a debate I thought had been settled decades ago and manages to miss the point entirely.  It seems some of those present at the consultation long for the ability of the old British Council of Churches to work outside of the churches.

The current ecumenical instruments assist the churches in their ecumenical relationships and do not initiate ecumenical activity themselves.  The vision is to seek the commitment of the churches to ecumenism, rather than ecumenism pursued by a minority of enthusiasts.

The case against this culminates in the following: One view being powerfully expressed is that the instruments have been largely reduced in their capacity to act effectively even as ‘heralds’, let alone as promoters, of ecumenism, due to an over-reaction by those in the churches who were determined to have no return to ‘the old BCC ways’ of ecumenical bodies acting ‘on behalf of ’ the churches. The end result, on this view, is that there is now no effective promoter of ecumenism outside the churches themselves, many of whom are happy to acquiesce in this position.

The final paragraph does not effectively answer this criticism, merely reiterating that it is not the role of the instruments to take the lead.  My answer to this is two-fold, a minor and a major point.  The minor point is the claim that the instruments do not promote ecumenism to the churches is ill informed.  The instruments do promote and remind the churches of their ecumenical commitments.  Their focus is upon support for the churches rather than initiating work themselves.  So, it is nonsense to suggest they are not effective in promoting ecumenism.

My major point is that there is an additional effective promoter of ecumenism ignored entirely in this argument: local churches.  Now, it would be rash to claim they offer a coherent single message but the reality is local churches and local Christians are making their point loud and clear.  They don't want the bureaucracy they associate with the national churches, they want to work together on mission and are not interested in anything that does not assist with their mission agenda. 

The message may not be what some ecumenists want to hear but it is being expressed with substantial consistency and insistence across almost the whole of the country.  The instruments know this; I wonder whether the people at the consultation are as aware of what is happening as they claim to be.

Called to be One 11: Secularisation or Re-Sacralisation

This post relates to the eleventh critical issue in Called to be One: What Now?, Secularisation or Re-Sacralisation .

I can't help feeling this issue sets up a false dichotomy.  The problem is common and centres on the idea that secularisation is synonymous with atheism.  It is not and never has been.  There are many Christians who are secularists.

Secularism is a political view.  It is the belief that faith and government (the state) should be separated.  It is a rejection of theocracy.  That word itself conceals a basic untruth.  There cannot be any human political system where God is in charge.  Such a system is always a group of people who claim to be doing God's will, which is quite a different thing.

I do not believe the record of people of faith in government is particularly edifying.  This does not mean people of faith cannot be participants in government.  Neither does it mean their values cannot be influenced by their faith.  It is healthy though when they have their faith values tested in political debate.

The problem of religions being in charge is their claim to be the way of God.  I would argue such a strategy cannot re-sacralise the world.  (When was it ever sacralised?)  Indeed, it will secularise the faith.  Why?  Because use of religious power for government means the faith is beholden to the compromises of government.

The Kingdom of God is a political agenda.  However, it is a political agenda in the sense that it challenges all political agendas by insisting the rule of God is not through exercising secular power but by challenging and confronting it non-violently.

I set my face firmly against a re-sacralised world because I do not want to live in a police state.

Called to be One 10: Relationships Between Roman Catholics and Others

This post relates to the tenth critical issue in Called to be One: What Now?, Relationships between Roman Catholics and Others .

The assumption underlying much of this paper, can again be seen here.  The default position seems to be to assess everything as a move towards or away from global unity.  So, we learn that only agreement at the highest levels can change official ecumenical relations.

So, what?  Local Catholic congregations play a full and valued role in local ecumenism.  Catholics contribute a grounded and practical approach to ecumenism.  Their work on Receptive Ecumenism  as well as Spiritual Ecumenism  and bilateral conversations, is detailed and helpful, demonstrating commitment to ecumenism at all levels.

Whilst I agree the local level needs to be heard, I question the perceived restrictions on local Catholics, implied in the last paragraph.  All churches impose restrictions on local congregations and can seem just as intractable as the Catholics.

I do not disagree there might be some increase in tensions between local and international Catholics about unity, as there seems to be a general tightening of centralised authority in the Catholic Church.  But this should not be taken too seriously because local churches have in practice a lot of autonomy.

Protestants should remember the Catholic Church is a single church with 1 billion members.  Changes in policy towards, for example, sharing of communion, have to be in the interests of the whole church and this will not be easy to achieve.  So, we should value the extensive, albeit limited, freedoms that are already available to us.

Called to be One 9: Protestantism and Cultural Disorientation

This post relates to the ninth critical issue in Called to be One: What Now?, Protestantism and Cultural Disorientation .

This is another issue that seems misconceived.  So, Protestantism has, unlike Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, been consumed by markets, management and novelty.

First, this implies unity lies in following the lead of Catholic and Orthodox churches.  But why should we?  Protestantism is widely varied but it seems we are all suffering from cultural disorientation and need a good dose of (very) old time religion to get us back on track.  Whilst I admire the grace and charisms of the great non-Protestant traditions, I also admire the grace and charisms of my own.  It has its debts to these ancient traditions but that is no reason to return to them.

The writers make a number of assumptions.  They imply Protestantism in Europe has sold out.  But Protestantism is all over the world and some of the world's most vibrant churches in Asia, Latin American and Africa cannot in any way be described as suffering cultural disorientation.  This is not to say they are perfect (far from it), but they are authentic.

What is being implied is liberal protestant theology has sold out to markets, management and novelty.  In my view, the churches that have sold out are American fundamentalist churches and the churches around the world that copy them.  Think about prosperity gospel  and what what that says through its uncritical view of markets.  Or the tele-evangelists and their marketing of cheap faith for a high market value.  Or Sarah Palin and her tea party movement.  Or Glen Beck who says the social gospel is not Christian.

Time and again I hear people saying Europe needs missionaries in reverse.  Last weekend hundreds of thousands of Christians attended the second ecumenical Kirchentag  in Munich.  The faith is alive and well in Europe, perhaps its America that needs missionaries in reverse.

So, what about the liberals?  They uphold in the main that branch of Protestantism that argues, debates, values research and evidence.  These are the traditions that have analysed the Bible and the tradition; questioned many things formerly held to be sacred.  All the churches have benefited from this activity, as they have adapted their teaching to the demands of the modern world.

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.