Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, The Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your might. Keep these words that I am commanding you today in your heart. Recite them to your children and talk about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise. (Deuteronomy 6:4-7)
In this series of short posts, I plan to consider in turn each of the readings in Churches Together in England's collection of Bible readings, One Light: One World. My aim is not to present a full exegesis but to ask what each text is saying about unity.
This is a core text for Christians and even more so for Jews. It is also highly formative for Islam. Given the immense amount of scholarship about this passage, what more can usefully be said?
God is one but does it follow from this that the church must be one? I do not see how church unity necessarily flows from the oneness of God.
I argued early in this blog that the mark of oikoumene is conversation. Conversations need at least two participants. So, the whole of creation is premised not upon unity but diversity. And indeed the Christian witness has always been to the diversity at the heart of divine unity in the Trinity.
The challenge is not to become one like God but to be reconciled despite our differences. Such reconciliation requires love of the one God but also immersion in the generative activity of God.
I wrote three posts about this era earlier this year and the first placed the Inter-church Process into its historical context. By 1985, the plans were advanced and the plan was to work through three phases.
Phase 1 was called Understandings of the Church and was to last throughout 1985 and until September 1986. It aimed:
To look closely at our understandings of the Church in the light of our common mission, from the point of view of the tradition and experience of each denomination, but also in the light of ecumenical experience and in relation to the existence of other denominations.
The objective was to find replies to a central question from local, national and international sources. The question was:
"In your tradition and experience, how do you understand the nature and purpose of your church, in relation to other Christian denominations and as together we share in God's mission to the world?"
At the local level, the aim was to engage local Christians to share their views together during Lent 1986. This would be 'nationally co-ordinated and locally devised'. This process would be supplemented by the views of those involved in local ecumenism and members of other local Christian Communities.
At national level, the national churches would be consulted and asked to produce a 2000 word response to the churches. This would be supplemented by the views of national bodies such as the Evangelical Alliance, other responsible secular, professional and non-Christian organisations, and major non-Christian faiths. This would be supplemented by work already completed.
At international level, the findings of multilateral and bilateral conversations would be collated and third world views obtained through church missionary organisations.
I summarised the results of this process in a recent post.
Phase II: Reflecting and Questioning Together, over the autumn and winter of 1986-7, aimed:
To promote prayer, reflection, and mutual questioning on the material produced in phase I in order to prepare for phase III.
This would be done at local, regional and national levels though meetings to discuss the material produced at phase 1. The expectation was ecumenical groups would make their own arrangements but the 'nature and purpose of the church' would also be the theme for the January 1987 Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.
Phase III was Evaluation and Proposals for Action between the Spring and Autumn of 1987. It aimed:
To evaluate and assess this process of prayer, study and discussion in order to discern the way forward and to make proposals for the practical and organisational aspects of the churches' mission and unity, including the shaping of the ecumenical instruments needed for the future.
This would take place through a series of meetings. (1) Three meetings took place in England, Scotland and Wales within 10 days of each other, (2) a conference of 500 - 1000 participants in September 1987, (3) after September proposals would be considered by churches and other ecumenical bodies.
The vision did not have a narrow Faith and Order focus. In terms of content and its commitment to engage with all interested parties locally, nationally and internationally, the process showed a real vision for the whole church in the context of the wider world.
There was a genuine commitment to engage with local churches. Given the technology of the time, they achieved something that would be unthinkable now. It is amazing they were able to do all this 25 years ago. With blogs and social networking today, it would seem easier to undertake these wide-ranging conversations. In reality, this vision seems to have deserted the ecumenical movement and such a broad conversation seems impossible.
The document, Inter-Church Programme Proposals, looks forward to the Inter-Church Process of Lent 1986. The key question they hoped to address was: What is the Church and what is it for? The aim was to consult widely with church leaders, church members and church related organisations. After some brief speculations about how this question might be asked in terms of mission, God's Kingdom and God's final purpose for all, they write on page 5:
We might go on to ask whether our Churches might recognise each other as "other provisional embodiments of God's purposes". However, our hope in tackling these questions is not just to produce new documents, but to enable action to follow to change our standing in one another's eyes and our relationship to each other within the fellowship of Christ, so that together we might follow our common calling "in and for the world". And we shall also need to ask: What is the world saying to us? What is the Kingdom asking of us as Christians? What is the meaning of the Church in a secular society which sees no purpose for it?
Note the aim of this process was not restricted to unity. It was not unity for the sake of unity but for the wider benefit of the world. There is an expectation that things would change as a result of this initiative.
Our Churches' 'confessions' to one another of what we believe we are as churches, given both our varying size and the doctrinal, social, cultural and historical context of our life, will be placed 'on the table' for further use in the process. These are not envisaged as final, but as provisional responses, incorporating the viewpoints of those concerned with the Church's mission, evangelism, ministry and social responsibility, as well as those concerned with Faith and Order and with Christian unity. But they will be something new, in that we shall be saying how we see our own church in our overall perspectives, which will be encouraged by existing or new co-operation between us. This will lead us on to ask ourselves together: On what basis, and on what understanding of the Church can we move forward? And, out of this process, what shape might emerge for the ecumenical instruments needed to serve the Churches' common mission to the world?
Again it is clear that a vision of churches collaborating in a common relationship with the world was foundational to the Inter-Church Process. It struck me, following the January 2009 conference about receptive ecumenism, that receptive ecumenism needed to be accompanied by ecumenical reception and a third process I called transformative reception. This is where the churches together allow the world to form their mission and ministry. It is unsettling to find it current 25 years ago, given I found it necessary to reinvent it following that conference.
Again, I am forced to ask why it is, given the undoubted success of the Inter-Church Process, modern ecumenism stepped back into Faith and Order debates, losing its sense of commitment to the world?
It is interesting, reading Inter-Church Programme Proposals, from February 1985, to see how much has changed in the British ecumenical scene over the last 25 years. This is a short pamphlet written to outline the proposed Inter-Church Process, for Lent 1986.
Despite the failure of the English Covenant in 1982, the document is surprisingly upbeat, particularly in the light of the then recent visit of Pope John Paul II to Britain and the encouraging and supportive approach of the Roman Catholic Church at the time.
The Roman Catholic Bishops made a particular reference to the Documents of the Second Vatican Council, because it was there that a reappraisal of their understanding of the Church led Roman Catholics to a new relationship to other Churches and to the world, and to a new understanding of the churches' mission. Their stress on local ecumenism arises from their concern that church members locally should experience the 'creative dislocation' of ecumenical encounters which change our perception of our fellow-Christians and lead to a new awareness of our common mission. (Page 3)
This is an interesting paragraph for two reasons. Much of it resonates with current interest in ecumenical reception and receptive ecumenism. The warmth of the embrace of ecumenical dialogue by the Catholic Church is familiar through to this day, as is the emphasis on mission.
What strikes me though is the concept of 'creative dislocation', which seems to be a much more positive approach to local ecumenism than we find today. This is something I think we'll see as we explore the story of the Inter-Church Process: a much more positive view of local ecumenism.
One of the questions I hope to address is, why has the commitment to local ecumenism become dulled over the last quarter century? The Inter-Church Process was a success by any measure, so why is there so much scepticism today? It is as if church leaders wish to protect local churches from 'creative dislocation' rather than encourage it.
One of the strengths of Harmon's book, Ecumenism Means You, Too, is his emphasis on the importance of belonging to a tradition. In a recent post I showed how I see each of the mainstream traditions as embodying, in various ways, catholicity. All traditions are compromises between a variety of theological approaches and this can be thought of as the defining attribute of any Christian tradition. Adherence to a single defined set of beliefs stifles internal conversation and ultimately isolates the believers from the Body of Christ.
Harmon writes on page 61:
We can make progress towards unity when we make progress towards catholicity within the denominations, and we make progress towards unity when the denominations share their distinctive patterns of catholicity with one another. As individual Christians we must be shaped by a particular denominational tradition in order to help our own church toward unity and in order to help the rest of the church learn from our own church.
This is a good definition of receptive ecumenism, a topic touched upon by Harmon elsewhere in his book.
I have elsewhere argued there needs to be an intergenerational conversation about unity and that conversation is itself an exercise in ecumenical reception. To arrive at conclusions between church leaders with no awareness of what younger people are thinking, would be a recipe for stagnation. The point is, we have a generation that no longer looks to church leaders for leadership. This can be seen as a danger for the churches but it can also be seen as an opportunity.
It looks like Harmon is attempting to start intergenerational conversations along these lines in the States and it will be interesting to hear how he gets on. In the meantime, how about some similar conversations in Britain?
Harmon in his book Ecumenism Means You, Too refers to Jesus' prayer for his followers in John 17. Here Jesus prays they will be protected from 'the evil one'. Harmon writes on page 7:
The "evil one" is the one elsewhere in the New Testament called the "devil", diabolos in Greek, which literally means "one who divides". The work of the diabolical one is to bring division, to divide people from God, and to divide people from one another The evil one seeks especially to bring division to those who ought to have the unity shared by God the Father and God the Son.
I am planning a series about the devil in my other blog, So What?. So, I won't say too much here but there are a few observations I must make.
There is a real need for Christians to get a grip. The mythology around the devil seems largely Medieval rather than from the time of Jesus. Walter Wink's work on the powers for example, clearly explains the subtext of writings about the devil or evil one.
The term "evil one" is an interesting circumlocution. It is too easy to equate it with Satan, who appears for instance in Matthew's account of the temptations. But surely 'evil one' could as easily refer to anyone who causes division?
Harmon's equation of 'evil one' with the devil, leaving aside the subtleties of what Jesus might have intended, is a point well made.
I have made the point many times that the idea of conversation is core to ecumenical theology. Genuine conversation, free to generate new ideas is fundamental not only to ecumenism but also to oikoumene, the reconciliation of all things.
Conversation, or relationship, is core to life, to all that flourishes throughout the universe. Wink shows power usurps life by restricting free conversation. When people stop listening, relationships fail. When people are no longer aware they are not listening, divisions become entrenched. Power generates its own immortals who are omniscient, always knowing what is right and true.
The nature of a God who is forever new is alien to this worldview based upon certainty. The Spirit of God is found upon the knife-edge between order and chaos. To move off this knife edge in either direction is to move into isolation.
Hell (closed down by Jesus, by the way) is where no communication, no conversation, no relationship is possible. It is being totally alone. The churches show they are alive through their conversations and this can be seen however formal they are. Even the most dull ecumenical document is a sign that the churches are alive and able to engage with God's world
... ecumenism is not pluralism. Ecumenism is the quest for unity amongst Christians now divided by denomination. It is not the effort to find some generic essence of religion that might minimise conflicts between the religions. Interreligious dialogue that respects the real differences between the religions is necessary to clear up misunderstandings that Christians, Jews, Muslims and adherents of other religions may have of one another, and this too is an important task for the church's theologians. (Page 3)
Harmon argues, where 'younger Christians tend to attribute denominational divisions to human sinfulness' (Page 5) this is an encouraging sign. I would add, it was impossible a few decades ago and is a mark of the success of the ecumenism of the twentieth century. This is something I have referred to in earlier posts and is marked by the idea of Christians Together, as opposed to Churches Together.
Harmon goes on to suggest on page 6, 'Abandoning denominational commitment in the name of being "non-denominational" can actually undermine the quest for Christian unity in some unanticipated ways, and moving easily from a church of one denomination to a congregation of another can be a symptom of the consumer mentality that is endemic to American Christianity.'
Many younger people in my experience are proud of their ability to move between churches. I have expressed my doubts before. It can mean a Christian is unwilling to be formed by a single tradition and by refusing the detail of a single tradition, the possibility is that faith itself is superficial.
This is not in itself a reason for no movement between churches. Sometimes people need to change as their faith matures and this is fine, so long as the move is accompanied by a determination to grow roots in the new tradition. It is even helpful for some people to put down roots in two traditions, they can be interpreters between the two.
It is almost as if Christians Together and Churches Together inhabit different worlds. The problem is we don't recognise and encourage open debate about these two approaches and how they might be reconciled.
Reception is no longer a matter of persuading congregations to accept agreements between church leaders (if it ever was). Today, the task is a dialogue between generations moving, it seems in opposite directions.
It is difficult to find good books about ecumenism. Too many seek to report the Faith and Order debate in tedious detail or else extol the many treasures we have to offer one another. Too often the whole becomes a litany of denominations and what they have to offer each other.
I have avoided this approach and suggest we focus upon how we approach the ecumenical task rather than tedious dissection of issues of little consequence for many people.
I therefore welcome this little book, Ecumenism Means You, Too: Ordinary Christians and the Quest for Christian Unity by Steven R Harmon, which bucks the trend and offers a masterful summary of the case for ecumenism, does not ignore the Faith and Order debates but focuses on what is important to every Christian.
It is written for young people and, although from the context of America, it is remarkable how many of the issues identified are common to Britain. Indeed, many have already been visited several times on this blog.
Harmon is encouraged by the instinctive ecumenism of many younger people who no longer recognise denominational boundaries. But he questions the wisdom of this and quotes the Irish Rock Band U2, 'We're one, but we're not the same'.
He recognises the sense that the ecumenical tide is going out, that there is less interest in ecumenism amongst younger people despite the successes of the previous century.
The ecumenical leaders of the past few decades are retiring and passing away, and few younger leadersare ready to take up their mantle. The denominations that were once heavily invested in the quest for Christian unity have now turned their energies to their worsening internal divisions. Conflicts within denominations over biblical authority, gender, and sexuality have greatly complicated efforts to secure unity between the denominations.
I will in a few future posts touch upon some insights from this book but I recommend it in its entirety because it makes a straightforward case for younger people to pick up the baton.
I should add that despite being a short and clear read, this book does not hide its scholarship. This is no attempt to water down ecumenism. Indeed it is a brilliant example of ecumenical reception, the type of reception I have argued is needed between the generations.
This blog will be two years old in November and so, during my summer leave, I have been thinking about how it has developed and will develop into the future.
From the beginning, I have written about ecumenical theology, starting from the basic ecumenical activity of conversation and extending it to the concept of oikoumene, the reconciliation of all things to God. In recent months I have begun to relate these speculations to ecumenical history and key documents. I will extend this over the coming months.
The most exciting opportunity has come from a friend who was a religious radio broadcaster during the 1980s Not Strangers but Pilgrimsinterchurch process. She has been clearing her attic and so I have a pile of material to read and digest. I have found little of this material on the internet and I don't at this stage know how much I will be able to get online but I hope over the coming months to develop a resource about this fascinating era of British ecumenism.
I have tended to ignore some of the major ecumenical statements, eg Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry or the statement on justification. I hope to explore those available online and offer a guide to reading and interpreting them. Ecumenical reception is crucial and the most neglected ecumenical activity. The Faith and Order debate claims significant achievements but these achievements mean little if they are not known about, debated and understood.
I will start a series of book reviews. I have referred to a number of books in support of my arguments but rarely discussed the books themselves. So, I will return to some of the books I've referred to previously and also introduce some new ones.
A few years ago, Churches Together in England published a short pamphlet that listed key ecumenical texts from the Bible. Under the category of exegesis I will be writing about each of these texts and asking what they might mean for churches today.
Finally, a topic about which I know very little but hope to learn more. This might be headed ecumenism and culture. Does culture make a difference to ecumenism? We tend to think of ecumenism as unity or reconciliation between traditions. Perhaps culture is also an issue for ecumenists.
In my last post, I reported the new blog, Methodist Ecumenical News. Whilst Exploring Ecumenism will continue to offer a speculative take on ecumenism, MEN will focus on what is current, agreed and of interest to Methodists. I have found writing this blog helpful as a resource I use elsewhere, rather than something my many readers see fit to comment upon.
For me the purpose of blogging is the opportunity it affords to develop ideas, ideas I find I use elsewhere. It is a little odd to be writing a blog about conversation where no-one wishes to engage in conversation but I'm having the conversations elsewhere and so I suppose that is OK.
Consultancy for Mission and Ministry This should take you to details of the Consultancy for Mission and Ministry course at the York Insititute. See my post about non-directive consuultancy around 9 September 2009.
Image via Wikipedia
Recent Comments