Exploring Ecumenism

An Historic Event

Image by ManilaRyce via Flickr

On Friday evening, 17 September 2010, I attended the service of evening prayer at Westminster Abbey, led by Pope Benedict XVI and the Archbishop of Canterbury.  It seems this was an historic event.  This was the first time any Pope has set foot in Westminster Abbey and I think the first time a Pope has led a service with any Archbishop.

So, what do I make of all this?  How will this service be viewed in 10 or 20 years time?  I suspect it will be mentioned in the guide books at the Abbey; will it have any more significance than that?

One problem I had was, being somewhat hard of hearing, I had difficulty hearing what the Pope was saying.  I hope to track down and read his speeches and so will comment on them later.  I was sat in Poet's Corner, not far from William Blake, and there was a screen between us and the high altar, where the service took place.  So, my comments this time are upon the event itself.

As a non-conformist, I find this type of ceremony less moving than many people seem to and so much of the emotion passed me by.  But I think it was significant they were able to make this commitment together.  The point at which they prayed together at the tomb of St Edward the Confessor moved many people.  For me perhaps the most moving moment was right at the end of the service when the two men walked down the chancel steps.  I noticed the Archbishop was supporting Benedict.  Perhaps this is a sign of personal warmth between them, I hope it is.

This was an act that primarily took place between two traditions, Roman Catholic and Anglican.  Leaders from other churches were present as witnesses but this was certainly not a multilateral ecumenical event.  This is not necessarily a bad thing and is certainly understandable in view of the venue.

My deepest concern is more difficult to express.  I've sat in on planning several liturgies where delicate issues have had to be addressed.  I've seen the way in which positive gestures can be used to skirt around other difficult and deeper issues.  My impression was Benedict was there to pray at Edward's tomb. 

It did not feel as though the divisions between the two churches were being addressed.  I wasn't expecting any grand gestures but the reality of the blood shed between these churches a few centuries ago was an unspoken presence.  Was Benedict there to pray at the tomb or to heal the divisions?

Some would say both.  Maybe that's true.  But if both, why did we need the prayers at the tomb?  Yes, I accept this was a significant step on the way (how significant we will learn in time) but it seemed to me the Pope was still holding this relationship at arm's length. 

I feel uneasy about it.  This was not ultimately the normally easy relationship Protestants and Catholics experience in England.  It certainly isn't enmity.  But is it friendship?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Church Leaders Welcome the Pope's Visit (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Pope shakes hands with woman priest in historic service at Abbey (telegraph.co.uk)
• Methodist President will meet Pope Benedict XVI (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

Unity or Reconciliation?

Image via Wikipedia

In this post, I'm building upon my response to the book by Yung-Suk Kim, Christ's Body in Corinth, I have recently reviewed elsewhere.  I wrote a series of posts (starts here) in response to the book, a while ago.

The idea of full visible unity has always been the primary vision of those involved in ecumenical work.  The main alternative is sometimes called 'reconciled diversity' and it seems generally accepted this approach falls short of full visible unity.  If the academic work has been done to fully assess reconciled diversity, I've never seen it or heard of it.  The debate however appears to be closed.

The significance of Kim's book is, he makes the case for reconciliation rather than unity.  It is interesting that he sets them up in opposition to one another.  For Kim, unity and reconciliation are incompatible.

Why?  Because unity is between leaders and is negotiated.  It ignores legitimate diversity in an attempt to centralise authority. 

Reconciliation is necessary where differences cannot be resolved and, according to Kim, we are left with the solidarity of the marginalised. 

So, the challenge to ecumenists is not to find a solution that enables a single organisational approach to church.  The task is to learn to love one another despite our differences.

I have written a great deal about the importance of relationships, of conversations as an end in themselves.  Unity implies stasis, it implies it is possible to find a form of words to which all shall sign up and so unite the churches.

Reconciliation between marginalised people is inherently unstable.  It implies the oneness of Christians will never be resolved because it is the act of loving despite differences that is important.

The Parable of the Rich Fool

I'm reading Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels by Kenneth E Bailey.  Something about his analysis of the parable of the rich fool (Luke 12:13-21, page 298) reminds me of this blog's main theme.

The rich fool is alone.  He has no-one to discuss his situation.  Furthermore he is a fool because he does not know he has a problem.  He stores his wealth in barns and believes this is all he needs.  He lacks family, servants and community.  It's not that he doesn't share; it is that he makes his decisions on his own.

His wealth has isolated him to the point where he has no-one else.  It is likely this would have been understood by Jesus' listeners.  Wealth of this type means he will have controlled more and more land.  He believes he is secure with these possessions.

The subtle point is his focus on possessions isolates him not only from humanity but also from God.  He does not understand that what he cannot take with him, is loaned to him.  Ultimately his wealth is not his own.

Bailey makes two points about this obsession with possessions which I think bear reproduction.

1. When the prophet Habakkuk wrote about the coming of the Chaldeans, the most alarming thing he could say about them was, "Their justice and self-worth proceed from themselves" (Hab 1:7).  What could be worse?  Habakkuk saw that the Chaldeans confessed no God of justice who could judge them and their cause.  Indeed, they alone decided what was just - and this disturbed the prophet deeply!
2. Another difficulty is that the person who fights for a just cause usually thinks that he or she is thereby a just person.  Everything such a person does in fighting for that cause usually becomes right in her or his own eyes.  Woe to those who fall under the sway of this kind of self-created justice.  This parable presents a new perspective on the cry for justice.  (Page 301, my numbering)

This type of behaviour is familiar; for example I could mention various types of vigilantism, especially where allegations of child abuse are involved, or the decision to involve Britain in the invasion of Iraq (and possibly some of the campaigns against it!).  The point is these activities are marked by the impossibility of engaging the self-righteous in meaningful dialogue.

I have argued in this blog, the key is openness to dialogue, the ability to set aside the urgency of self-preservation and to allow solutions to problems to emerge from conversations. 

The genius of ecumenism is the openness of churches to conversation across their divisions; a recognition that no tradition is alone and all are needed.  With two billion members, the Roman Catholic Church does not need other churches.  But the reality is churches in many places are in a minority and struggle to hear the word of God in inhospitable places.

Another place I encounter self-righteous behaviour is in conversations between Christians and atheists.  Too often the same attitudes that have led to divisions between Christians are on display thus: 'I have the truth and cannot be persuaded that one small part of it can possibly be wrong'. 

As soon as we arrive at this place, we are on our own.  Neither human beings nor God can reach the person who is right.  It matters not if their power is based on wealth or absolute truth.  To close down conversation is to polarise belief and to turn our backs on faith.  We can never overcome our differences until we are open to conversation with others.

God's Faithfulness Surrounds You

Let the heavens praise your wonders, O Lord,

your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones.

For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord?

Who among the heavenly beings is like the Lord,

a God feared in the council of the holy ones,

great and awesome above all that are around him?

O Lord God of hosts,

who is as mighty as you, O Lord

Your faithfulness surrounds you.  (Psalm 89: 5-8)

This picks up from where I left off with the last reading.  The love of God is constant compared with human love.  To make a genuine effort to love your neighbour, depends upon the constant love of God.

The Psalmist emphasises the faithfulness of God.  The implication of these first three readings from one light: one world (see the links below) is that we derive our unity from the oneness of God, because we will let one another down and so we are dependent upon the constancy of God.

This does not necessarily imply our aim is for organisational unity between the churches.  It is God who is constant and we need that constancy because we are not constant.  Is it possible for humanity to be constant? 

The implication is that it is not.  The only thing we know is that we are not constant and therefore in need of God.  God's faithfulness implies reconciliation much more than it implies unity.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Lord Our God is One (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• The only Lord (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

The only Lord

One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, 'Which commandment is the first of all?'  Jesus answered, 'The first is, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.".  The second is this, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself."  There is no other commandment greater than these.'  (Mark 12: 28 - 31)

This is part of a longer story and I have already looked at it in a previous post.  I will not repeat here what I said then but I will make a few points about this part of the story.

The first commandment is the Schema and is almost a quote from the previous passage in this series.  It is almost a quote because Jesus has added the words 'and with all your mind' to it.  Why? 

The second commandment is from Leviticus.  Apparently, given that Leviticus comes before Deuteronomy in the Torah, it would be normal for a rabbi to quote them in the reverse order.  Jesus puts love of God first.

This story is about love.  We should love God because God is one and this is most important.  Why? 

God's love is something we can rely upon.  Because the motives of people are confused, love of neighbour can be a thankless task.  To love is to risk your own well-being for the benefit of others, who might not appreciate the gesture.

The oneness of God means God is reliable, unlike those we are called to love.  So, although the oneness of God does not necessarily point to the unity of the church, it seems unity is only possible through a reconciled church and reconciliation is dependent on the oneness of God.