Exploring Ecumenism: August 2011

« July 2011 | Main | October 2011 »

August 2011

Tuesday, 09 August 2011

On Being Loyal to a Tradition

Many posts on blogs around the world oppose ecumenism on the grounds that the writer's own tradition is the one true church.

Some writers claim it is not possible to be loyal to their tradition unless they believe it is the one true church. It is this belief I want to consider.

To be loyal to a particular tradition is a good thing. It is possible to be loyal to something that is not perfect. The problem we have is the only thing we know for certain is that we are in error. Unfortunately we do not know in which particulars we are in error.

We can claim to examine the evidence but we can be self-deluding, as we can always find evidence to back up our beliefs. Find someone who does not believe what you take to be self-evident and true, eg a believer in the flat earth or UFOs, and you will find they can interpret any data to support their views. So can I and so can anyone. We do not know we are doing it and if we did know we would not believe the things we believe now in the same way.

So, what is the alternative? I can say I am loyal to my own tradition and on that basis join in the debate with others. Our aim ceases to be to prove the truth in my own tradition and becomes encouragement and support for those who seek the truth in their own tradition. This will from time to time lead to challenging views held in another tradition from the perspective of my own. In doing this I am inviting deeper reflection rather than promoting my own tradition.

Fr Andrew in his 'Roads from Emmaus' blog, posted Ecumenism with a Gun, where he approaches this same issue in a very different way, which remains committed to ecumenical conversations:

I believe that Orthodox Christianity is the one, true way, that the Orthodox Church is the one, true Church, and that every single man, woman and child should be an Orthodox Christian. I hope that other religious people believe the same things about their religions. If they don’t, they are at least partial relativists, and if one is a relativist, I don’t see the point in being part of a religion. (Or they could simply be very mean—their faith is the one, true faith, but they don’t want to see other folks in it.)

Posted at 06:00 PM in Conversations, Formation, Theoretical Ecumenism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, 08 August 2011

Strategic Barriers to Visible Unity

Image by Rickydavid via Flickr

Last time I suggested a model of Christian diversity based upon historical connections, rather than structural unity.

Two posts ago, I mentioned a pathway towards visible unity for the Church of England and British Methodist Church. This pathway starts with the Anglican Methodist Covenant, then shared ministry leading, via Methodist and women bishops, to interchangeability of ministry and then to visible unity.

Strategically this sequence is problematic. The basic problem is the arguments in favour of unity themselves create barriers to unity.

So, we achieve shared ministry, which means closer collaboration between local churches becomes possible, so long as local church leaders (Bishop, District Chair and Superintendents) are prepared to collaborate. Interchangeability means all ministers, whilst still under their denominational authorities, are fully recognised by the other church. Visible unity is where the two churches are effectively one.

Let's say we achieve shared ministry, which is likely to happen. Does this increase or decrease the possibility of persuading the Methodist Church to adopt Bishops? It is not at all clear. Whilst it seems shared ministry is an essential step, what if people think shared ministry is sufficient, they have the freedom to manoeuvre they need, why go any further? Similarly, if interchangeability is achieved, it does not necessarily mean structural unity will happen. The costs of the final step might outweigh any tangible gains. If we have interchangeability, why go to the extra lengths of structural unity where the legislation (in Parliament) will be huge, as well as all the legal costs?

Worse, even if the necessary steps take place it doesn't mean the churches are meaningfully united. For example, the British Methodist Church is being invited to have Bishops who have the 'sign of the historic episcope', or laying on of hands. No other Methodist church has this, even where they have the title of Bishop. I don't think Methodists in Britain not value this sign; it lacks meaning for them. What does have meaning for Methodists is the means by which a Bishop is appointed. If they are voted in by church members, for example, they might be seen as genuine representatives of the people and so be accepted (this is how Bishops are supposed to be appointed - although episcopal churches are not always quite so democratic). The Presidents of Conference are the suggested candidates to be Methodist Bishops and they are elected by Conference representatives. If this is seen as sufficiently democratic, this might be easier to navigate through Conference than the sign of the historic episcopate.

But hold on. If this is so, in what sense can it be said the two churches would then be closer? The Methodists accept the sign even though they don't value it, whilst accepting Bishops for a reason the Anglicans don't value.

Note, I am not saying this is what will happen, what I am trying to do is illustrate the issues we have to face as we approach visible unity. The diagram in my last post illustrates why I think unity lies in history rather than across the branches of the tree. Trying to reconcile traditions that have developed separately is bound to encounter deep resistance, not necessarily from those who take a principled stand against further unity.

Posted at 06:00 PM in Covenant, Ecclesiology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, 07 August 2011

Re-thinking Full Visible Unity

Having a Canon (and we can include the creeds) is liberating. The liberal critique might be (1) the Canon is restrictive and (2) much has been written that is equally valid.

Two points. We can be confident, with some significant but small exceptions, the Canon and the creeds are common ground between most traditions.

Also, strategically having these agreed texts liberates us in the use of them. They will always be there. We can and do depart from them in all sorts of ways. Sometimes this can be highly creative, to the degree a new departure leads to a new tradition. At other times it can be destructive, especially when an interpretation is identified with the Canon and creeds. Their unchanging nature (apart from new translations) means any interpretation is legitimate insofar as the interpreter is aware that is what they are doing.

So, we can experiment with confidence that no harm can be done to the foundations of faith. This is theology based on forgiveness, we can be confident because we know that there is always forgiveness if we make a mistake. But it is crucial as well for those who take a strict traditional view; they too can be forgiven.

We find our common life then, not through the branches of the traditions but in their roots. The diagram illustrates what I mean. It shows the general progress of faith as different traditions split off. The rules are we can flow only in the direction of the arrows. Each numbered node is a point where there was a split in the tradition and the dashed line is where one tradition influences another.

So, nodes 1, 2 and 3 could illustrate the great schism where the Western and Eastern churches split.

But let's consider nodes 5, 8 and 9. These could be the Church of England in the eighteenth century (5), the Church of England today (8) and the Methodist Church today (9).

Here are a few comments:

The diagram is actually no different to a growing church, where each node is a congregation that splits when it reaches a certain size. Splits that create new traditions might be different in motivation but may still be evidence of growth.
Node 5 no longer exists. We tend to talk loosely as if nodes 5 and 8 are the same. They are not. Both 8 and 9 are new churches descended from node 5.
If node 9 is the Methodist Church, the dashed line shows how other traditions made a contribution to its foundation. It was formed by a split in node 5 but was influenced by node 7 which might be the eighteenth century Moravian Church. John Wesley was influenced by several traditions.
The creative times may well be at the times we see splits between traditions. What is the nature of the inspiration that leads to a split? Some may be more creative than others. I suspect the most creative insights are not meant to lead to a split. A split motivated by a leader's lust for power is not likely to lead anywhere significant. But where there is genuine inspiration, then the split represents a genuine choice which in fact creates two new traditions, which go on to develop in parallel.
We could see the various traditions as organised ways to explroe different aspects of the faith, over the generations. Together they represent the entirety of the Christian faith. There is no single correct tradition.

So, we can see the churches are united in history but not in the present. Our unity is in history rather than in contemporary structures.

I have presented this as an example of an alternative way of looking at the diversity of Christian traditions. What are its implications in practice? Next time I'll attempt a worked example.

Posted at 06:00 PM in Diversity, Exegesis, Theoretical Ecumenism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, 06 August 2011

Full Visible Unity

Image via Wikipedia

I haven't said a lot about full visible unity in this blog, which might seem odd as it is a major theme in the thinking of many committed ecumenists. My problem is, I don't think there is clear agreement about what it means and therefore it is hard to think about it strategically.

Visible unity is where two or more traditions are united under one organisation. So, for example, in 1976 visible unity was achieved between most of the Congregational and Presbyterian churches in England and Wales. Full visible unity is often meant to be similar unity for all the churches. I think this is a Protestant vision of church unity and it culminated in the English Covenant, which fell apart in 1982. The 1989 Swanwick Declaration was an announcement of a new approach called Churches Together but many have clung, perhaps implicitly, to the original vision of full visible unity.

Visible unity is feasible, not only because examples can be found but also because pathways to visible unity can be planned. So, the Anglican Methodist Covenant is seen as a step towards visible unity between the Church of England and the British Methodist Church. However, to say something is feasible is not the same as saying it is likely. We know the necessary steps towards visible unity but the two churches may or may not be likely to take them. The pathway may be clear but it is not guaranteed easy and some may not be willing to face the implications.

The pathway goes something like this:- within the Anglican Methodist Covenant we move to shared ministry (now under consideration by both churches) and then by way of women Bishops and Methodist Bishops, we progress to interchangeability of ministry and then the final step to structural unity. Whilst it is certainly possible to take something like this path, there are significant strategic problems - but that's a topic for another time.

We need to take care not to assume because structural unity leads to visible unity, visible unity requires structural unity. We are so used to assuming the two are essential to each other that the effort of imagining visible unity without structural unity is daunting. But what if it is structural unity that blocks progress to visible unity? I can think of four reasons why structural unity is not an adequate pathway to full visible unity.

It is assumes the Christian world is static. Any feasible version of full visible unity must be able to accommodate change.
There are massive implications about accountability for use of power in a single structurally unified church.
It would be unstable. Both conservative and congregationalist tendencies would destabilise it. There are several groups in the traditional churches who do not agree with ecumenism and believe their expression of church is the one true church. It is hard to conceive of a united single church which could accommodate such various and strongly held views. On top of that there are others who don't believe in the authority of church organisations (let alone Bishops).
Theologically, I wonder whether it is the right direction. The mindset is one of law. The church hierarchy determines the law and the rest of us obey. This is not the Christian understanding of the rule of spirit and love. It isn't that some discipline isn't needed in any church but holding something as immense as a world church together, using the discipline of a single structure, would be impossible.

Formal conversations are usually seen as steps towards structural unity but I am not convinced it is where they are leading. Their main success has been to open up the possibility of mutual recognition between the churches. This is ground upon which Christians can build. We forget not long ago most Christians believed those of other traditions were not proper churches. Today it is a view held by a minority, albeit a vocal one.

If we want full visible unity we won't find it through formal conversations or strategic plans. It is something churches discover as they participate in conversations and grow closer in praxis.

Posted at 06:00 PM in Ecclesiology, Theoretical Ecumenism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, 05 August 2011

Mission, Formation and Unity

Cover via Amazon

This is the sixteenth and final post in this sequence about ecumenical formation.

In the book Theory U by C Otto Scharmer, the author uses the image of a painting to illustrate the nature of the U theory. I have previously covered U theory in a sequence of posts, starting here. To answer the question 'what?' we can look at the painting. The painting itself tells us nothing about the future but it has a history and in itself we may learn a great deal. To answer the question 'how?' we can watch the artist at work. And so we learn the technical aspects of the art of painting. Finally, we can ask the future orientated question 'why?' and this time the image is of the artist contemplating the empty canvass. In a sense there is little to see but without this vital step there would be no painting at all.

Perhaps mission, formation and unity express this threefold approach. When we speak only of mission and unity, we not only lose the contribution made by formation but lose a sense of the role mission and unity play in the church.

Mission addresses the question 'what?' It is inevitably past orentated as it is an expression of the faith. It is those who are formed by the church acting on their formation. This is not to say it is static, far from it; it is the church in action.

Formation addresses the 'how?' of the church. It is in formation that we encounter the insights of our own tradition and then the insights of others. As Christians we need to learn about our faith, about how to pray and how to preach and minister. We need to learn something of the breadth and diversity of faith. It is something we need to learn to do both within and between our traditions.

Finally, we approach the question, 'why?' We are brought back to the opening words of Genesis and John, 'in the beginning ...' And we discover it is about diversity, about the conversation between God and matter and later God and humanity. We are united in the conversation. In the conversation we find our purpose and grow into our mission.

I'm going to move onto a new sequence next but hope to return to formation as a theme later. The next step will be to explore the practicalities of ecumenical formation.

Posted at 06:00 PM in Conversations, Formation, Mission | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, 04 August 2011

The Nature of Ecumenical Church

Image by +++CoolValley+++ via Flickr

This is the fifteenth and penultimate post in a sequence about ecumenical formation.

Ecumenism is about relationships between people. Social capital makes a distinction between bonding and bridging relationships. The former take place within a group and builds up capital as people learn to trust one another. Bridging capital is between groups and is the more challenging of the two. It is challenging because it demands mutual respect for church cultures that have evolved over many years.

Ecumenism is a sign of genuine church. How do we know any given church is part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church? One sign is its ability to hold its own people together despite their theological differences and another is recognition of other traditions as brothers and sisters of the same faith.

So, in formation we see the two movements of roots down and walls down. These are not necessarily sequential. Although bonding capital needs to be developed first, Christians will return to their own traditions, frequently as they regularly participate and deliberately as they bring new questions to ask of their own tradition.

But the encounter with others is crucial because it raises questions as it brings us into new relationships with God. As we debate, the spirit is at work and brings us into new truths. The ecumenical church grows through the sum of all these conversations.

Posted at 06:00 PM in Conversations, Ecclesiology, Formation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, 03 August 2011

Bricolage: The Future Church

This is fourteenth in a sequence about ecumenical formation.

Once we place formation at the centre of ecumenical thinking, we find ourselves in a very different place from traditional Protestant full visible unity. When mission is at the centre, full visible unity makes sense. The argument goes that a united church is good for mission. Lack of unity gives the wrong impression.

Why should it? The only reason lack of unity seems negative is because we make it so. Unity expressed through church structures is no more impressive than disunity expressed through church structures. Some of the fastest growing churches are anti-ecumenical and split off from the mainstream. Sometimes this illustrates the problems we encounter when formation is not central. To go it alone is to cut your tribe off from what is common to all traditions. It isn't a sign of pure doctrine but of truncated doctrine, based on the whim of unaccountable leaders rather than on the shared faith of the people.

We need to think not upon imperial structures of top down authority but upon bricolage (the illustration is a 'Monstrous "Heath Robinson"-style contraption for cracking nuts', by velodenz). If there is trust between traditions than we can cobble together what we need from whatever is around us. It is tidy minds who create the problems; we must have a hierarchy with everything in place or failing that go it alone to preserve our precious purity.

We need in summary a culture of asking for forgiveness rather than for permission. The confidence to ask forgiveness comes through good formation, formation which makes us independent of the structures and doctrines that nurture us.

Posted at 06:00 PM in Conversations, Diversity, Formation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, 02 August 2011

Roots Down, Walls Down

Image by bitzcelt via Flickr

This is the thirteenth post in a sequence about ecumenical formation.

There are then, two movements in ecumenical formation. I came across a slogan at a conference about Arminianism last year, 'Roots Down, Walls Down'.

Logically roots down comes first, although in time the two movements will interact with one another. As we explore our own tradition (even before we think of it as our own), we drill down into it. We learn of the distinctive insights, shared by those who belong to it. This is not to claim traditions are unchanging. Compare the agendas of Methodist Conference in the 1930s and today. The concerns about the sabbath and temperance have almost vanished, replaced by political issues such as racism, poverty and the environment. And yet it is still the same tradition.

Drill deeper still and we begin to tap into more that is shared with other traditions. Methodism's history means it shares some of its heritage with the Church of England for example. But the point is we approach this material through the Methodist doctrine and church structures that make Methodists different from Anglicans.

At this stage encounters with other traditions make sense. We can challenge each other to go deeper, confident we are drilling into the same bedrock. We should not need to defend our differences because in discovering them, we help those of other traditions see their own from a new perspective. This approach is known as receptive ecumenism. We discover as our roots go down, so too the walls between us come down.

In following this path, we steer a course between two unwelcome extremes. First, the desire to tidy up and bring everything into a single structure. The challenge is to love and support one another despite our differences. To convert someone would be to lose their insights from the conversation.

The other is the desire to fly apart, to abolish the traditions and go it alone. Ultimately, I don't think this is possible. To choose no tradition, is failure to acknowledge what influences you. Ultimately it displays spiritual ignorance, lack of awareness of one's own roots.

Posted at 06:00 PM in Conversations, Diversity, Formation, Reception | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, 01 August 2011

One Church or Many?

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

This is the twelfth post in the sequence about Christian formation.

Last time, I suggested formation is familiarity with a library of texts associated with a particular tradition. It is further supported through encounters with other traditions, which cause us to draw upon experience of our own tradition and make it conscious. Indeed formation takes place not only through ecumenical encounters or interfaith work but in any missionary situation where we talk about God.

This leads me to ask whether, through a formational lens, we see more clearly the case for reconciled diversity.

Full visible unity strongly implies structural unity. This requires analytical theological negotiation. So step by step, as each difference is dealt with, theologians move on to the next problem.

With a focus on formation however, equiping all church members with insights from their own tradition and conversations between traditions, we are in a very different place. There is still a need for theologians but their focus changes to what helps communication between Christians rather than debate between scholars. This does not downplay scholarship but re-frames its energies.

A major problem with formal conversations is their lack of reception by church members. To see theological work as primarily one of formation, brings the urgent need for reception into focus.

This approach brings another debate into focus. Many claim to have abandoned the traditions and seek a Christians Together approach. The free-spirited nature of this is of great value but it tends to call into question the value of formation. We urgently need conversations between them and traditional ecumenists.