Exploring Ecumenism

On Being Stuck

Image by Bonita Sarita via Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the last couple of posts, I wrote about the Anglican Covenant debate.  I could also mention the recent meeting between Olav Fyske Tveit, General Secretary of the WCC and Pope Benedict XVI.  Tveit gave the Pope a pair of gloves, as there is a need for the right equipment to address the problem of the ecumenical winter.  'The Norwegians have a saying, '"In Norway there is no such thing as bad weather just bad clothing".'

I am currently re-reading Robert M Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.  In chapter 24, he writes of what happens when you need to unscrew a plate to access the insides of a motorcycle.  The screw sheers off, what do you do?  There is nothing about this problem in any manual.  The screw is a tiny cheap device which is normally taken for granted.  Once it sheers it prevents any progress whatsoever.  So, what do you do?

You could throw the motorcycle over a cliff.  Momentarily, this might feel good but really - throw away a good motorcycle for a little screw?  There has to be a better way.  The problem is that where the manuals run out of advice you need to take a wider view.  The motorcycle is part of a larger system than the one the manual deals with.

So, for example, it must happen frequently in the life of someone who mends motorcycles for a living.  Ask a mechanic and she might reply, something along the lines of ... ' well, I try something and if that doesn't work I try something else until I get the screw out'.  This might not sound satisfactory but what else is there?

Ecumenism (and the Anglican Covenant) are both intractable in their own ways.  Part of the problem is the Faith and Order approach.  Its problem is its successes.  Theologians have developed a significant body of material that has reconciled communions despite their differences. 

Sometimes there's an arrogance; all these local churches working together are not enough they argue.  We need formal conversations to move ecumenism forwards.

The problem is once you get stuck, more of the same is not enough.  The bigger picture needs to be considered and new approaches tried until the system becomes unstuck.

Related articles

• WCC General Secretary meets the Pope (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• The Ecumenical Landscape (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

The Fragility of Systems and the Illusion of Stability

Cover via Amazon

It's a while since I posted about systems but I saw an article 'Black Swan-blind' by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in the New Statesman dated 5 July 2010, page 29.  The article is about economics and the recent collapse of the banking system.  Taleb's book, The Black Swan: the Impact of the Highly Improbable, describes those events that

1. are outside the realm of regular expectations
2. carry an extreme impact
3. human nature makes us concoct explanations after the fact.

I haven't read his book but it certainly looks as if it might have something to say to the churches.  Perhaps during the twentieth century, the churches were able, to some degree, to separate themselves from the catastrophes of church history.  I suspect the third point still holds sway (the sign of the historic episcope being one example of explanations after the fact).

Taleb writes:

I explained in the book that the best teachers of wisdom are the eldest, because they have picked up invisible tricks that are absent from our epistemic routines and which help them survive in a world more complex than the one we think we understand.

He identifies three aspects of natural systems which make them robust:

1. redundancy - if there is a disaster, systems with redundancy are more likely to survive.  They may be disadvantaged in normal times by the costs of carrying the redundancies but this is compensated when things become extraordinary.
2. diversification - the more complex things are the more likely they are to survive.  So, a country that specialises in one commodity is more likely to go under in a crisis.
3. smallness - small things that are self-contained don't bring down everything else when they are in trouble.  Lots of little things are inherently more robust.

The obvious question is whether the quest for unity is likely to be good for the church.  It was the urge to tidy up financial systems, to introduce efficiencies, to ensure everyone subscribed to the same ideology that brought the system down.  If all believe the same thing, where does accountability come from?

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.

Catholicity

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?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ecumenism Not Pluralism (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• Ecumenism Means You, Too (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• Protection from the Evil One (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

Protection from the Evil One

Image via Wikipedia

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.

1. 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.
2. 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?
3. 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

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ecumenism Means You, Too (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• Ecumenism Not Pluralism (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

Ecumenism Not Pluralism

Image by m.a.r.c. via Flickr

In his book Ecumenism Means You, Too, Harmon argues:

... 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.

Ecumenism Means You, Too

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 leaders are 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.

The Discipline of Subversive Ecumenism

Towards the end of December I prepared a paper for the Sheffield Jesus Seminar, organised through the Urban Theology Unit and St Mark's, Broomhill.  I didn't get around to publishing it on this blog at the time.  The paper was in two parts.  The first was lifted from a post I made in April 2009, The First Commandment is One Commandment Not Three.  The paper I was asked to write for the seminar was called 'Jesus and the Discipline of Subversive Love' and I was offered the same passage as I had analysed in this post.

The Seminar took place on 22 May 2010 and I have only this week started to examine the results and I will in a future post pick up a few interesting issues that arose.  Five of us presented papers to about 30 people.  Then five groups spent 15 minutes with each author, so everyone got to comment on all the papers.

So, follow the above link for the first part of the paper and then read the following for the second part.

The Ecumenical Prayer

This summer I am preaching around my circuit about the Lord's Prayer.  There will be three services, it is a rich theme, which could probably support far more than three sermons but sometimes congregations need a break!  My main source is Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels by Kenneth E Bailey.

Bailey has been known to me as a writer for many years.  His analysis of the parable of the prodigal son impressed me during the mid-nineties when I was studying for my Masters in Applied Theology.  His access to Middle Eastern traditions brings rare insight to his writings.

His main focus for the words, Our Father, is upon the second word.  He goes into great detail and there's no point in dwelling on it here, except to observe the word translated in English as Father is universal.  I think we can properly see it as a celebration of oikoumene, understood as the reconciliation of all things, because it affirms God as Father of all people.

I am particularly interested in the first word, Our.  Bailey doesn't have much to say about it but what he does say is very interesting, page 100:

In conclusion the phrase in the prayer is "Our Father" not "My Father".  The Psalms have frequent reference to "my God", and the personal relationship between the God of the Bible and the individual believer must not be ignored.  Yet, as we will see, the Lord's Prayer affirms a family of God that has one Father, and this prayer includes all followers of Jesus in that family.

It may be simplistic to say, whilst God is Father of all, those who pray Our Father are part of God's family.  There are still many Christians who insist their tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) is the one true church and that other Christians are lacking authenticity in some way.  But the family is all who say this prayer. 

I do not deny we are united by more than this one prayer.  However, we need to understand it is a statement of who we are and our collective relationship with God. 

These opening words tell us that when we raise the sword against anyone, we deny the image of God.  When we raise the sword against our fellow speakers of the prayer, we cut ourselves off from God's family.

Views from the Pews

The Not Strangers but Pilgrims Inter-Church Process  started from an understanding that nothing would work without support from 'local, national and International levels'.  This was achieved in part by a massive consultation process over Lent 1986.

Fifty seven BBC and independent local radio stations produced programmes.  Local churches met once a week over Lent and listened to the programmes and used a book prepared for study: What on Earth is the Church For?