Exploring Ecumenism

Transformational Reception

I am working on a new subtitle for this blog.  My working draft is: 'A radical Wesleyan approach to transformation through ecumenical conversations'.

This is meant to pull together many of the strands I have covered over the last few weeks and I will try to outline here how I see it coming together.

Radical Wesleyan

My roots are in radical theology and so I think 'radical' is important but my roots are also in Methodism and I think from a Methodist perspective Wesley is important and especially his doctrine of sanctification.

Furthermore, sanctification is the key to unlocking the third dimension of reception.  Wesley was a high church Tory and yet against his own preconceptions he introduced several radical approaches to the Christian faith.  From 'consenting to become more vile' over field preaching to his ordination of ministers for America, and many other times, he acted with reluctance but decisively.  I think the reason is that his conservative inclinations were covered by the first two dimensions of reception (ie receptive ecumenism between traditions and ecumenical reception between the local and central church) but the third dimension (the new industrial poor in particular) radicalised him.  Here the issue was reception by the world of the Christian faith but also reception by the church from the world.  I shall name this dimension 'transformational reception'. 

Transformation ('transformational reception')

This is where we find reception of ideas by and from the world.  The other two dimensions (the traditions, and local and central church) are largely internal conversations whilst this dimension opens up these other two dimensions to the reality of the world as it is.

The churches observe the world and respond to the world through the inspiration of the spirit.  Without this third dimension ecumenism becomes an inward and solipcistic activity.  Increasingly little of what the traditions say to the world will make sense or seem relevant or even loving.  This is why so much street preaching these days is marginal; most of the groups that practice it are sectarian and live in their own world cut off from the reality most people experience. 

Ecumenical conversations

The tendency is for formal ecumenism to be understood in a linear fashion.  It is communication of my tradition to others, ecumenical decisions to local churches and the faith to the rest of the world.  My point is that each of these dimensions is two way; they are conversations.  The challenge to ecumenists is to learn to work in these three dimensions and in both directions.

A further complexity depends upon how we understand conversations.  First, conversations are not second best to action.  To enter into a good conversation is to act, even though it may be an exchange of words.  But conversations do not have to be words; any action that causes a response is a conversation.  In this sense the divine word is not only spoken but also acted.

So far I can think of three distinct categories of conversation for transformational reception:

• Conversations, usually verbal between the traditions and the world; secularists and people of other faiths.  Each tradition may well have such conversations of its own but there needs to be a pooling of insights and ideas, if not full collaboration.
• Conversations that consist of interventions into matters of socio-economic reality.  A great deal of ecumenical chaplaincy work, community work and even campaigning will come under this heading.
• Science and the study of the cosmos as a whole.  An experiment or field observation can be seen as a conversation.  Each tradition will of course have its own interpretation of scientific findings.

The study of missiology has a term Missio Dei, by which is meant God taking the initiative in mission;the experience of finding God already active in the most unexpected places.  I'm not sure whether this is any different from what Wesley meant by prevenient grace.  Transformational reception incorporates this activity into my model of ecumenism.  It also begins to offer us a theoretical framework for understanding 'mission in unity'.

Nineteenth Century Working Class Movements

If my conjecture about the impact of Wesley's evangelical revival on the nineteenth century working classes is correct I will need more evidence to back it up than I am capable of producing.  Nonetheless, I think there is a certain amount of circumstantial evidence around and yesterday I suggested some evidence from Wesley's teaching.  At the very least this evidence might encourage further exploration. 

Today I want to explore circumstantial evidence from those movements themselves.  My first point is that there is plenty of evidence that many of the familiar institutions in modern society  originated from the organised working classes rather than from the initiatives of the wealthy.  Of course money was needed to, for example build churches, but social institutions were quite another matter. 

The retail co-operative movement is particularly interesting as it was founded to provide high quality food to the poor at an affordable price.  The customers were the owners and received a share of the profit as a dividend.  The growth of this movement is often under-appreciated and as well as hundreds of retail societies, the co-op developed the first wholesale societies and the networks of transport to deliver supplies to the retail societies.  Even department stores were an invention of the co-operative movement.  The earliest societies also had reading rooms and aimed to educate their customers as well as feed them.  This spirit of co-operation spread into libraries, banks, building societies, insurance companies as well as many small mutual aid societies where members paid into a common pool to support those members or their families who fell on hard times.  Note I'm not arguing these grew out of formal Methodism but that the ways in which Methodism was organised encouraged similar developments in other fields. 

Co-operation or mutuality is another element of these institutions.  Mutuality is an approach about which I will have a lot to say in future posts.  It is understood by the poor, as they commit to support one another in their poverty.  By organising, mutuality could be made more effective.  It is not generally understood to be summarised in Jesus' second commandment to love our neighbours as we love ourselves.  Preachers often say this means we have to love ourselves after our neighbours but this is not the plain meaning of the words.  This is not pure altruism, it is care for all as if we are a part of each other.  Why?  Because we are all loved by God and so the second commandment means everyone including me. 

Finally, we should note that Methodism and these movements were democratic.  There are many forms of democracy, the two main types being representative democracy (where we elect others to represent us) and the type where we are heard directly.  Representative democracy is a convenience, the direct type requires our commitment.  It requires our participation in the process even where the final decision may be made by a few elected or agreed leaders. 

Wesley was never elected and his societies were run by trusted selected leaders.  However, it is interesting to read how he viewed 'conferencing'.  Runyon writes:

... Wesley's understanding of "conference" as a means of grace.  Whilst it is true that "conference" later became the term for the one hundred preachers Wesley assembled annually to advise him and to conduct the business of Methodism, from the beginning "conferring together" or "conferencing", was the means of opening up new insights and possibilities that could not be arrived at singly.  The effect was democratising, ... whether Wesley intended it or not.  Its rapid growth from small beginnings resulted in members of the movement having 'a direct say in many decisions ... All this was democracy in action, and ran counter to the authoritarian and hierarchical structure inherited by the Church of England from the Middle Ages.'  (Page 126, Runyon's emphasis)

So, what has all this to do with ecumenism?  After two months of posts I think I am now in a position to summarise my understanding of what ecumenism is. 

Redirection

Yesterday I mentioned the importance of being able to suspend our views in order to make space so that we can hear what others are saying.  Suspension is the first step towards increased awareness or deep listening. 

Suspension on its own does not necessarily lead to great change until the listener begins to see patterns in what they are hearing.  As these patterns emerge, the listener can redirect their attention to them.  This is the second step, known as redirection.  As the boundaries between seer and seen dissolve, the source of the reality they encounter becomes clearer.  (Presence, page 43.)

It is important to be aware of what is meant by 'source' here.  It is the reality of what is behind the object or relationship but it should not be thought of as some sort of Platonic ideal.  There is no single truth underlying the world as we perceive it; because the world is in constant flux. 

1. There is some element of connection between seer and seen.  I am a part of the systems I observe.  This clearly parallels the experience of scientists who study quantum mechanics and have found that as observers they are in fact a part of the system they are observing.  How much more so in human or soft systems, where the observer is inevitably related to the system through relationships and the baggage they bring to making their observations.  Of course this means our experiences will be 'different for everybody'.
2. Similarly these systems, for example networks of Christian traditions, change with time.  This means that all of us have a part in changing the system and of course the system will change us. 

How much easier would ecumenism be if we were able to freeze all change so that we were able to agree to changes?  The problem is that even were we able to do this, changes initiated by us or others beyond our control can render change futile or irrelevant.  As Presence (page 45) succinctly puts it:

When people who are actually creating a system start to see themselves as the source of their problems, they invariably discover a new capacity to create results they truly desire.

This should have profound implications for ecumenists.  It challenges us to be aware that we are a part of the problem but also that when we understand this we might collectively be in a position to map a way forward. 

It seems to me this view takes seriously the challenge of human sinfulness whilst at the same time allowing for the possibility of real change.  I will in a later post show how for Methodists this makes sense as an instance of John Wesley's doctrine of sanctification.

Why take part in ecumenical conversations?

In the light of my posts last week, especially the ones about the unity of God and diversity of creation and the image of God,  I came across this from the post Father Count - still counting in another blog.   

I have problems with ecumenism on two levels.  One is knowing the Protestant point of view on the subject, that “no one church possesses all the truth, but we possess the entire truth when we come together.”  Since the Orthodox Church does possess all the truth, it makes no sense to get together with people whose idea of “worship” comes dangerously close to worshipping themselves, since they continually “create” God in their own image and likeness.  Why would any Orthodox person want to go there?!

This view and similar ones are common in blogs written by Orthodox and Catholic bloggers, particularly in the States.  (Very few people seem to blog about ecumenism in the UK and if they did I would expect a greater proportion to be Protestant bloggers.)  The perspective on ecumenism I'm finding is very different to what I'm used to and so it is interesting to discover a very different emphasis, where leadership seems to be centred within Orthodox and Catholic traditions.  (These are first impressions, I'm sure I'll learn more as I read more.)

It is this 'Protestant view' that interests me and I wonder where it has come from.  To a degree I recognise it and my first inclination was to think (a) I'm a Protestant and don't believe that, and (b) but I could see some Protestants believing it.

The idea that the traditions don't individually have all the truth and need to come together to discover it seems questionable to me.  It is as if each tradition is a piece of a jigsaw puzzle and once we fit all the pieces together we'll get the right answer.  This cannot be right.  The churches in the mainstream ecumenical instruments in the UK recognise each other as part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church.  How can we be so if each tradition alone is only part of the picture?  Each tradition must have all that is necessary for salvation or else they would not be recognised as a Christian tradition.  Individuals might dissent from this belief but it is the position of all the mainstream Christian traditions. 

So, it may be true that Orthodox Christianity possesses all the truth but so does the Methodist and all the other traditions.  So, why ecumenism?

1. When I enter into conversation with other traditions, it throws light upon my own tradition.  As I reflect I learn more of my tradition, its history, theology and culture.  I can only conclude Methodism has all that is necessary for salvation, although there is always more for me to learn.  I learn this through dialogue with other traditions as they learn of their own tradition through dialogue with me and my tradition.
2. But there is more to be learned through conversation because it will inevitably lead us to new insights, ideas that have not been had before.  The world is bigger than our own traditions and it is when we look outwards, the interactions between our distinctive traditions may help us find new ways of addressing the issues that concern us today.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what the blog means about Protestants worshipping themselves.  As a Methodist I believe our foundation tradition, through John Wesley, addresses this criticism.  I will write about sanctification in future posts and I believe this doctrine shows how Methodists address the problem of idolatry. Idolatry is a problem for all Christians and I find it hard to see how any tradition can prevent its adherents from practising it other than by good instruction and guidance.

The Image of God

So, according to Sacks biblical morality is a tension or interaction between unity and diversity.  I think I understand local morality more as custom or culture than morality although I think I can see why Sacks favours morality and certainly morality is a part of custom or culture.  Universal morality will to a large degree be free of local custom or culture although its formulation might lead back to unspoken origins.  I'm not inclined to worry too much about this so long as there is consensus over human rights. 

More to the point, unity or diversity alone will inevitably over time lead to stagnation; each perspective challenges the other and so opens up possibilities for change.  The activity which enables systems of morality or culture to be dynamic is conversation and I will return to this.

In chapter 3 of 'The Dignity of Difference' Sacks goes on to discuss the nature of God:

As an ancient Jewish teaching puts it: 'When a human being makes many coins in the same mint, they all come out the same.  God makes every person in the same image - His image - and each is different.'  The challenge to the religious imagination is to see God's image in one who is not in our image.  That is the converse of tribalism.  But it is also something other than universalism.  It takes difference seriously.  (Page 60)

No individual therefore can know the mind of God because they are a part of it.  Indeed no community and culture can know the mind of God because they are still only a part of it.  This is why conversations are so important; the spirit creates something new out of the clash of cultures.

By way of illustration, let me make two comments.  First, theologians are increasingly recognising the importance of contextual theology as opposed to academic theology.  For the former the context of the theologian is important, not because it is therefore somehow relative, but because its context needs to be understood alongside those of other theologies.  Conversations may be less effective where the contexts of those taking part are not known.  The criticism of academic theology is where it claims to be somehow more objective.  The criticism is that the academic simply does not know his or her own context.  This is why an early post described my context.

Second, Jesus' second commandment to love your neighbour as you love yourself.  At school we were taught this as a three layer ranking of love.  God first, neighbours second, self third.  This splitting of the second commandment is of course absurd.  If God has created all people in God's image then all people are equally loved.  We have to love all including ourselves (and by extension our traditions) because all are loved by God.  This is the origin of the idea of mutuality to which I will return in future.

Unity in Diversity

The British Council of Churches between the late 1940s and 1989 was largely Protestant and its vision was of full visible unity.  This vision was supported by other parts of the world where uniting churches, eg the Church of South India, demonstrated that it was possible for Protestant churches to unite.  In Britain this vision was supported by the Methodist Deed of Union in 1932 and the birth of the United Reformed Church in the early seventies.

Since 1989, with the new Churches Together approach, the model of the Council of Churches, decisions made independently of the parent churches, has given way to churches making their own decisions together.  I described this in an earlier blog.

Imperceptibly, the emphasis has shifted from unity to diversity; to unity in diversity.  The problem has been to find a model of reconciled diversity that is not seen as a means to avoid the complexity and difficulty of full visible unity.  Even unity in diversity has to be made real in some tangible way.

I think the problem in part is that the movement from a focus on unity to a focus on diversity is not simply a shift in emphasis.  Unity is a model based upon control.  To place all churches under one model of governance implies this.  It also implies that if we work at it hard enough we will in time solve the remaining problems and find the model that will bring all the churches together.  This is to see the human relations under God as a convergent system.

Unfortunately human systems are divergent.  Diversity implies no single centralised control and no overall solution to the problems we face.  The approach is one of devolved centres that seek to identify and join in the movement of the spirit through their dialogue or conversation.  Unity will emerge from the interactions of many players rather than the reception of decisions made through formal talks.

Clearly this will be unsatisfactory to many but we have to ask ourselves how likely it is that formal talks will unite all the churches (rather than a few) and that they will stay united.  The diversity model implies we will stumble upon unity rather than plan it and this itself might seem unsatisfactory.

Divergent systems are sometimes known as soft systems and it would be helpful for ecumenists to understand them.  They will, I'm sure, be described in a future strand of this blog.

Ecumenical Reception - conversations in three dimensions?

It appears then that conversations take place in two dimensions; between and within traditions.  But this cannot be the full picture.  William Rusch in Ecumenical Reception writes on page 116:

It should be noted that to date there is virtually no evidence of even partial or preliminary ecumenical reception of ethical or gender issues that are now showing the potential of being church-dividing within and among churches.  Until some clarity is obtained on these subjects, further steps towards ecumenical reception will be hampered.

If the aim of ecumenical reception is full visible unity, it has to be asked what would be the consequence of achieving such a goal?  Our local churches wrestle with a range of ethical issues, sometimes as a result of a decision they have made, sometimes because they're forced to and sometimes without understanding what they are facing.  Sometimes local churches do this together.  Usually, we call this mission and sometimes it is asserted that unity is essential for mission. 

So, two churches of different traditions are wrestling together with a local issue.  How would closer agreement about the conduct of holy communion help them to do this?  Let me be clear, I'm not saying communion is irrelevant to the mission of these churches.  I am saying we need to understand how our ecumenical conversations are relevant to local mission.

The churches in Cleveland were able to collaborate over long term unemployment through RESPOND!  I have no recollection of ever discussing the traditional concerns of ecumenical conversations.  The churches journeyed very deeply into practical theology, especially through Dark Holy Ground but I don't think the formal differences ever made any difference.  It is a long time ago and my memory may be faulty but I think many churches jointly engaged in mission today would also fail to see the link.

Indeed formal ecumenical conversations might even inhibit collaboration if Rusch is right and the churches cannot agree about gender and ethical issues.  The cries asking why we always have to wait for the slowest before we can do anything would be deafening.

Of course, most local churches collaborate over mission and ignore the ecumenical conversations as at best irrelevant and at worst divisive.  Perhaps mission is a third dimension where formal conversations are prepared to enter into dialogue with the issues that engage local churches.  As we contemplate climate change, debt and racism (to name three out of many intractable issues of our time) what do our ecumenical conversations have to contribute? 

Ecumenical Reception - conversations in two dimensions

Let me attempt my own explanation of ecumenical reception.  First, what is meant by reception?  Imagine a major political party that decides on a substantial policy change.  Its first task is to persuade its members.  This is simple basic reception, where a decision is made by the governing body of an organisation and it must ensure, for the decision to be effective, that it is accepted by its members.  A number of factors will come into play and not least amongst these would be the members' understanding of the party's founding principles. 

Reception applies within churches too.  Presumably, the early church would have perceived reception as simply working out the implications of their faith as the widening membership encountered new challenges.  Reception should not be confused with evangelism, which is about telling the good news to new people.  Reception is agreeing on what the believers in fact believe.

Ecumenical reception is more complex because members of various denominations are being asked to receive new ideas that do not originate solely from the councils of their own traditions.

William Rusch's in his book Ecumenical Reception offers a variety of definitions of the term.  One of them, from Gilles Routhier (page 61), has the advantage of being short and perhaps straightforward.

Reception is a spiritual process by which the decisions proposed by a council are received and assimilated into the life of a local church and become for that church a living expression of the apostolic faith.

The way I see it is this.  A council for a major denomination with several thousand local churches make a popular decision.  This decision is so popular that every church agrees with it, enthusiastically endorses it and incorporates it into their life.  The chances are we will find several thousand interpretations of the decision.  Usually, decisions are not so popular, are not successfully explained or passed onto the churches and, if more than one tradition is involved the reality will be even more complex.  In the latter case we may find not only that the councils of the 2 or more traditions differ but where more than one local church addresses the change their views might be jointly and severally different too.  Fortunately, a wide range of interpretations might be acceptable and be perceived as creative interpretation but even so churches will wish to understand and interpret this variety.

These are merely the problems ecumenical reception seeks to address but I suspect there are some problems with the way it is framed.  Return to the Routhier definition and note the movement is all one way from council to local church.  There is no real recognition that there might be a conversation not only between the council and local churches but also between local churches. 

A decision made by a council might be itself in response to demands from local churches, who find existing regulations no longer meet the needs of their mission.  Indeed much ecumenical work begins with local churches, who then ask their councils for changes.  But this will not merely start locally, the dialogue has to continue into the later reception period.  And of course if it is a dialogue, who can predict where it might lead?

Ecumenical reception implies then that ecumenical conversations are not only between traditions but also within them.  Neglect the internal conversations and serious problems are likely to be encountered.

But this is in fact a conversation in three dimensions and I will turn to the third dimension tomorrow.

Dark Holy Ground

Dark Holy Ground was a course run by RESPOND! during the 1980s.  Robert Gallagher, one of the 3 course leaders had a gift for listening.  He made loads of notes on scraps of paper and so one evening after the course the 3 leaders took them to a pub in Guisborough.  Over a few pints they set them in  order, with much debate, which must have been loud because after they finished they looked up to find their table surrounded by people fascinated by what they were discussing.  I have that booklet somewhere and when I find it I will quote from it on this blog.

I met Robert, to interview him for my only ill-fated article for the Teesside Advertiser.  As the participants shared their experiences, the long term unemployed spoke of how they thought their unemployment was their fault.  Then by hearing each others stories they discovered that others felt the same way, soon they came to see unemployment as not their fault but something to do with society.

Frequently they spoke of how they had come to see unemployment as the best thing that happened to them, something that has to come from the heart of those who have experienced it.  This experience of the power of sharing stories was repeated many times as groups of long-term unemployed formed across the county.

Soon , they came to speak of darkness - how God had a dark face but was still somehow God.  The pain and burden of unemployment remained but somehow recognising God in the darkness made a difference.  They began to see their estates as dark holy ground.

And then they turned to the psalms and found people who lived 3000 years ago had experienced what they experienced.  One particular example was particularly powerful.  Psalm 139: 11.12 reads (New RSV):

If I say, 'Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light around me become night', even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is as bright as the day, for darkness is as light to you.

They read these verses and someone noticed that at the end it is still dark.  The darkness is not dark, the night is as bright as the day but it is still dark; still night.  To find common ground with the psalmists in Cleveland's estates was empowering even though the pain remained. 

The Christian faith does know joy but to focus on joy to the exclusion of suffering is to deny people's experience of the dark face of God.  Many dark places are empowering, the image of light needs to give away to the equally empowering image of darkness.  When we acknowledge the pain in people's lives a real transformation begins.

I had two conversations with Robert.  During the second he asked how I thought he felt as he listened as a pastor to someone pour out the story of their pain.  This was of course a rhetorical question; his answer was 'joy'.  I didn't understand.  'Because', he said, 'it is there in the pain that I feel closest to God'.   

Three corners of ecumenical conversation

First, the obvious type of conversation is the conversation between people.  In one sense we converse when we are involved in any exchange of information through signs such as words, pictures or gestures.  These conversations can be with people in the past, present and future.  When I read a novel or manuscript written by someone long dead, I can build a picture of their world; this glimpse of their reality might lead me to new thoughts and insights.  As I write, I can imagine the future reader and how they might respond and this to a degree forms what I write.  Of course, not all exchanges of information are fruitful.  There is an element in a fruitful conversation of hearing the other, seeing the world from their perspective.  As our perspectives mesh, perhaps new insights will emerge from the interstices; the gaps between our worldviews.  When we fail to listen our views may become entrenched or defensive, the possibilities close down.

The second type of conversation is through prayer.  Prayer can take many forms but all true prayer must be based upon listening, watching or perceiving.  Some will claim prayer is a conversation with God if that is so, it leads us to an odd conclusion.  The point of conversation is change.  Just as in human conversation, nothing happens unless perceptions change; so with God prayer implies change in God as well as in me.  I find this an exciting idea and will explore it further in future.  The thing is to resist the temptation to rush in and protect God against change.  The question is how does prayer change God; in what sense can change and God go together?  I leave it there for now.

The third conversation is between humanity and the universe.  The work of the scientist comes first to mind.  To ask questions of the universe demands answers that build up a dialogue between the scientist and the world.  The artist does much the same thing: if I make this change to  these materials what do I have now? 

All three of these conversations demand human involvement.  I will at some stage explore non-human conversations but this will wait for the future.  What I want to assert is that to be human, conversation is essential.  Where there is no conversation, humanity is thwarted.  Repression destroys freedom to converse.  People under repressive regimes quickly lose the ability to converse.  Only controlled exchanges are permitted and often this is policed by the people themselves.  Similar regimes can be found in workplaces where people fear for their jobs and of course in churches where freedom of thought is frowned upon.

What of ecumenism?  Oikoumene is a form of the word ecumenism sometimes used when we mean the reconciliation of the whole cosmos to God, rather than the narrower meaning of relationships between churches.  This is the dimension of ecumenism I want explore further.  The understanding that is too often lost when conversations take place between traditions.  This type of ecumenism is a three cornered conversation between humanity, God and the universe - it is the context in which conversations between church traditions take place.  We need to understand this context.