Exploring Ecumenism

Called to be One - what now?

I want to return to my sequence about the modern history of ecumenism.  The last post about the Marigold Book  was on 15 February.  In November 2009, an informal consultation on the future of the ecumenical movement  took place in Bristol. 

As a result of this consultation an open letter was sent to the church leaders of Britain and Ireland , calling on them to examine and question the commitment of the churches themselves to ecumenism:

What is being asked for is not another re-examination of the ecumenical instruments as such – these need the fullest possible affirmation, support and resourcing – but a self-examination and mutual questioning of the churches themselves as to their ecumenical commitment, attitudes, and actual performance. What were the expectations in 1990? How far have the churches actually lived up to them? How much closer are they today than they were then?  How far in practice are we ‘committed to’ each other?

Three Ways to Read the Bible

I've been thinking about the ways we read the Bible, probably as a result of the Channel 4 series, The Bible A History.  The following ideas are not exhaustive.  They outline three ways to approach the Bible, all of which can be subdivided into many approaches.

Two of these are imposed readings, at each end of a continuum.  Imposed readings are where we come to the Bible with a clear expectation of what it says.  We know what is good and right, and expect the text to tell us so.

Metropolitan Ecumenism

Yesterday , I referred to a post by Peter Phillips, Reflecting on metropolitan ecumenism and grassroots mission .  The idea of metropolitan ecumenism intrigues me.  Phillips implies he found the term elsewhere but I have found no other references to it following a Google search.  This is Phillips' definition:

So what is meant by metropolitan ecumenism?  Basically, to me it means ecumenism that is handled in London and by central office - hierarchical ecumenism - top down ecumenism.  My own first reaction to the speech was a good example - I went back to statements which had been issued by high-ranking meetings and agencies.  I went to the central tenets of Methodism and agreed wholeheartedly with what David Gamble said.  I argued it was fully in accord with what Methodists say about the Covenant and fits in well with that Covenant (and see the others who say the same within the same metropolitan media-style ecumenical perspective above).  I'd stick with that and I don't think there is anything wrong with such a viewpoint.  But the very danger is that we do stick there.  Sometimes we get set into a kind of networked mindset - where academics involved in a network end up in an ivory tower which is really helpful for their own research but misses the point of what is actually happening on the ground.  Metropolitan ecumenism is only as good as ecumenism on the ground.  We cannot and will not see unity within the Church through the dictat of any Synod or Committee.  Unity comes from the grassroots but can be enabled and empowered by metropolitan enthusiasm.  

On a practical level, metropolitan ecumenism might be a useful phrase to describe what I have tended to call 'central' or 'national' ecumenism.  I think the distinction between metropolitan and local is an important one and I have addressed it several times on this blog under the name of ecumenical reception .

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?

How Conversations Can Heal Our Divisions

It is something deep in the way human beings structure their organisations, that things do not always turn out the way they were expected to turn out.  This is the problem we face when we contemplate the history of the Franciscans and Dominicans (see my last post ). 

People do not set out to be evil.  We tend to have a Dr Evil view of evil.  The villain in the Austin Powers series, is evil because he enjoys being evil.  Usually, we set up our organisations for the good of humanity.  Something goes wrong and this particular group of people, with the best of intentions, sets off down the wrong road.

A History of Christianity

I have been reading Diarmaid MacCulloch's A History of Christianity  for the past 6 weeks.  I haven't got very far, it has 1016 pages and I'm on page 398.  One problem is it's a very heavy book (about two house bricks) and so not really practical to take on the train.  I read it while the computer boots up each day.  I worry my computer is rather slow but if I get it fixed, I'll never finish the book!

And I want to finish it because it is a brilliant book.  It is very well written and although some of the complexities require careful reading, it is because they are complex, rather than a fault in the writing.  This book makes accessible a great deal that puts Christian history into perspective.  It should be essential reading for ecumenists.

Ecumenical Reception: a Cinderella Discipline?

I wrote about ecumenical reception  about a year ago and I return to it for just one post.  This links with recent posts about the Global Christian Forum  and its implications for local ecumenism.

A helpful text about ecumenical reception is Ecumenical Reception: Its Challenge and Opportunity  by William G Rusch.  It is rather dry although persistence might reward the reader with a few interesting insights.

Participative Ecumenism

A few posts ago , I mentioned the use of participative methods as one of the distinctive features of the Global Christian Forum .  The intention has been to distance the Forum from formal talks about Faith and Order.

I have noticed a few other straws in the wind:

Reframing Ecumenical Theology in Local Churches

I was asked in a comment to my last post : how might we reframe our theology of ecumenism in real life terms for the average person in the pew?  This is of course in the context of the Global Christian Forum  and the increasing sense of Christianity as a global movement of people.

In my last post, I suggested local ecumenism in Britain might have more in common with global than national ecumenism.  This means local churches are perhaps less interested in the faith and order approach to ecumenism than they are in the practicalities of joint mission. 

Local and Global Ecumenism

Reading about the Global Christian Forum  has helped me think about local and national ecumenism in Britain.  It appears local ecumenism has more in common with global ecumenism than the national  ecumenical work of the denominations.

It seems local and national ecumenism have had less in common in recent years.  Think back to the English Covenant in the early eighties and then the 'Not Strangers but Pilgrims'  process in the late eighties.  The latter involved many local churches in meeting over Lent 1986 to discuss the future of ecumenism in Britain.  This process led to the Swanwick Agreement  and the new ecumenical instruments.