Exploring Ecumenism

The Cross

Returning to the theme of the Body of Christ.  Fundamental to our understanding of what Paul means by this is, according to KIm, the cross.  Crucifixion was for slaves, the marginalised and the poor.  Through Jesus God identified with them.  This is why Kim argues Paul cannot mean hierarchical or hegemonic unity.  Jesus' death identifies God with the lowest in society.  The problem in Corinth was the patronage system and the resultant perception of unity as between leadership, rather than in the solidarity of the most marginal people.

There is no single truth

Kim in Christ's Body in Corinth is critical of modern biblical study's 'search for for pure or absolute truth' (page 12).

This raises a question for me; why do we expect to find absolute truth in scripture?  For me it has always been about being challenged by scripture.  I don't expect to find truths but questions; questions that help me be accountable.

My father and I used to argue about unity.  My father was a Zen Buddhist and a Unitarian.  He also fell in love with John's Gospel.  Unity was very important to him.  It was important that God is one and that all things are one.  I could never get this, how can you have a conversation if there is only one?

The doctrine of the Trinity does not say God is really three, it says God is three in one.  This means that somehow diversity can be found in the one God.  We know 'it all started with a conversation' because we know that in the beginning there was the word.  If there is only one, there is no need for words.

What do we mean when we say the Spirit has replaced the law?  If we believe this, why do we seek law in scripture? 

It seems to me this is a modern obsession with absolute truth.  At one time scientists believed that soon they would know everything there is to know.  Scientists no longer believe this, but it seems every religious faith does. 

This modern insistence on absolute truth was challenged theologically by liberation theology and then by numerous contextual theologies.  The churches have been led down a blind alley by both liberal theologians and fundamentalists.  Both believe there is one truth out there, both would call me a relativist. 

They would be wrong.  Next time, I'll try to explain why.

Life on the Knife-Edge: Advantages

The key to keeping going, to living life on the knife-edge is the enthusiasm of those taking part.  This should be understood in the literal sense of enthusiasm, spirit filled.  The spirit filled community shares the same vision, is living in the Kingdom, living eternal life.  So, we see the Jerusalem community in the early chapters of Acts, having everything in common, to the extent that later we learn Paul is collecting for the same (now impoverished) community (2 Corinthians).

This shared vision is presumably meant by Kahane in his fourth generative type of conversation.  This is the type of conversation that creates new things; makes a genuine contribution for the good of society in general. 

The innovation and creativity that is required to keep going on the knife-edge is often expressed in simple structures that allow for future more complex developments.  So, Wesley's societies, classes and bands led in time to the union movement and co-operation.  Simple listening exercises led to the growth of projects for the unemployed through Dark Holy Ground.

I am sure the same spirit is behind Citizens' Organising in the United States.  This movement is grounded in the Churches and is based on a searching analysis of power used with love.

To stay on the knife-edge those taking part need to engage with reality and also with a vision.  Bringing the two together leads to natural creative thinking and practice.  Forward planning is no longer a dry paper exercise, it is something that grows naturally out of conversation.  It also grows naturally out of the powerless finding their voices.

The Paradox of Unity and Diversity

Kim's exegesis of 1 Corinthians is detailed and complex and it is not my intention to reproduce it in detail here.  Details of the book can be found in the left hand sidebar.  My intention is to attempt a hermeneutic based upon the particular context of ecumenism in 21st century Britain and more specifically England.

However, to do this I must attempt a brief summary of the main argument in Kim's text.  The primary metaphor Kim refers to is the Body of Christ.  The question is how does this metaphor inform our understanding of unity and diversity?  Particularly, given the common ways in which Kim argues this metaphor is misunderstood.

Kim's conclusion leads to a paradox.  Unity leads to divisiveness whilst diversity leads to unity.  Kim puts it like this on page 4:

Paul's argument presupposes that the divisiveness of the Corinthian community results not from a lack of unity but from a failure on the part of its members to acknowledge and respect the diversity present in the community.  (...)  But unity is not the goal or purpose of Paul's letter because in Greco-Roman society, unity can be a destructive and oppressive language.

The last sentence refers I think to the Pax Romana, where peace was enforced throughout the Roman Empire by the sword.  Each conquered nation was allowed to live in peace in return for certain demands form Rome, most notably worship of the Emperor.  Nevertheless there was a degree of diversity across the Roman Empire (all large empires and organisations have to manage diversity in some way) and so for example, Paul felt unable to accept contributions from the Corinthian church because of their patronage system whereas he had no such hesitations with the Philippians just up the road but in a different province.

The Corinthians were dividing into factions and each faction drew boundaries around itself, within which there was an expectation of unity.  Within these boundaries there was hierarchy, the more powerful, presumably those with power of patronage, set the terms of their faction.  This was not a community that was able to accept there might be a diversity of truths (Kim, page 5).  This resonates with the writings of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks who writes about a dual morality, where 'biblical morality ... adds to ... universals a context bound morality dependent on history and memory'.  To a degree I think Kim's book is by accident a Christian commentary on Sacks' work The Dignity of Difference.  To follow this up further it is worth reading the posts around the above link which comment on chapter 3 of that book.

The focus of Kim's reading of 1 Corinthians is the implications of reading unity into the Body of Christ, for the marginalised and I'll return to this in future posts.  But for ecumenism in England a major problem is the growing rift between centralised formal talks and localised ecumenism.  Theology is done differently nationally and locally; to the extent that church leaders and academics do not see what local churches are doing as theology.  The discourses are different not only in content but also in form.  So, formal talks are based upon written agreements fully cross-referenced and with footnotes.  Clearly this is good academic practice but this format tends to make them unavailable to local churches unless mediated through preachers.  Locally theology is done through people, property and finance.  Walk into any church and look at it, theology is in the walls.  Also in its practices and the way it uses its money.  Local ecumenism is conducted through these media.

The theological approach to boundaries through formal talks tends to maintain islands of unity.  The problem for the churches is that these islands of unity are breaking up.

Neighbourhood Church 5: Power

The problem is that presence, prayer, practice and proclamation are not always enough.  If churches genuinely care for their communities there are times when they must confront the principalities and powers.

I have already described the participative method Citizens' Organising and in the United States, churches have acted together to change policies that have a negative impact on their neighbourhoods (see Linthicum's Building a People of Power).  In Britain Citizens' Organising has been tried and has not been found to be very successful.  Many of its insights are helpful but a combination of British culture and political arrangements accounts for this.

I still maintain that churches need to take Power seriously.  I have suggested that in their relationships with the world outside of the churches, churches together need to engage in transformational reception.  It is not enough to provide services to our communities, however empowering they may be.  A further step needs to be taken to change things for the better.

So, here are a few points for local churches who wish to exercise power together:

1. Churches need to think very carefully about power and how they use it.  It is easy to use power for conquest.  This is not the example of Jesus.  It is easy to use power to impose solutions on unwilling people.  This is not about Christian hegemony.  It is about the churches leading and organising to bring about change for mutual benefit.
2. Churches choosing to do this need to understand the need for consent.  They do not have the material resources to challenge government policy and so their power derives from organised people.  This means there needs to be an active building of consensus through conversations, the use of force will simply not work.
3. Whilst it is possible to get away with isolated working for the first four Ps, this type of mutual power is only possible where churches are able to work together.  This should be the focus of local conversations.  National leadership can encourage these approaches but have a minimal contribution to make.
4. It is local issues that need to be the initial focus.  As the recession bites and other intractable problems kick in, it is the local focus that will result in some successes.
5. As churches develop this focus, it is possible they might also have an impact at the national level.  But this has implications for how churches work, particularly in terms of leadership. 

The ecumenical vision has to turn outwards if it is to survive.  The luxury of ongoing debates about the minutiae of faith and order are no longer seen as relevant locally.  But the problem remains, identifying what is relevant locally and how churches might effectively work together.  I will in future suggest new approaches and where possible quote examples where new initiatives seem to be working.

Neighbourhood Church 4: Proclamation

Linthicum's fourth and (sort of) final activity for the local church is Proclamation.  This is, of course, a highly contested area.  The reason is that some Christians have made this part of the Christian faith their own.  I want to state firmly it is only a part of the Christian faith and should not be left as the sole preserve of evangelicals.

Many evangelicals would agree so far.  It is a responsibility for the whole church alongside the much wider activity of mission.  The distinction is that mission relates to sanctification whilst proclamation relates to justification.

I have written a lot about sanctification in this blog and little about justification.  This is not because I think justification is unimportant but that sanctification is less well known and has important implications for ecumenism.

Justification is the experience of the individual who comes to know the power of Jesus and that they are saved.  It is the purpose of proclamation to tell the story and introduce the non-believer to Christ.  This is done in a variety of ways and all can contribute to it.  There are a few points I would wish to make though.

1. Like everything else proclamation should be thought of in terms of a conversation.  The word itself implies a one way transaction from those who know the truth to those who don't.  The reality is that a real grasp of the faith comes out of relationships which are two way.  To discuss the faith should deepen faith for Christians as well as those who do not believe.
2. The idea of Missio Dei is important here.  God is already out there in our communities.  The act of conversation uncovers where God is already at work and so the Christian will learn as well as those who work with them.
3. It is important to remember the commitment is to a community long term irrespective of their response to the faith.  The idea that Christians are saved and others are not is presumptive and offensive.  Christians are called by God to proclaim the faith.  They are not called to judge whether others are saved - their goal is salvation of the whole community not of particular individuals within it.  If lines must be drawn it is to include people, not to exclude them.
4. By making evangelism a specialism, most church people have been de-skilled in this area.  Instead of every member being a spiritual director for others, as Wesley intended, Christians tend to be de-skilled and lack confidence to simply to tell the story.
5. And of course it is essential to tell the story in a way that makes sense to 21st century people.  This is not to water it down but to confront people with the implications of their lifestyles and the call of God to each individual.

If we take these four activities - presence, prayer, practice and proclamation together, they offer many opportunities for local churches to collaborate and many do.  In my view these opportunities could be increased by developing new ways of collaboration and I may look at some possibilities in the future.  However, whilst mission will undoubtedly be enhanced by collaboration, it has to be admitted that collaboration is not essential.  All of these things can happen in a church working on its own and with some success.

However, Linthicum argues there is a fifth activity.  The four usual activities are not on their own sufficient.  There are times when it is essential to bring something else into play.  And this time ecumenical collaboration is essential.

Neighbourhood Church 3: Practice (or Praxis)

Yesterday, I presented a rather idealistic view of the prayer life of churches together.  This may be as it should be but in practice ecumenism can be a treadmill, the constant repeating of annual ecumenical events.  From the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, through the Lent Walk, Pentecost Sunday and then carols outside the supermarket.

It seems almost as if prayer together is too much trouble and so our Practice becomes drudgery, rather than a response we take from reflection together on the reality presented by our place.

Linthicum uses the word 'practice' but I think if we are prepared to pray together, then we will find the routine of ecumenism will be transformed into Praxis, integrated action and reflection.

There are many ways churches together might choose to respond, some I've already mentioned:

• Providing unstructured meeting places
• Offering hospitality to local people and those who from time to time are in need of real support
• Providing sanctuary from the despair of modern life, a place where people can experience something of God's call
• Through community development, offering people some sense of control over what can be random or chaotic lives

Churches together can offer some or all of these or perhaps other things entirely.  The area sets the agenda.  The churches respond out of what they have in terms of people, property and finance.

Many churches do this type of thing on their own; perhaps ignoring or duplicating the work of other churches in their area.  This is a luxury we can no longer afford.  Divided churches, perhaps acting on rivalries from many decades ago are no longer a luxury we can afford.  The problems that will face the churches through climate change, peak oil, immigration, the pressures of multicultural society and of course the credit crunch require careful discernment and co-ordination of effort.  We owe our communities that much at least.

I understand that Daniel Berrigan, the American Jesuit and Peace Activist, was involved in the production of the film – “The Mission”, starring Jeremy Irons and Robert De Niro; “Well, I've been in several filmsincluding documentaries, but the big blockbuster, I was hired as advisor to the actors, I was trying to make Jesuits out of them.”

 

They were filming in Columbia and one day Berrigan took them into the slums of a town called Cartegena.  There he met a priest who told him ‘I wonder if we folks here are really Catholics’.  Berrigan asked the priest what he meant, the priest replied ‘We seem too little interested in people’.

Neighbourhood Church 2: Prayer

Prayer naturally flows from Presence, as a response to commitment to a place.  Prayer is of course an impossible conversation; conversation that brings about change. 

First, Prayer is about paying attention to the neighbourhood.  People will naturally do this alone but it is also important to share in this type of prayer because we will all see different things.  Ecumenical prayer might also bring insights from a range of traditions.

Second, the change we can most readily accept is in ourselves.  As we see more, we will change in response to what we see.  As we ponder the insights each person brings to prayer, we grow together.  In this sense we are spiritual guides for each other.

Third, we will in time see changes in the neighbourhood.  An active group committed to the welfare of the neighbourhood can hardly fail to make a difference.  Particularly if that group of people has taken the trouble to observe the neighbourhood and know it well.

Fourth, the great mystery is the changes we see in God.  As our illusions about the place we inhabit are changed, so we see God in clearer light.  We see that God is in conversation with us through the neighbourhood.  As co-creators, we and God will change.

Finally, what is the purpose of prayer?  This is prayer not for our own welfare but for the welfare of all the people with whom we share this place.

Neighbourhood Church 1: Presence

This short series about neighbourhood church will look in more depth at the role of churches in their neighbouthoods.  This builds upon several strands, (1) conversations as the basic ecumenical activity; (2) the development of an understanding of transformational reception as a basic characteristic of local ecumenism; and (3) the fourth chapter of Linthicum's Building a People of Power.

The latter proposes a basic four plus one approach to active church in a neighbourhood.  I will not refer to Linthicum very much as my purpose is to explore the role of churches together in exercising reception from the place they find their mission to be in.

The point is that churches are often the community organisations with the longest standing commitment to their neighbourhoods.  Churches can be present for decades or even centuries.  This Presence is important where the people who use church buildings see their calling not to their faith but the people they live amongst.  This can be expressed in a variety of ways:

1. I have already touched on an important aspect of Presence a few days ago when I posted about unstructured meeting places.
2. The ability to enter into conversations with ease and without embarrassment, grows naturally out of traditional ecumenical conversations.  The goal of any conversation is not to convert but to find a new place together, which neither side has inhabited before.  A conversation with someone who does not believe may help the believer see the weaknesses in their own faith, to understand and know God more intimately.  Hopefully this will be a discovery for all those who take part.  The Methodist publication Time to Talk of God seeks to help church members enter into conversations short of evangelism.  But even good evangelism is in essence conversation rather than proselytising.  I'll explore this in more detail in a few posts time.
3. Being a place of quiet, of inspiration of sanctuary.  Many neighbourhoods lack somewhere people can go for inspiration.  Churches are often full of art that no longer speaks to modern people or look like community centres and offer nothing beyond another meeting space.  The design of our meeting spaces needs to be done sensitively, as a response to the neighbourhood and not a criticism of it.  Father Jamieson's book Finding Sanctuary shows how many people are seeking sanctuary and raises the question in my mind, why are churches so bad at providing it?

Local people are seeking signs from our churches of a commitment to them and their lives.  Churches should never be havens for the chosen few but open to and committed to the places they find themselves in.  Churches alone cannot provide all that is needed; to fully address the complexities of a neighbourhood requires commitment from many traditions.

Why Churches must Engage with their Neighbourhoods

My posts over the last few days add up to an analysis of what I see as fundamentally wrong with community development in England.  To summarise:

1. There is a tendency for community projects to be dominated by unaccountable people, community organisations in general have problems with accountability;
2. The roles of volunteers and activists are confused, so that workers in communities tend to look on local activists as volunteers for their organisations' agendas;
3. At the same time the role of development work and activist are also confused, which means that activism is sometimes presented as development work;
4. These confusions are bolstered by the use of large-scale funding to divide communities and erode social capital;
5. this leads to even the basic needs for social capital such as unstructured meeting spaces to be overlooked.

Why should churches take an interest in community development or organising?  It is still the case that churches are the organisations with long-term commitment to our neighbourhoods.  They often have premises that can be made available as meeting spaces and they can also meet the spiritual needs of local people.

From an ecumenical perspective development work or organising is an opportunity for churches together to engage with the issues that effect the people around them.  It is an arena for effective and accessible mission for any church member.

A Methodist Church publication a few years ago Time to Talk of God encouraged church members to learn how to enter into conversations about God.  But almost any conversation can open new horizons for those who take part.  This is a practical way for churches to participate in the action of God in the world, to break away from the internal dialogues and engage with new ideas in the world outside the church.

Over the next few days I will pick up some themes from Linthicum's book Building a People of Power; these themes address the basic things churches must do together in their neighbourhoods.  They all open up the possibility of conversations that will broaden and deepen the churches' mission and their ecumenical commitment.