Exploring Ecumenism: Diversity

Diversity

Tuesday, 11 October 2011

Visions of Unity in Our Churches

This and the next seven posts will comment upon a recent paper released by the Conference of European Churches. The background can be found in a post on Methodist Ecumenical News. The paper is Visions of Unity in Our Churches - Points of Convergence.

The report includes eight points of convergence and I thought it might be interesting to consider them one by one. So, here we go:

Convergence 1

The Unity of the Church is from God, it is the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is not of our making but at the same time it demands our commitment to respond to God’s call to be one in word and deed.

It is likely John 17:20-23 is behind this Convergence. Perhaps it is the text most frequently referred to when making the case for ecumenism. The link will take you to one of my posts devoted to this text. How might we interpret this text? Is it about Jesus' disciples or the Oikoumene of the whole earth? Is unity already reality or something to work towards?

I think the word 'glory' is central to this passage. If we understand glory to mean our experience of God, then Christian unity is evidence of God's work in the world. Convergence 1 captures much of this, especially in the second sentence where they hold in tension the eternal and the 'not yet realised' dimensions of unity.

The first sentence is perhaps less successful. Unity is a gift but more than a gift, it is evidence of God's work in the world and as such it is naturally the outcome of our response to God's call to be one.

Is unity something already real, coming into fruition or do we need to take steps to create it? The former is often seen as a soft option, perhaps called reconciled diversity.

When we take such a relaxed view, we are left with churches unreconciled to the extent they cannot share communion. Why can they not share communion? It is fundamentally about the authority of church leaders. Unity is not visible when there is clear and public separation of the churches.

Oikoumene is not only about churches; it is the reconciliation of all things to God. The reconciliation of church structures seen in this context, is a relatively small step. Perhaps our disunity demonstrates God's priority for this wider Oikoumene? Does the power politics of church structures distract us from commitment to the reconciliation of all things to God?

It is tempting to see unity as eschatological, something to do with end times. And yet perhaps we should think of it as something of beginning times too. Perhaps the act of creation should be seen as an act of unity. For in the creation of diversity, perhaps there is a hint of the kind of unity we seek. It is a unity rooted in reconciliation and there can be no reconciliation without diversity.

Posted at 09:55 PM in Diversity, Theoretical Ecumenism | 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)

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)

Thursday, 05 May 2011

Divisive Theologies

Image via Wikipedia

In the final of three posts about ideas emerging from my comments on the passages in one light: one world, I pick up on the question of love between Christians in different churches.

How far is it possible? This may seem a pessimistic question but let me explain.

I thought for a long time, the main problem we have is ecclesiology. It is our ecclesiology which prevents structural unity. But now I'm not so sure structural unity is necessarily our primary goal.

I wonder whether theology is the greater division? One problem is, the success of British ecumenism means we are less aware of where the real divisions lie.

Whilst relationships are perfectly cordial between the traditional denominations, they are less so within them. There are two major English ecumenical institutions and the largest (at least in terms of staff which equates to wealth) is the Evangelical Alliance. They are largely reasonable Christians, that is not fundamentalists, who have profound difficulties with liberal theology (whatever that is).

Whilst the relationships are cordial, there is no real sense of convergence between these two branches of the faith. The churches are effectively sliced in two along ecumenical lines.

Whilst I believe I could personally find some common ground with some members of the Evangelical Alliance, it becomes harder at the extremes. Some fundamentalist views are hardly Christians at all, especially where they advocate violence.

I don't think I'm atypical in this matter and there are many who would be the mirror image of me. One insight that struck me forcibly, as I worked through one light: one world, was the demand we do not allow our theological divisions to separate us. This is particularly well argued by Paul in Romans 14, where he argues the weak should not condemn the strong and the strong should not despise the weak. The problem is of course, these days weak and strong don't meet at all.

I have to ask whether our successes have in fact distracted us from the main task. As our institutions focus on rapport, we lose sight of where the divisions are. Institutional unity seems to move the divisions elsewhere.

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

Wednesday, 04 May 2011

The Bible and Institutions

Image by Lawrence OP via Flickr

This is the second of three posts, summarising some emerging thoughts following my commentary on one light: one world.

Ecumenism, certainly in recent decades, has been about the reconciliation of institutions. This is not uncontested. Ecumenism in Britain was largely Protestant until the breakdown of the English Covenant in 1982. By 1989 the Swanwick Agreement had formally abandoned this institutional approach. Swanwick abandoned the search for a single unified church.

However, since then for many it has been business as usual. The Anglican Methodist Covenant, for example, has always been seen as a step towards interchangeability of ministry and ultimately visible unity between the two churches.

It is difficult to justify this approach from the Bible. All the passages I read in the one light: one world sequence, dealt not with institutions but the behaviour of individuals. This should come as no surprise as there was no institutional church at the time the earliest New Testament letters.

That is not to say institutions are not a preoccupation of the Bible. We only need to read Walter Wink about the powers, to find the Bible has a lot to say about the dangers of institutional power. At best we are encouraged to be sceptical about formal structural unity. Such unity would be exclusive were it to happen.

This is not in any way to devalue the progress made in formal conversations. These conversations have cleared the way for Christians to recognise one another as real Christians and one another's institutions as real churches.

It seems the Bible questions institutional unity and encourages us to love across our artificial boundaries.

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

Tuesday, 03 May 2011

The Glory of God

Image by lymangsr via Flickr

Back to normal. Well, more or less. Yesterday I posted the last of my comments on the passages in one light: one world. It is a Churches Together in England publication. I don't know who chose the passages or on what basis, other than they are intended to be read as ecumenical passages. Do these passages demonstrate the Bible is supportive of ecumenism?

This is not an easy question to answer. A qualified yes, perhaps? In this and the next two posts, I will focus on three themes that have emerged for me as I worked through the passages. It is not that the Bible does not support ecumenism, so much as it addresses questions different from the ones modern ecumenists are asking. This means we have to discern answers from the material we do find in the Bible.

The big positive is John 17 and the idea that unity is from the glory of God. If we understand the glory of God to be the physical evidence we witness of God at work in the world, then this makes sense. Unity is evidence of God's presence in the world. In a world of violence, a community of people who are faithful to each other and yet open to all is a convincing witness to God.

This glory is best seen where love transcends traditional divisions. To be part of the same structurally united church is not as impressive as being prepared to live and die for each other across our traditions.

Furthermore, structural unity necessarily implies excluding some who will not be a part of the one true church. These will not only be small traditions who exclude themselves for one reason or another (and not all bonkers extremists, the Quakers would most likely be in this group for example) but also those who for one reason or another find no home in the mainstream churches.

It is the poor, the destitute and the unloved who would be excluded. And let's face it, people would on current showing be excluded on grounds of sexuality.

Would there really be a place for tax collectors and prostitutes in the great world church of Jesus? I doubt it. So, we need to look again at what we're trying to achieve as ecumenists.

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

Sunday, 01 May 2011

Aim to Do Good to One Another and to All People

Image by Anna L Conti via Flickr

This is part of a series of posts based on the Churches Together in England publication one light: one world. If you click on the link you will find the biblical texts. This post of the same name covers the purpose of this series.

1 Thessalonians 5: 13 - 25

This is the end of another letter and again a list of good advice. Presumably Paul intended to end the letter by being encouraging.

The aim is in verse 23 is sanctification. The mark of any Christian community is its growth in grace. We forget this when we affirm our own tradition as right. Even if our tradition has got it mostly right, we still need God's grace.

Verses 20 and 21 offer a clue. We are told not to despise the words of the prophets and then to test everything, affirming what is good and abstaining from evil. This is not to accept the words of the prophets at face value but to test their words and discern what they mean for us.

Surely this advice applies to unity as much as it does to anything else? What do we need to affirm as we seek greater unity and what do we need to abstain from?

Whatever the answer, the point is at the end of this passage. It is faithfulness, not losing sight of the vision that is Jesus Christ.

Posted at 06:00 PM in Diversity, Ethics, Exegesis | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, 30 April 2011

Maintain the Unity of the Spirit

Image via Wikipedia

Ephesians 4: 2 - 6

The author emphasises unity. There is one body, one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.

From a 21st century perspective there are two ways of understanding this.

We could read it as saying there is one way of understanding scripture and the various takes on Christianity are in error. Some traditions would claim they represent this one way and all the others fall short of being the one true church. Others might think all traditions fall short. If so, the task is to negotiate our way to agreement about the one way.

The second way of reading this is to affirm all traditions as parts of the one church. No tradition alone is the one church but together the traditions are the one church. Whilst this is the most attractive to me, I know I need to exercise caution. Even where the lines I draw are intended to be inclusive, they are still lines. The question as ever is who is not included; who is marginalised by human schemes and human structures?

On the one hand I could argue traditions that self identify as non-Christian faiths do not know the one way. Alternatively I could argue all faiths participate to some degree. The problem then becomes to what degree do they need to participate? What about those we do not generally recognise as Christian but originate from Christianity, eg Seventh Day Adventism, Mormonism or Unitarianism?

This passage can be read exclusively and clearly the author intends this meaning because he is building up the communities reading this letter. Or it can be read inclusively, seeing the Christian traditions (which did not exist at the time the letter was written) as a single way. Taking either approach to extreme can lead us into making absurd claims.

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

Friday, 29 April 2011

In Christ Jesus You Are All Children of God

Image by ktylerconk via Flickr

Galatians 3: 26 - 29

The imagery here is of Christians as children of God. It is important to distinguish between children as an image of dependency (usually unquestioning) and inheritors, a people who carry forward the work of the parent.

Verse 28 is often quoted out of context. Look at the verses on either side of it. This is true for those who are baptised into, with, in and belong to Christ. This is not a claim made for the whole of humanity but for the church. The church is a community set up in opposition to the conventions that divide humanity.

Wherever we see no such distinctions in the church (and add your own, it's unlikely Paul meant to restrict these divisions to the three mentioned), we see the glory of God. We know we are children of God when we no longer make these distinctions.

This is the real ecumenical task. It is not about reconciling institutions but reconciling people.