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.
John 3:16
Whenever I see the word 'perish', I think of a state somewhere between life and death; a sort of undead state. Remember where Jesus warns his disciples, those who live by the sword will perish by the sword? Perish here means the act of using the sword erodes the moral person; we become driven by something which is not of God and so might as well be dead. To perish is to give up on life.
To long for God's Kingdom is to choose life. It is to choose to enter into dialogue with God, to respond to God's questions, to embrace the pain of being alive. It is ultimately, the most difficult thing of all, to learn to love.
God's example to us is in God's love for the world. The God we saw challenging the world in Isaiah is the God we find loving the world and suffering for the world.
Somehow the churches are called to join in on this enterprise of love. This means to share in God's pain as well as God's love. We learn to do this and experience unity through our divisions; the ways in which we are challenged to love one another despite our differences.
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.
Romans 8:19-23
Why evolution? Why not create everything by design? An answer is in this text. We can see a purpose for evolution in this text. All creation, living and non-living, strains towards God and is in some pain as it does so.
Once again we are with the Oikoumene. It is as if creation knows there has to be more than its immediate experience.
Our experience of modern cosmology is one of ultimate futility. All things will come to an end. Eventually, not only our own sun but all stars will burn out. Creation will return to a soup of energy free chaotic matter.
But there is hope this creation is somehow a stepping stone to something else, it is as if the whole of creation is moving towards not death but new life.
We sometimes hear of the second coming, the belief that Jesus will return and put an end to all things. This is sometimes known as eschatology. Some people say the unity of the church is something we will discover at the end time; unity is eschatological.
But the thing that distinguishes life from death is its dynamic, life changes into more and more complex forms. To give birth is to bring about new life. Perhaps the eschaton is not so much unity as a new and reconciled life, increasingly diverse?
Some time ago I promised to comment upon the texts in the Churches Together in England publication, one light: one world. This link will take you to a free download of the volume. I hope as a Lent discipline to complete the task. There are actually more texts than there are days in Lent, so I will plod on until I complete the task.
Last time I completed three texts and they can be found as follows:
The aim of this series will be to test some of the ideas I have written about in this blog against scripture. This is not an exercise in proof texting but an attempt to dialogue with scripture. These texts have been selected to illustrate what scripture says about unity. My question is whether they are incompatible with an emphasis on diversity and the primary act of conversation. The three initial posts above all observe the oneness of God need not necessarily imply the churches need be one, especially if by being one we mean structural unity.
My hope is of course that by entering into dialogue with scripture I won't prove anything so much as be challenged to develop my ideas about the importance of conversation further.
I will aim to post one a day if I can. March in particular is a manic month and so excuse me if there are a few gaps!
I will not normally copy out the texts as they can be found in the download or any Bible. The version used by Churches Together in England is the New RSV.
I suppose I approach ecumenism not so much from the perspective of an academic theologian, as that of a community development worker. One insight I developed over many frustrating years is, 'Most things don't work'. This is equally true of ecumenism.
The history of ecumenism is littered with initiatives that haven't worked. Usually, they are voted down by the council of one church or another and many more never get off the drawing board.
I suspect this insight occurred to me because before community development, I was a research scientist in the field of biology. I discovered most experiments don't work but failure is fundamental to evolution. Evolution is based on the principle of most things not working.
Of course, a few things do work. But it is a fallacy to believe it is the best things that survive. I suspect many scientists have difficulty remembering this, it is easy to assume the best has been selected. This is because Western philosophy is strongly influenced by Plato and his idea of the (platonic) ideal.
Theologians are influenced by the same ideals and the last gasp struggle of the proponents of 'intelligent design' demonstrate Plato's ideal is far from dead. We need to understand, in evolution as much as the church, the Spirit works through diversity and chaos.
The problem is, as humanity has become self-aware, we tend to undermine the harmony in creation in our search for order, design and perfection. The place to seek God is not in the illusion of order and perfection but in what appears to be random.
It is an interesting question - what is random? How do we know something is random? One extreme would be to argue randomness is lack of knowledge; beneath the sequence of apparently random numbers there are causes. For example, take pseudo-random numbers. There is no way of distinguishing a good sequence of pseudo random numbers from genuine random numbers.
Now this might be a source of rejoicing for creationists except for one minor problem. Nature doesn't use numbers. Reality might be nudged by God but how it responds to any nudge must be unpredictable.
The history of religion has always been the struggle between those who seek to impose order on God's creation, and those who value freedom to respond to God spontaneously. If we insist on imposing order on our churches, then splits are inevitable. We can choose to make our ideals absolute and split the church. Or we can agree splits are inevitable. This means we all have freedom to be heretics, as all spirit led people are, alongside the apparently ordered life the churches.
There is nothing to fear from heresy because most things don't work! There is everything to fear from orthodoxy (whatever type) because it uses force to impose order that does not exist.
Usually ecumenists talk of 'unity in diversity'. I heard an interview with Jane Chittister, where she suggested 'harmony in diversity' as an alternative. Chittister is an American theologian. What follows are my own reflections (although I might be unconsciously influenced by what she said).
Harmony in diversity seems more dynamic than unity in diversity. Unity in diversity implies we might arrive at a final united state for all the churches. The contradiction in 'unity in diversity' has always bothered me. It feels like diversity is a concession while unity is the real business.
Harmony requires diversity. Nothing we know of creation or of God implies static finality. Our experience of life is change.
Some will say God is unchanging. If God is unchanging, it is only insofar as we conceive of God as embracing the whole of space and time, 'he is the lord of all that is and all that is to be'. But our experience of God is also of change because we encounter God in time and space. Even if eternity is unchanging, what does this mean in practice? If the nature of eternity is change, how can we assert it is in any sense static?
Why is change so important? Ultimately it is about consciousness. We can understand evolution as mindless random change but even so we see matter self-organise into stars and planets and life. Life that in time has become self-aware. So, there is a possibility evolution need no longer be mindless. The pooling of the small consciousness of each particle of matter (that enables it to self-organise) leads to increasing awareness through evolution.
As living creatures become more conscious they shape their environments. Now human beings, through science and prayer, reflect upon the nature of creation and join with God in the creative act.
The implications of this for ecumenism are profound. If we do not encourage harmony in diversity, the alternative might be the stultifying unity we have seen before in Christendom. Self-awareness causes its own contradictions and they will be the theme for the next post in this series.
A commonplace objection to ecumenism is, unity means uniformity. The aim of ecumenism is to kill diversity. Here's a typical statement from a blog post by Harriet Baber, There's no point in interfaith:
Ecumenism as practised during the latter half of the 20th century and into the new millennium was not only wasteful: it was positively pernicious. In order to "draw closer in sacred things" it promoted liturgical uniformity. And this meant less choice for laypeople.
Let me make three points:
Superficially, it is true this has been the ecumenical endeavour, at least for certain Protestant churches.
Very few ecumenists understand this type of unity to be the goal of ecumenism
Many non-ecumenists would agree with this statement.
The problem is a failure of memory and imagination. We do not appreciate how deep divisions are or how valuable they are.
There is a failure of memory. Full visible unity has been successful but with the failure of the 1982 English Covenant, it was over as a goal. This was recognised in the Swanwick Agreement of 1989 but the Faith and Order debate has continued as if nothing has changed.
The narrow confines of Faith and Order work may seem comfortable and safe but does it remember the roots of our divisions or the nature of the progress that has already been made? As churches move closer, they find progress is slower. They are repelled as they realise their distinctions are of value.
And so we also need an imaginative practice, moving outside of formal conversations, which pictures a global church, united and diverse. In winter as the land covers in snow, it loses its distinctive features. The ecumenical spring will sharpen the landscape and many new flowers will bloom. For the winter we need clothing to help us, more than survive, revive out imagination.
This is the example promised in my last post. I write as a Methodist looking into a troubled sister communion. It is time I addressed this issue because it has profound implications for English ecumenism.
The Church of England, and indeed the worldwide Anglican communion, has made a tremendous contribution to ecumenism. This is largely due to their catholicity. It is hard to imagine (or at least it used to be) Anglicanism without their brand of catholicity. For many decades, if not centuries, Anglicanism has functioned as a compromise between Catholics (outside the Roman Catholic Church), evangelicals (who can be traced back to the seventeenth century Puritans) and a liberal tradition which seems to have arisen through eighteenth century latitudinarianism, although it may go further back than that.
These traditions were held together by an ingenious system which included the Book of Common Prayer and was embedded in the structures of the church. From time to time, groups could not be contained and, around the start of the nineteenth century, perhaps the most serious split was with the Methodists.
To me, as an outsider, the loss of this catholicity amounts to the loss of Anglicanism. Some might respond with 'good riddance' but I think this response needs to be examined carefully. I have written about how my own Methodist tradition contributed its organisational approach to the rising working classes from the impoverished industrial poor in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
In a similar way, the Church of England, has had an immense influence on a state which has itself been a compromise between many traditions. Secularism in England is based upon the historic Anglican compromise. Different Christian traditions and indeed other faiths today, co-exist and their coexistence is based upon the Anglican catholic compromise.
This is what the Anglican Covenant debate is about. If the Anglican communion were to disintegrate, the implications in Britain and all over the world would be profound. In my next post I will write about what I understand is happening.
The problem is the overwhelming sense of being in the right many people have when they believe they are in possession of God's truth.
This is understandable but enthusiasm for a single tradition betrays lack of faith (illustrated). Let us consider faith for a moment. No-one ever makes an enthusiastic response to the undoubted fact the sun will rise tomorrow. It's true, there's no denying it. But I don't need to persuade anyone of the fact.
However, where I'm not persuaded myself, I have to be enthusiastic. The claims I make for the truth of my beliefs compensate for my own doubts.
As confidence grows, so enthusiasm falls away. I can have confidence in the faith into which I have been formed within my own tradition. This is why formation is so important. Without formation, I will not grow in confidence and so remain absolute in my beliefs.
Christopher Jamieson writes in his book, 'Finding Sanctuary', about humility. Humility is not denial of truth but demonstrates growing confidence in it. It means I can listen to others without feeling threatened or getting angry. I find as I listen to others' views, I grow in faith within my own tradition.
Perhaps a weakness of mission is its failure to form its converts? If no tradition is offered, people have nothing to argue with, to learn from, to grow with. We cannot be reconciled with other traditions if we have no tradition of our own. We'll either be overwhelmed by the confidence of the other or seek to overwhelm them.
As the roots of our faith grow deeper into our own tradition, we are able to walk alongside members of other traditions, learn from them and possibly have something of value to pass onto them.
Previously I suggested the formula 'Mission and Unity' is incomplete and we need to add a third leg, formation. On deeper analysis I suggest 'Mission and Formation' would be a better pairing, as both are essential.
Unity is harder to place with the other two. One reason for this is the experience of many churches, who find they do not need unity for mission. It could be argued the Roman Catholic Church, is huge and so clearly able to support 1.2 billion believers' needs. It doesn't need unity with other traditions for its success. Similarly, Protestant churches tend to grow by splitting. They are re-energised by splitting!
I remember as a child watching Thunderbirds. International Rescue had five vehicles. Thunderbird One was the frontline vehicle, which got there first and delivered immediate support and appraised the situation. Thunderbird Two was much bigger and slower. It followed on to supply necessary equipment. I was always disappointed Thunderbird Four, the submarine, was carried by Thunderbird Two alongside several other machines which for some reason didn't count as Thunderbirds! Of the five Thunderbirds, it is the only one not on the poster!
Similarly, unity is important but integral to formation. Outside formation, what role does unity have? Mission is possible without formation, perhaps disastrously but it is possible to perform a sort of hit and run evangelism (arguably this is worse than not doing it at all). Unity is a step in our formation as Christians; essential but subsidiary.
Initially a convert is formed in a single tradition. A brief exploration of Christian blogs will lead to encounters with writers who claim their tradition is the only true church. Some of these are Protestant, others Catholic or Orthodox. A non-Christian encountering these competing absolute claims would face a dilemma. How do I choose between competing absolute truth claims?
Usually converts are touched by a single tradition and formed by that tradition. To encounter the fullness of the diversity of the Christian faith with many competing truth claims, is a step in formation. The immature might erect fences and bolster their truth claims but sooner or later the reality is undeniable.
At the point where a tradition encounters and embraces other traditions, their formation and mission will be transformed. It is at this point they encounter the reality of God's love in all its depth and breadth.
For Methodists, this is part of their commitment to sanctification. It is commonly believed Arminianism is inclusive, opens the church to all comers of every tradition. In fact, Arminianism is more complex. It is initially exclusive. It invites those who wish to make a commitment to be a part of a church or class and put down roots. As roots into the tradition deepen, then the walls come down as the people sanctified have the confidence to embrace the other.
There is a single virtue that helps them to do this and my next post will describe it.
In my last post I suggested mission, unity and spiritual direction belong together and most traditions have a balance of all three. In my next post, I will return to the theme of unity but in this one I will review the diverse approaches to formation across the traditions. I am aware this review will be nowhere near complete and so would welcome suggestions of other approaches to formation I do not cover here.
Primarily, I am interested in formation of lay people. Ministers, priests and religious have long periods of formation, as part of their training and continuing development. However, my intention is to highlight how formation is an important dimension to the mission of the church. Without the formation of laity, there will be no retention of church members.
There are of course many formal approaches to formation. Spiritual direction is generally available to anyone who seeks it. It is possibly more common in some traditions. It can be available on a one to one basis, perhaps over a limited period of time. Retreats are another popular option. Groups can also meet for formation. Wesley's classes and mission bands in the 18th and 19th centuries were successful approaches to formation, where dedicated ministers were scarce. Even today, bible study groups and some fresh expressions consciously address the formation of their members.
There are other ways in which people are formed by their churches. Regular attendance at church services is not tribalism; it is a (perhaps residual) approach to formation. For Methodists the singing of hymns and prayerful use of the hymn book has traditionally contributed to the formation of Methodists.
In the Catholic Church regular attendance at Mass is an approach to formation, as is their sacrament of reconciliation. I remember facilitating a mission audit of two churches in the mid-nineties. One was the Methodist and the other was a Catholic Church (illustrated). They were across the road from each other and we called a joint meeting to look at the mission activities of the two churches together.
The Priest was a little apologetic before the meeting, as he believed the Methodists were far more active than the Catholics. So, we sat down and filled a side of flipchart paper with the activities of the Methodist Church. This was a respectable result, much as everyone anticipated. The Catholics started rather slowly and then as confidence increased easily filled a second and then a third sheet.
The difference between the two churches was, I suppose, the Catholics did not normally discuss their mission activities. I suspect the work of the Priest in the formation of the people led to their missionary activity. The Priest was not terribly interested in leading mission, he focused on formation and left the rest to God.
Some ministers, like Wesley, are able to do both effectively but it is likely the minister who focuses solely on mission, will not be as effective as the minister whose sole interest is formation. Formation equips the church for mission. Mission on its own is likely to be activist.
Indeed, what we have here is a restatement, perhaps in ecclesiological terms, of praxis. This is the recognition that action and reflection are both needed for effective ministry. And this does of course lead to the question, if action and reflection are sufficient, is unity really necessary?
Consultancy for Mission and Ministry This should take you to details of the Consultancy for Mission and Ministry course at the York Insititute. See my post about non-directive consuultancy around 9 September 2009.
Image via Wikipedia
Recent Comments