Exploring Ecumenism: Ecclesiology

Ecclesiology

Monday, 08 August 2011

Strategic Barriers to Visible Unity

Image by Rickydavid via Flickr

Last time I suggested a model of Christian diversity based upon historical connections, rather than structural unity.

Two posts ago, I mentioned a pathway towards visible unity for the Church of England and British Methodist Church. This pathway starts with the Anglican Methodist Covenant, then shared ministry leading, via Methodist and women bishops, to interchangeability of ministry and then to visible unity.

Strategically this sequence is problematic. The basic problem is the arguments in favour of unity themselves create barriers to unity.

So, we achieve shared ministry, which means closer collaboration between local churches becomes possible, so long as local church leaders (Bishop, District Chair and Superintendents) are prepared to collaborate. Interchangeability means all ministers, whilst still under their denominational authorities, are fully recognised by the other church. Visible unity is where the two churches are effectively one.

Let's say we achieve shared ministry, which is likely to happen. Does this increase or decrease the possibility of persuading the Methodist Church to adopt Bishops? It is not at all clear. Whilst it seems shared ministry is an essential step, what if people think shared ministry is sufficient, they have the freedom to manoeuvre they need, why go any further? Similarly, if interchangeability is achieved, it does not necessarily mean structural unity will happen. The costs of the final step might outweigh any tangible gains. If we have interchangeability, why go to the extra lengths of structural unity where the legislation (in Parliament) will be huge, as well as all the legal costs?

Worse, even if the necessary steps take place it doesn't mean the churches are meaningfully united. For example, the British Methodist Church is being invited to have Bishops who have the 'sign of the historic episcope', or laying on of hands. No other Methodist church has this, even where they have the title of Bishop. I don't think Methodists in Britain not value this sign; it lacks meaning for them. What does have meaning for Methodists is the means by which a Bishop is appointed. If they are voted in by church members, for example, they might be seen as genuine representatives of the people and so be accepted (this is how Bishops are supposed to be appointed - although episcopal churches are not always quite so democratic). The Presidents of Conference are the suggested candidates to be Methodist Bishops and they are elected by Conference representatives. If this is seen as sufficiently democratic, this might be easier to navigate through Conference than the sign of the historic episcopate.

But hold on. If this is so, in what sense can it be said the two churches would then be closer? The Methodists accept the sign even though they don't value it, whilst accepting Bishops for a reason the Anglicans don't value.

Note, I am not saying this is what will happen, what I am trying to do is illustrate the issues we have to face as we approach visible unity. The diagram in my last post illustrates why I think unity lies in history rather than across the branches of the tree. Trying to reconcile traditions that have developed separately is bound to encounter deep resistance, not necessarily from those who take a principled stand against further unity.

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

Saturday, 06 August 2011

Full Visible Unity

Image via Wikipedia

I haven't said a lot about full visible unity in this blog, which might seem odd as it is a major theme in the thinking of many committed ecumenists. My problem is, I don't think there is clear agreement about what it means and therefore it is hard to think about it strategically.

Visible unity is where two or more traditions are united under one organisation. So, for example, in 1976 visible unity was achieved between most of the Congregational and Presbyterian churches in England and Wales. Full visible unity is often meant to be similar unity for all the churches. I think this is a Protestant vision of church unity and it culminated in the English Covenant, which fell apart in 1982. The 1989 Swanwick Declaration was an announcement of a new approach called Churches Together but many have clung, perhaps implicitly, to the original vision of full visible unity.

Visible unity is feasible, not only because examples can be found but also because pathways to visible unity can be planned. So, the Anglican Methodist Covenant is seen as a step towards visible unity between the Church of England and the British Methodist Church. However, to say something is feasible is not the same as saying it is likely. We know the necessary steps towards visible unity but the two churches may or may not be likely to take them. The pathway may be clear but it is not guaranteed easy and some may not be willing to face the implications.

The pathway goes something like this:- within the Anglican Methodist Covenant we move to shared ministry (now under consideration by both churches) and then by way of women Bishops and Methodist Bishops, we progress to interchangeability of ministry and then the final step to structural unity. Whilst it is certainly possible to take something like this path, there are significant strategic problems - but that's a topic for another time.

We need to take care not to assume because structural unity leads to visible unity, visible unity requires structural unity. We are so used to assuming the two are essential to each other that the effort of imagining visible unity without structural unity is daunting. But what if it is structural unity that blocks progress to visible unity? I can think of four reasons why structural unity is not an adequate pathway to full visible unity.

It is assumes the Christian world is static. Any feasible version of full visible unity must be able to accommodate change.
There are massive implications about accountability for use of power in a single structurally unified church.
It would be unstable. Both conservative and congregationalist tendencies would destabilise it. There are several groups in the traditional churches who do not agree with ecumenism and believe their expression of church is the one true church. It is hard to conceive of a united single church which could accommodate such various and strongly held views. On top of that there are others who don't believe in the authority of church organisations (let alone Bishops).
Theologically, I wonder whether it is the right direction. The mindset is one of law. The church hierarchy determines the law and the rest of us obey. This is not the Christian understanding of the rule of spirit and love. It isn't that some discipline isn't needed in any church but holding something as immense as a world church together, using the discipline of a single structure, would be impossible.

Formal conversations are usually seen as steps towards structural unity but I am not convinced it is where they are leading. Their main success has been to open up the possibility of mutual recognition between the churches. This is ground upon which Christians can build. We forget not long ago most Christians believed those of other traditions were not proper churches. Today it is a view held by a minority, albeit a vocal one.

If we want full visible unity we won't find it through formal conversations or strategic plans. It is something churches discover as they participate in conversations and grow closer in praxis.

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

Thursday, 04 August 2011

The Nature of Ecumenical Church

Image by +++CoolValley+++ via Flickr

This is the fifteenth and penultimate post in a sequence about ecumenical formation.

Ecumenism is about relationships between people. Social capital makes a distinction between bonding and bridging relationships. The former take place within a group and builds up capital as people learn to trust one another. Bridging capital is between groups and is the more challenging of the two. It is challenging because it demands mutual respect for church cultures that have evolved over many years.

Ecumenism is a sign of genuine church. How do we know any given church is part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church? One sign is its ability to hold its own people together despite their theological differences and another is recognition of other traditions as brothers and sisters of the same faith.

So, in formation we see the two movements of roots down and walls down. These are not necessarily sequential. Although bonding capital needs to be developed first, Christians will return to their own traditions, frequently as they regularly participate and deliberately as they bring new questions to ask of their own tradition.

But the encounter with others is crucial because it raises questions as it brings us into new relationships with God. As we debate, the spirit is at work and brings us into new truths. The ecumenical church grows through the sum of all these conversations.

Posted at 06:00 PM in Conversations, Ecclesiology, Formation | 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)

Monday, 18 April 2011

Welcome One Another

Image via Wikipedia

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 15:7

Following on from what I wrote yesterday, something else needs to be spelled out. As far as other Christians go, we have no choice in the matter. We must welcome one another. This is what baptism means.

And this welcome means Christians must be welcomed as full members of the church, even if not of my particular tradition.

The tragedy is, there are some who are not accepted. I read somewhere the other day, why if a church is unable to ordain homosexuals, does it baptise them? The logic is that we do not baptise those we would not ordain. I hope most Christians would baulk at such a denial of baptism. For those who practice infant baptism, it would mean they would have to wait until the adult announced their sexuality. Baptism would no longer be a mark of unconditional acceptance into the faith.

It is shameful there is any group of baptised people not fully acceptable to some Christians. It seems for some it is essential to have other Christians we do not welcome.

At one time Catholics and Protestants excluded one another; exclusion has been, and perhaps in some places still is, on the basis of race. By and large, most prejudices have been outed and so those who need someone to hate have decided to hold fast to sexuality.

I wonder whether we will ever be free of such prejudice? Over 2000 years, our shameful divisions have also been the way the church has been learning its high calling, to be a place wherein the whole of humanity might be reconciled.

It is precisely those who live in the margins who need to be welcomed. Jesus died for the marginalised and we do well not to forget it. To understand ecumenism as reconciliation between mainstream Christian traditions, is to ignore the real pain of those who are rejected by these same churches. I suspect many homosexuals would argue the mainstream churches are united in who they choose to reject. Ecumenism cannot happen independently of justice.

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

Sunday, 17 April 2011

Pursue Peace with Everyone

Image via Wikipedia

Hebrews 12: 14 - 15

I'm not sure what is meant by 'see to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God'. Let us remember though, the idea that unity is the glory of God. Perhaps this is a specific steer towards ensuring God's grace is present in our relationships.

So, let's think for a moment about baptism. This passage is about the Christian community; it is not about how Christians relate to non-Christians.

We are all baptised (this is not 100% true but near enough for the purpose of this argument). Whilst baptism remains controversial in some respects, there is a significant degree of recognition of one another's baptisms. Baptism is once and for all in most traditions and most recognise each other's baptisms. There are exceptions but we need to and can accept a Christian is baptised whatever route they took to get there. Broadly, this is where the mainstream traditions are at.

We are according to this passage, to make the effort to ensure all the baptised receive the grace of God. That is our task and our success at that task is marked by our experience of the glory of God.

We cannot experience God's glory until we are able to welcome one another, despite our differences. It may be true that for example fundamentalists and liberals can't get on; our task is to see to it that we do, that there is no root of bitterness between us.

Failure to do this means many will become defiled.

We don't have to agree with one another but we must love one another.

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

Thursday, 14 April 2011

Be United in the Same Mind and Same Purpose

Image via Wikipedia

1 Corinthians 1: 10 - 13

So, what can we do, where we find entrenched differences between traditions?

We need to work out how to be united despite our differences. We could say we'll be united in our mission and not dwell on the niceties of the differences church leaders argue about. That's certainly one way of setting about it. We all believe in the one Christ, of course.

But this is the point. Paul includes the claim 'I belong to Christ' amongst all the others. It's invidious, the way in which, during some argument, someone will claim they are for Christ. Indeed where churches claim superiority, it is often on the grounds that they are for Christ.

We need to face up to reality. We will always be divided and claims to unique revelations from Christ is one of the many things dividing us. The reality is, none of us is for Christ. We all fall short and are on a journey together. It is only through the narrow path of humility, we are likely to find the truth of Christ, let alone unity.

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

Wednesday, 13 April 2011

First be Reconciled to Your Brother or Sister

Image via Wikipedia

Matthew 5: 21 - 24

This reading falls foul of a difficulty I have remarked upon several times during this series of posts. These passages are addressed to individuals, quite rightly. However, our divisions are institutional rather than individual.

Of course, individuals identify with institutions and so may be divided at a personal level from those who believe differently. Nevertheless, there is little we can do to change our institutions.

So, if I take my offering to the altar and then remember my neighbour has the fact that I'm a Methodist against me, what then? I might have tried many times to be reconciled. I might have considered changing my tradition. The problem is, of course, when do you stop? Do I change my tradition every time I meet someone who is convinced theirs is the only one that's valid?

But to treat the traditions as a series of lifestyle choices means, I will never identify with one tradition for long enough to be formed by it.

So, the problem is the remedy in this passage is not really a solution to the problems we face. By all means if I've fallen out with someone, I need to do something about it. But what more can I do about our institutional differences? It's frustrating because we're supposed to be free of the powers and principalities but are still held tight by our institutions.

Still, the least we can do is watch we don't allow our institutional differences to sour personal relationships.

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

Tuesday, 12 April 2011

Consider Others Better Than Yourselves

Image via Wikipedia

Philippians 2: 5 - 11

This is the final passage in a section entitled 'Living in unity'. In considering this section, I have spent a lot of time reflecting on the role of institutions. Whilst we read of the requirement to love one another, we tend to personalise it and so fail to acknowledge our divisions are largely institutional, rather than personal.

In my last post, I wrote about the passing away of all things except faith, hope and love. Lest we should think our calling is to wait for the inevitable dissolution of our institutions, this passage suggests we need to abandon them voluntarily.

Jesus 'though he was in the form of God', left all that behind. The invitation is to all of us, who believe our tradition is sufficient, to voluntarily live in relationship with others. This call is not to structural unity; it is to a unity that sees shared love of Jesus Christ as primary.

Like Jesus we are all called to let go and enter into new relationships, whatever the cost. As a Christian I am formed as a Methodist, but must find ways to relate to Christians of other traditions. Indeed, the call goes beyond that because all Christians are called into the fallen world.