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 Corinthians 12: 31; 13: 1 - 13
What is there to say about this passage? The main point is lesser gifts such as prophecy, tongues, understanding will pass away. Only faith, hope and love will remain.
We can conclude, amongst the things which will pass away, are our various traditions. I think of traditions as stepping stones. They are something we use to move us towards a final destination. You don't stop on one stone forever. If you did, you would block the progress of people behind you.
Note this in no way denies the necessity for stepping stones. But their purpose is temporary . They are a means of communication between two sides of a river. Our churches are a means of communication between this life and a life of faith, hope and love.
The challenge then is to use them properly, so others are helped, not hindered, by our activities. We do not need more than one set of stones to cross over and any set will do.
The analogy breaks down when we consider sharing between traditions but at least we can see users of other stones as travellers on the same journey. Travellers who can share notes, tips and tricks.
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 John 4: 7 - 11
I'm a little surprised to find this passage amongst the ecumenical texts. On a superficial reading it is a 'no brainer'. Of course we're supposed to love one another. We've already seen that the unity of Christians is the glory of God.
The problem is, to state we should all love one another is to beg the question, why the lack of unity in the first place? Ecumenism is difficult because it is about the unity of people who belong to separate institutions.
Institutions have a positive role. They are the means by which the faith is passed on. To be formed as a Christian, it is beneficial if you are part of a community, under a similar discipline. So, institutions are inevitable and can be beneficial.
That is, to a degree. The problem is, when people belong to institutions they start to identify with them. Sometimes this can become irrational. From claims that women cannot be priests to the belief that my tradition is the only true church, the institution becomes an idol.
Where this happens the institution becomes demonic. But a demon is simply a sick angel and where we use our institutions wisely, share and learn to love one another's institutions, we find they become angelic.
The message is we need our institutional differences and we need to learn to love them, just as we know we must love other Christians.
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.
Luke 22: 24 - 30
This passage and the last both cover ground preachers address regulalrly. The need for humility has been addressed several times in this blog. The power of church hierarchies is an obvious target and so it is difficult to imagine what can be said that hasn't been said many times before.
There is a distinction between saying something and meaning it. This passage invites us to question the use of power in the churches.
"A dispute arose between the churches as to which one of them was to be regarded as the greatest. They could see that kings, politicians and tyrants lord it over people and like to be thought of as benefactors. The hardest thing for them to see was that the greatest must become like the youngest churches, the leaders as ones who serve. They could see Jesus' example as the one who serves, and yet somehow the churches couldn't quite make the connection."
Does this work? Possibly not. In part, the problem is many Christians believe their version is the one true faith and all the others fall short. This is not a problem residing solely with those in authority.
What does humility mean if you are a senior person in a church hierarchy? In what practical ways can a leader serve which shows the way of Jesus Christ? Power accrues power.
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.
Ephesians 1: 7 - 12
This passage moves between past, present and future, although not necessarily in that order. It focuses on Oikoumene, the ultimate reconciliation of all things to God. But we need to understand this is pointless, unless it makes a difference in the here and now.
So, the author begins in the present, reminding his readers of their experience of gifts of redemption and forgiveness. A third gift we have here and now is knowledge of the mystery of his will; the gathering up of all things in Christ, in heaven and on earth.
It is interesting how Universalist this passage seems to be. It does say 'all things'. The main problem with Universalism is, to imply all will be saved rather subverts the idea that a saviour is necessary. My understanding of the Methodist take on this question is that it is God's intention that all shall be saved. There is, however, no certainty that all will be saved. If there is free will then there must always be the possibility that some will not choose God.
I feel great discomfort with the idea that we must fear the wrath of God. God is wrathful certainly, but the wrath is not directed to those who don't believe in evangelical doctrine. It is directed against the oppressors, those who exploit others for personal gain, lust for power or take pleasure in cruelty. Make no mistake about it, these are the true atheists. Whether or how they might be saved need not detain us here.
Christians are not called to condemn those who do not believe. They are called to lead the way in every generation. The passage deals with the past in its final verses. Christians have obtained an inheritance, they are destined, they are the first and live for the praise of Christ's glory.
To be destined is to be selected for a purpose. It does not necessarily imply anything about those who are not selected. They surely have a destination too and this might be facilitated in a positive way by those who have already been selected. It is easy to jump to the conclusion that we are called for our own benefit rather than the benefit of others.
The problem from an ecclesiological point of view is this reading of the passage sets aside the necessity for church. Institutional structures are not necessary for salvation. They support those who choose to live in the way of Jesus Christ but are not necessary as institutions. This will be a less than welcome idea for several traditions. There is more to be said about this.
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 Corinthians 15: 24 - 28
This is a passage about Oikoumene, the final reconciliation of all things to God. Let's take note of a few things about it.
First, it is about the destruction of every ruler, authority and power. Paul understands that oppression is not only physical; it has a spiritual dimension. Our fear of death, enables rulers to oppress us or recruit us to oppression. They are not loving fathers, whatever their self-image might be, but people who thrive on fear. They are driven by their own fear and fueled by others fear of them.
Second, it is hard not to read this passage as about the ultimate end of the universe. Indeed, it is not wrong so to read it. But we need to remember that if God has said it is so, it is so. Thus we need to read it as true now; we can live as if it is true!
Paul's ironic style would have been understood by the churches he wrote to because their experience was of the rule of Rome. Today, after centuries of Christianity as the continuation of Roman rule (I refer to all institutional religion, not just Catholics), we tend to read him literally. This passage is about liberty. To love God is not to be subject to Rome (or any other power or authority). We can achieve that in our own lifetime whilst at the same time look forward to when all things will be subject to God and so free of oppression.
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.
Galatians 4: 6 - 7
Two points about this passage.
It is one of only three places in the New Testament, where the Aramaic word 'Abba' is used. It is always presented as 'Abba! Father!'. In the original Greek, the word for 'Father' is 'Pater'. The reason 'Pater' features is the first readers did not know Aramaic and so needed a translation. Why feature 'Abba' at all? Because it was the word Jesus actually used. The beauty of it is all Christians, whatever their language read 'Abba' followed by their word for 'Father'. Given that to this day in some places 'Abba' is the first word a child speaks, it is a word for all people - all ages and everywhere.
My other point is, what difference does being a child of God make? The text says God has sent the Spirit into our hearts because we are children. So, what does this mean?
The meaning hinges on how we understand the metaphor of a loving father. The slave receives and obeys orders. The good father encourages his children to stand on their own two feet. It is no longer a question of obedience to a dictator God, but liberty supported by a father (or loving parent). To be a child is a commitment to learning to do without the father figure. This includes human father figures such as priests.
When the inevitable questions start about why God allows the good (whoever they're supposed to be) to suffer in earthquakes, for example, our understanding is these are not judgements on human behaviour. We do good in the way we take responsibility for others, as we respond such events.
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 Corinthians 1: 2 - 3
The image of Christendom haunts our ecumenical conversations because, whilst many of us long for unity, we dread the idea of a single institutional church.
Perhaps in the second half of the last century, when the British churches were enthusiastic for unity, Christendom was a distant historical memory. Today, many movements are suspicious of unity schemes. Radical Christian movements see Christendom as an aberrant form of Christianity and seek church structures that resist it. I suppose radical Islam, at least as it is represented in the Western media, also reminds some Christians of the dangers of theocracy.
I share these suspicions. I don't see any value in a future where we are subject to a single institution. I have always understood holy obedience, not as obedience to institutional power, who justify their actions through claiming God's support, but as listening and discerning the will of God.
Paul is writing to the church in Corinth, a church which is prone to delusions of power. Paul doesn't build them up in terms of authority. Their unity is through Jesus Christ and their calling is as one community amongst many.
They are defined as church not through a single coherent church structure but with reference to their calling and the many other communities who share their calling.
The key to unity has to be in mutual recognition and solidarity, not through the imposition of a single universal church structure.
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.
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?
In a recent post, I discussed Harmon's book and his argument against a rejection of denominationalism amongst the young. In this post, I intend to put the case for belonging to more than one tradition.
I don't disagree with Harmon at all and indeed, I tend to agree that digging deep into a single tradition has significant advantages. I believe we are formed by our traditions. Years of singing Methodist hymns has formed my beliefs in ways I am gradually becoming aware of.
Wesley's Arminianism was in some respects exclusive. John Wesley warmily invited those who did not like the Methodist way to move to other traditions. His reason for this was that he wanted a people committed to meeting in classes for spiritual direction. They would put down roots deep into the faith, under the guidance of each other. Only then could they open their doors to others.
However, from an ecumenical point of view belonging to more than one tradition can have advantages. Often people who, for example, are brought up in one tradition and then change to another, can in later life play a significant role bridging the two traditions. This might be something like a translater who understands both traditions.
Many Methodists, for example, worship in other churches. They might worship at the parish church and join the parochial parish council. Is it possible for them to retain their identity as Methodists? It is certainly possible to be formally a member of the Methodist Church, whilst fully committed to Anglican Parish life. And many would argue they are still Methodists although to all appearances fully committed to the Parish.
This becomes even more important when we ask, what makes a Methodist? What is central to Methodist identity? (The same argument would apply to any tradition.) If the Methodist Church were allowed to die and to become a part of a wider tradition such as the Church of England, would the Methodists remain Methodist?
The question is, what aspects of Methodism are core to Methodist self-identity? Is it connexionalism? Is it Arminianism? Some Methodists would, I suspect, have no problem with this. Some because they are latecomers who have not taken on board Methodism, simply worshipping in a particular church because they like it. But even life long Methodists might find it possible to remain a Methodist in another tradition. Others would not.
Perhaps it is those who have already made this type of transition who could show the way. The challenge is how in unity, we can maintain our diversity.
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