Exploring Ecumenism

Two Ecumenisms?

The arrangements put in place by the Roman Catholic Church  to admit Anglicans disillusioned by women bishops has highlighted a couple of other issues about ecumenism in Britain. 

The joint statement  made by the two archbishops recently states what might be called mainstream ecumenism will continue between the two churches.  These are the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC ) and the International Anglican Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission (IARCCUM ).  I am sure they will continue but we need to understand something of the context in which they will continue.

It is significant that this move came as something of a surprise to the Archbishop of Canterbury and I will explore the reasons for this in my next post.  It seems to me that we are moving into an era where we have at least two ecumenisms.

Anglicans Entering the Catholic Church

Okeydoke, my armchair hero
Let's see if you're equal to the task
Put your money where your mouth is ...

The Wall of Death
Is a time of truth
It's an act of faith ...

(From 'The Wall of Death' sung by Pete Atkin, lyrics Clive James.)

On Wednesday 20 October 2009, the Roman Catholic Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith announced arrangements for Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering the Catholic Church.  The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams and the Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols issued a joint statement .  If you follow the link you will also find a link to the Roman Catholic announcement.

Clive James' words and Peter Atkin's song have been with me ever since.  Sadly, the song is not available in full on the internet.  Given where I stand theologically, it is hardly surprising that my views are what they are but I would not wish anyone to take offence at the image of the wall of death.  You will see I use it in a way that is positive albeit challenging.

The Goal of Ecumenism 3: Ecumenism and Ecclesiality

This is the third in a sequence of posts based upon Chris James' blog post  The Goal of Ecumenism: Why and how to be one .  The first of these posts is  Why Are We Divided? and the second is The Visibility of the Church .

Section IV of the post explores 'Ecumenism and Ecclesiality'.  Here James contrasts the view that the churches are united through a common baptism with the view that no church is in itself complete.  This incompleteness is expressed through disunity amongst other things and requires repentance as the root of the ecumenical vision.

The Goal of Ecumenism 2: The Visibility of the Church

This is the second in a sequence of posts based upon Chris James' blog post The Goal of Ecumenism: Why and how to be one .  The first of these posts is Why Are We Divided? 

Section III of the post, 'Ecumenism and the Visibility of the Church', explores the "the most hotly debated ecumenical question": should the church be one visible community or is its unity somehow invisible?  I summarise it below but it is better to read the section in James' post in full.

1. James explores the thinking of Stanley Grentz, a free church theologian who argues denominationalism emphasises the invisibility of the church and that visibility is inevitably sectarian as it must point to a particular visible church.   
2. James then turns to a Catholic view of visible unity.  This view recognises the baptism of other traditions but seeks a reunion within the Catholic Church and so in a way is similar to Grentz's position in its desire not to call its own ecclesiology into question.
3. Then James turns to the ecumenism of the World Council of Churches.  The WCC seeks a united church in a single communion.  It is this view that has given rise to the contrasting positions of full visible unity and reconciled diversity.  The latter is understood as the openness churches have to each other.  Newbigin is quoted as an advocate of the former although he seems to take a midway position, seeking for example interchangeability of ministers, which is somehow short of full institutional union.  His criticism of reconciled diversity is that it make intellectual agreement the basis of unity, which is a mistake because it overemphasises the importance of doctrinal agreement.

Is the Tide Going Out for Ecumenism?

Photo by Sten.  Marsh at the small island Vorsø in Denmark. Ebb-tide.

I am grateful to Ian Chisnal for his comment on my last post.  You can read my response if you visit the post.  What I want to do is start here with one of Ian's statements:

'Ecumenism is not about bringing structures together to create a reconciled structure, ecumenism is the recognition that despite our differences (structural or tradition based) that we are one church and despite these we can work together on matters of mission and bring reconciliation between man and God.'

I don't disagree with this sentence except that I wonder whether there is to some degree a false dichotomy between 'bringing structures together' and working 'together on matters of mission and bring reconciliation between man  and God'. 

Mythos and Logos

I want to conclude this sequence about communion by explaining what I think about it.  This is what works for me.  I don't insist it is the answer for anyone else but if you find it helpful ...

Why is Communion so Divisive?

I think there are three reasons why Communion is so divisive. 

1. There are the issues to do with authority. Communion is the foundation liturgical practice of all the churches and it matters. It spills over into all manner of faith and order issues.
2. Even closely related traditions have grown apart. This covers what we believe about communion and also how we decide what constitutes right practice.
3. There is the matter of ecumenical reception and that is what I intend to focus upon in this post.

Anglican Methodist Covenant 4: Disposal of the Elements

Let me be clear from the outset I have no particular problem with consuming the elements immediately after the service.  I don't see any objection to feeding the bread to the birds either, or pouring the wine back into the bottle, although there seem to be hygiene considerations here.

My problem with the report I referred to yesterday is the assumption that there is one correct interpretation of communion.  I fully appreciate we need to consider the sensibilities of those who believe differently from us but that means we need to be clear about what we're doing out of conviction and what is to protect the sensibilities of others.

Anglican Methodist Covenant 3: The Common Cup

I do not find Chapter 5 of In the Spirit of the Covenant terribly helpful.  This first report of the Joint Implementation Commission for the Anglican Methodist Covenant, includes the chapter 'The Bread and Wine of Holy Communion'. In it, from section 5.4.12, the question of the use of the common cup in communion is raised.

As far as I can remember, the first trays of small communion cups were imported from the United States during the first decade of the twentieth century.  Today the overwhelming majority of Methodist churches use them. As the report says, the reason is probably non-alcoholic communion wine, introduced around the turn of the century and fears of contacting some infection without the sterilizing effect of alcohol.  It appears such an infection from a single common cup is remote, at least it was in 2005.  Perhaps swine flu has raised the question again.

Anglican Methodist Covenant 2: Interchangeability of Ministry

Interchangeability of Ministry is a fascinating problem because it is almost invisible.  Let us say we have a Single Congregation Local Ecumenical Partnership between the Church of England and the Methodist Church.  A Methodist Minister regularly presides over Communion in the Parish Church, with the permission of the Bishop and using the Church of England rites.  Nevertheless this service is Methodist and not Church of England.  Similarly a Church of England Minister's communion services are Anglican, whatever the venue and rites.