Exploring Ecumenism

Church of the East

Image via Wikipedia

This is the eighth of a sequence of posts about ecumenical formation.

Last time I wrote about the role of libraries in the growth and propagation of the world's faiths.  Perhaps one of the greatest systems of libraries were those of the Church of the East. 

The Church of the East seems to have been little known until the publication in 2009 of Diarmaid McCulloch's 'A History of Christianity', which includes a section about the Church of the East.  I also recommend The Lost History of Christianity by Philip Jenkins.  That this history is lost is somewhat alarming but Jenkins' book is a good place to start to catch up.

It is clear, reading Jenkins, that the churches' success, (it existed for many centuries longer than Protestant churches have existed in Europe) was based on its networks of communities, usually founded on a library.  When the church was destroyed in the thirteenth century, whole cities were wiped out along with almost all of its libraries.  Some survive but are little known in the West, although Kenneth Bailey draws on them in his books, eg Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes. 

Two stories from Jenkins. 

Had not the Indians designed a system of nine wonderful signs that could be used to express all numbers?  Although he does not seem to know of the existence of zero, that is the first reference in the West to the revolutionary numbering system, which we know as Arabic numerals.  Though the system would not be widely publicised until the ninth century, Syriac Christians had known it long before that.  (Page 77)

Arabic numbers are so called because they came to Europe through Islamic Arabic libraries.  It  seems  they obtained their knowledge through the Church of the East.  For most of its existence the Church of the East was under Islamic political rule and there was a close scholastic exchange between the two traditions.  But the Church of the East didn't invent Arabic numbers, they obtained them from their churches in India, presumably through Hindu libraries.

The other story is of Bishop Adam in China. 

Around ... 782, the Indian Buddhist missionary Prajna arrived in the Chinese imperial capital of Chang'an, but was unable to translate the Sanskrit sutras he had brought with him into either Chinese or any other familiar tongue.  In such a plight, what could the hapless missionary do but seek Christian help?  He duly consulted the bishop named Adam, ...  Adam had already translated parts of the Bible into Chinese, and the two probably shared a knowledge of Persian.  Together, Buddhist and Nestorian scholars worked amiably together for some years to translate seven copious volumes of Buddhist wisdom.  Probably, Adam did this as much from intellectual curiosity as from ecumenical goodwill ... Scholars still speculate whether Adam infiltrated Christian concepts into the translated sutras, consciously or otherwise.  (Page 15)

Jenkins goes on to show how these texts bore fruit far beyond China, in Japan.

These two stories illustrate the close relationships between faiths centuries ago.  These relationships seem to have been natural co-operation between scholars, for mutual benefit. 

Perhaps different faiths were not seen as so different in those days, after all it was modern Western missionaries who classified the world's faiths.  We have made distinctions between faiths and in consequence we have built walls between them and now need interfaith dialogue to break them down.  Many see such dialogue as somehow unnatural.  It is hard to see how they can be, given the natural ways in which information has been exchanged in the past.

Formation was a natural outcome of exchange between faiths.  Whilst some people might have changed faith, it seems people largely found it natural to exchange ideas with people from other faith traditions.

Today some believe we must keep other traditions at arms length.  Is this wise?  Many ecumenists, me included, claim their faith has deepened as a result of sharing ecumenically and interfaith.  Usually this is built up as an intriguing discovery.  Perhaps a thousand years ago this would have been an unremarkable experience.

Related articles

• Libraries and Faith (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• Conversations Between Faiths (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Ecumenical Formation (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

Libraries and Faith

Image via Wikipedia

This is the seventh in a sequence about ecumenical formation.

We do not fully appreciate the part libraries have played in the development of faiths.  When we think of buildings in connection with faiths we think of churches, temples, mosques, synagogues and perhaps we go on to think of monasteries, convents and theological colleges.

It is easy to forget the role of libraries, although most religious communities had them.  It might almost be true to say religious communities exist primarily to maintain their libraries. 

This was particularly important before the invention of the printing press.  The copying, maintenance and exchange of texts would  require the full time attention of a community.  And these communities were networked.  If you wanted to do some research, you had to travel.  Scholars would carry information between libraries.

So, we hear of Christian libraries, not only in Europe but for many centuries stretching deep into Asia and Africa.

Every synagogue is a Jewish library.  If we examine a page from the Talmud, we find the central text, surrounded by several well known commentaries and often with a space for the scholar to add their own comments. (The illustration from the Talmud sadly doesn't seem to feature such a space.)

Islamic libraries which kept the light of scholarship shining during the European dark ages.

And there were Hindu and Buddhist libraries ...

These were not isolated - during the best of times there was a community of scholarship and scholars had access to each others texts.  Perhaps we have not known similar access in modern times until the invention of the internet, although the growth of universities to some degree replaced religious libraries.

The point is, scholars were formed through exchange of information and this was the norm over hundreds if not thousands of years.  The idea of one true faith hidden behind a wall to keep out scholars of other faiths would have been bizarre 1000 years ago. 

It is sad to find in the modern world, where information is so easy to access, so many refuse to share with others.

Conversations Between Faiths

Image via Wikipedia

This is the sixth in a series of posts about ecumenical formation.

I have deliberately focused this blog on ecumenism within the Christian faith.  There are a number of reasons for this but primarily my focus has been on Christianity and that is how I decided to organise my work.

However, this blog is also about conversation and in that sense it is fully inclusive of conversations between faiths.  Christians have a unique message, which is forever getting lost amongst a lot of other material, and our role is simply to tell people what it is.  It is not about conversion, although it seems to happen sometimes, or about policing people's morals.  It is simply to tell the story.

I attend a small local interfaith group and this year we have been looking at the scriptures of various faiths.  In May it was the turn of the Jains.  So, let's start there.

Something clicked when I heard the Jain scriptures started as a library in North West India.  My first thought was that I had heard this at earlier sessions about other faiths (more in later posts) and my second thought was, this library would have contained all the knowledge in the world.

That is what libraries were, collections of all the knowledge in the world.  We live in a world where access to knowledge is easy.  We can read.  We can travel to visit libraries easily and these days access masses of information on the Internet. 

What was important though was not this one library.  It was all the libraries, scattered around the world, each containing all the knowledge in the world.  Most of them are now lost.  Interfaith conversations were not a leisure pursuit for indolent westerners, but an essential exchange of ideas. 

It is this idea from the meeting about the Jains that has led to this series of posts about formation.  An understanding of faith not as a series of beliefs so much as a series of libraries, each containing all the knowledge in the world.

Related articles

• Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

Reading the Bible

Image by Newbirth35 via Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the fifth in the series about ecumenical formation.

Lots of people responded to Harold Camping's prediction of the rapture back in May.  Quite why he  got so much attention is beyond me.  He has his own radio station but that doesn't mean we all need to hear what he's saying.  If you need a reminder, this blog post is as good as any.  If you don't, just read the extract below from one of Camping's followers:

The middle-aged Oakland resident said he’d been listening to Camping since 1993, when he said the world would end in 1994.

That was strike one, the man said. And this is strike two. Even so, he said, that doesn’t mean the message is wrong.

“I just know he’s biblically sound,” the man said. “I’ve never been one of these guys who think everything he says is true.

This caught my eye. 'I just know he's biblically sound'.  He knows because Camping has predicted the date he will be personally raptured and been wrong twice?  These people are wrong on so many levels that it's hard to know where to begin.

The ways in which Christians read the Bible is core to any Christian formation.  We can take the view that only my interpretation is sound or that all interpretations are permissible (because we can always go back to the original text). 

The first is based on ignorance.  The second is better but not much better because it assumes we cannot say anything about the Bible and all readings are neutral.

The rapture is not a neutral idea.  It is a natural ideology for consumers.  It is individualistic, focusing only on the salvation of those with access to the truth, who will leave the world behind for the rest of us to suffer in.  Why is the world in such a mess? Because of the behaviour of these very consumers who seek to save themselves.

It is a nasty mix of self-righteousness and greed.  It is also profoundly atheistic.  These people do not trust God, they build their hopes upon their own fantasies of God.  They are taken in by their own illusions.  If religion has any value at all it is in losing these illusions and learning to live for others.

One way of doing this is through encounter with those who read the text differently.  If we cannot accept that our view is one interpretation amongst many, then we will be disappointed as we struggle to stay true to what is false in our thinking. 

This 'one interpretation only' philosophy is relatively recent and I hope to show in future posts how profoundly important the encounter between interpretations is.

What is Formation?

Image by mscaprikell via Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, what is formation?  In this fourth in this series, I will tease out some strands.

First a few things to clear the ground.  Formation is not the sole responsibility for the ordained.  They may have a formal obligation to see to the formation of those over whose care they have some reponsibility.  However, the reponsibility is everyone's and we are all responsible for each others' formation.

Formation is something everyone experiences.  Some may be gifted and some not even know what the word means but in principle it is accessible to all.  The Methodist publication, Time to Talk of God, a few years ago, made this point.  Anyone can talk about God.

Formation is a mutual activity.  It is something people can share in.  It is not about someone who knows, pouring insights into the minds of others.  It is mutual learning.  Christian traditions are not programmes of belief to be systematically worked through; they are guides, resources, help, something to draw upon.

Consequently, sharing between Christians of different traditions makes a valuable contribution to mutual formation because it enables sharing of insights from different parts of the tradition.  This is sometimes called receptive ecumenism.

Furthermore, without mutual sharing, there is a danger that a tradition will go out on a limb.  If we are to engage with others from outside the faith, we must learn from each other something of what our faith is. 

Related articles

• Ecumenical Formation (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• Contemporary Methodism: a discipleship movement shaped for mission (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

Mission and Spiritual Direction

Image via Wikipedia

In this third in the series about formation, I will explore the relationship between mission and formation.  I made the point a few months ago that the traditional view of mission and unity is incomplete and the third element of spiritual direction needs to be included.  In the following post, I started to explore something of the diversity of approaches to formation across the traditions.

Whatever we believe mission is, it must not be an activist pursuit.  We need a praxis of mission that includes formation.  However, ecumenists tend to focus on mission at the expense of formation.

A good evangelist will always be an excellent spiritual director.  John Wesley is respected for his spiritual direction as much as for his evangelism.  If you don't understand spirituality, how can you possibly be an evangelist?  I suppose you can frighten people with lurid images of hellfire.  But the reality is people are already exploring faith and they are looking for answers, not threats.

The forums where atheists debate with Christians can be frustrating.  Anyone taking part must be seeking faith at some level.  What do they find?  People who have answers, mostly to the wrong questions.  The person who will be most helpful is the one who listens and answers the questions being asked.  But more than that, direction is to some degree a joint exploration.  A seasoned explorer knows the terrain although not every particularity.

So, formation starts before conversion, it has something to do with the context within which mission take place.  It is in conversations where believer and unbeleiver explore the terrain together.  And continues throughout Christian life, informing the practice of everyone involved in mission.  Mission is nothing without formation.

Mission requires many skills, drawing on analysis, organising, planning and implementation of programmes.  But the effective stuff happens in the unplanned interstices, the places where the real conversations take place.  Ultimately, mission aims to increase the chance of conversations taking place.

So, if churches are to do anything together they need to get formation right.

Related articles

• Ecumenical Formation (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

The Swanwick Declaration

Image via Wikipedia

In this second post about formation, I take a closer look at the Swanwick Declaration.  The link takes you to the full declaration on Churches Together in England's website.  It's a good read and mercifully short, in contrast to many ecumenical statements.

The second paragraph shows who made the declaration and these particular people were only a few of the many thousands who took part in the Not Strangers but Pilgrims interchurch process.  Note also the means by which they came to agreement about the Declaration 'we met, we listened, we talked, we worshipped, we prayed, we sat in silence, deeper than words'.  They were reminded of the context, a sense that this was an essential detour from the mission of the church to a sinful world and of the views of younger people, who 'called on us to be ready to sort out our priorities so that we could travel light and concentrate on our goal.'  

Note the words of paragraph 3:

We now declare together our readiness to commit ourselves to each other under God. Our earnest desire is to become more fully, in his own time, the one Church of Christ, united in faith, communion, pastoral care and mission. Such unity is the gift of God. With gratitude we have truly experienced this gift, growing amongst us in these days. We affirm our openness to this growing unity in obedience to the Word of God, so that we may fully share, hold in common and offer to the world those gifts which we have received and still hold in separation. In the unity we seek we recognise that there will not be uniformity but legitimate diversity.

The commitment is to commit ourselves to each other under God.  This does not imply full visible unity, although it does imply accountability.  This is easily said but what happens where we disagree?  The desire is to become 'more fully' the one church of God.  Note this is not 'fully'; the process, it is implied, is about becoming; there will never be a past tense.  Unity increases and is not expected to stop growing.  So, they did not anticipate uniformity.  There has been much discussion about what is meant by 'legitimate diversity' and we can anticipate some disagreement about what is in fact legitimate.

One final comment about paragraph 4, which reads:

It is our conviction that, as a matter of policy at all levels and in all places, our churches must now move from co-operation to clear commitment to each other, in search of the unity for which Christ prayed and in common evangelism and service of the world.

Note the agreement is commitment to each other.  This is not the same as full visible unity.  It is a vision of a diverse church committed to all its parts.

Over the years, It seems this commitment has been interpreted through the medium of mission.  Perhaps this is an easy option as mission tends not to be quite so tied up in ecclesiology (although it is) but also because young people seem to have decided over the last 20 years to go it alone, presumably because the churches have decided not to travel light and have taken an awful lot of baggage with them. 

But perhaps another error has been to believe mission is the only game in town.  We have focused on mission at the expense of formation and it is the relationship between these two I will explore next.

Related articles

• Ecumenical Formation (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• The Bible and Institutions (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• The Glory of God (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

Ecumenical Formation

Image by alwyn_ladell via Flickr

This is the first post in a new sequence about formation.  I suppose I better start by defining terms and then explain why I have chosen this theme.

Formation is one of the main aims of any church.  Different traditions will have different names for it, I suppose formation is a term favoured in the Catholic tradition but I think we all do it.  It is the means by which each tradition helps its members become familiar with God.  We do it by reading the Bible, by participating in worship, praying alone and together, through listening to sermons and reading texts from our tradition.  Sometimes it is possible to attend courses; obligatory for those who are selected to enter into ministry.

I intend to explore formation in its widest sense and so I will not restrict what I say to ordained ministry. Indeed, I would go so far as to argue the formation of the ordained is less important than formation of lay people, although the former tends to be more formal and intentional.

For example, it was fairly recently that I realised the extent to which my faith has been formed by Methodist hymns.  I can't claim to have ever particularly liked them or paid much attention to them.  But I must have sung thousands of them and now I appreciate how much they formed my faith.

 So, why formation?  I have been involved with national ecumenism in England since 2003.  During that period there have been three strands to ecumenism.  Two of them I find increasingly difficult and the third underdeveloped. 

Full visible unity died in 1982 with the failure of the English Covenant.  In 1989 it was formally superseded by the new ecumenical instruments but persisted through institutions such as Local Ecumenical Partnerships.  It is a Protestant objective and the idea was developed when ecumenism was a Protestant project in this country.  Whilst we might see visible unity between a few traditions in the foreseeable future, I don't think even that limited aim is terribly likely.  However, the idea of full visible unity has been extremely productive and has brought all the churches closer together.  It is hard to envisage a more effective approach to grinding down ecclesiological differences. 

The second strand is more recent and possibly dates back to Mission Shaped Church (or at least that report made the case most effectively).  This is a pragmatic approach to ecumenism.  The argument is that unity is essential if mission is to be effective.  Now, I certainly believe the organisational structures we have for local collaboration help with mission and therefore this is a dimension to ecumenical work.  However, it simply isn't true that unity is essential to mission.  Many churches manage mission without paying any attention whatsoever to other churches.  They might be arrogant but what they're doing seems to work.

The third strand is the approach agreed by all the churches in 1989.  The Swanwick Agreement clearly shows ecumenism as churches acting together.  It is a significant departure from full visible unity.  This alternative is sometimes called reconciled diversity.  The odd thing is few Protestant theologians seem to take it seriously.  I have often written of the reconciliation of all things to God - but does this really mean all things are to lose their integrity?

It seems to me formation underlies the Swanwick Agreement and through this sequence of posts I will explore this further.

Related articles

• The Bible and Institutions (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)