Exploring Ecumenism

On Secularism

Image via Wikipedia

A recent issue of the New Statesman (19 July 2010) has led me to think about the relationship between secularism and ecumenism.  This special issue of the New Statesman was about 'Godless Britain'.  (It seems the New Statesman has found that issues fly off the shelf when the cover is about religion.  The Labour Party leadership contest never generated quite so much excitement!)

Here is a quote from an article by Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, on page 25:

... these [secular] constitutions [US, Turkey, India] have a common aim: to protect religion.  By not permitting the establishment of any particular faith, secularism seeks to ensure that the state cannot be used as an instrument to persecute minority religious communities, and that no religion can be imposed by law on an unwilling populace.

This raises three issues: 

1. The contribution secularism has made to ecumenism needs to be acknowledged.  It seems the groundwork that led to the 1989 new ecumenical instruments in Britain, was laid centuries ago as legislation slowly came round to protect the interests of all branches of Christian faith.  It has been a slow path from the wars of religion to the point at which churches are, if not united, at least reconciled. 
2. So, why have the churches allowed atheists to claim themselves protectors of secularism?  They should embrace this commitment to protection of religions from the state.  This allows the churches to live side by side and so be more credible.
3. Third, it leads us to look beyond the Christian faith and enable Christians to engage as equals with people of other faiths.   

Some Christians might argue this is going too far.  Who does the secular state think it is, to dictate policy to the churches?  If this is a view some hold, it is our own fault for allowing the churches to lose touch with the benefits of secularism.  Churches should lead the way, not fight against it.

I suspect another objection would be the secular state should not legislate on the agenda of the churches.  Leaving aside whether there is in truth a Christian political agenda, the real question is whether the churches as churches should be able to legislate on behalf of all people.  There is no bar to Christians joining political parties and contributing to planning legislation within them. 

If Churches did have direct access to legislation, it would tend to divide the churches.  There would be no consensus over Christian legislation and those churches that did not agree would walk away. 

It seems upon reflection the modern accord between churches is still fragile.  If that is so, it is interesting that it is the secular state that holds the churches together.

(The map shows secular states in red, states with state religions in yellow and the gray are undetermined for one reason or another.)

Related articles by Zemanta

• In defence of secularism (newstatesman.com)
• Ecumenism and Culture (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• Ecumenism Not Pluralism (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• We need a multiculturalism of hope | Tariq Modood (guardian.co.uk)

Inter-Church Programme Proposals: Phases

This post provides further detail about the programme of work, described in the publication Inter-Church Programme Proposals.

I wrote three posts about this era earlier this year and the first placed the Inter-church Process into its historical context.  By 1985, the plans were advanced and the plan was to work through three phases.

Phase 1 was called Understandings of the Church and was to last throughout 1985 and until September 1986.  It aimed:

To look closely at our understandings of the Church in the light of our common mission, from the point of view of the tradition and experience of each denomination, but also in the light of ecumenical experience and in relation to the existence of other denominations.

The objective was to find replies to a central question from local, national and international sources.  The question was:

"In your tradition and experience, how do you understand the nature and purpose of your church, in relation to other Christian denominations and as together we share in God's mission to the world?"

1. At the local level, the aim was to engage local Christians to share their views together during Lent 1986.   This would be 'nationally co-ordinated and locally devised'.  This process would be supplemented by the views of those involved in local ecumenism and members of other local Christian Communities.
2. At national level, the national churches would be consulted and asked to produce a 2000 word response to the churches.  This would be supplemented by the views of national bodies such as the Evangelical Alliance, other responsible secular, professional and non-Christian organisations, and major non-Christian faiths.  This would be supplemented by work already completed. 
3. At international level, the findings of multilateral and bilateral conversations would be collated and third world views obtained through church missionary organisations.

I summarised the results of this process in a recent post.

Phase II: Reflecting and Questioning Together, over the autumn and winter of 1986-7, aimed:

To promote prayer, reflection, and mutual questioning on the material produced in phase I in order to prepare for phase III.

This would be done at local, regional and national levels though meetings to discuss the material produced at phase 1.  The expectation was ecumenical groups would make their own arrangements but the 'nature and purpose of the church' would also be the theme for the January 1987 Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.

Phase III was Evaluation and Proposals for Action between the Spring and Autumn of 1987.  It aimed:

To evaluate and assess this process of prayer, study and discussion in order to discern the way forward and to make proposals for the practical and organisational aspects of the churches' mission and unity, including the shaping of the ecumenical instruments needed for the future.

This would take place through a series of meetings.  (1)  Three meetings took place in England, Scotland and Wales within 10 days of each other, (2) a conference of 500 - 1000 participants in September 1987, (3) after September proposals would be considered by churches and other ecumenical bodies.

This is an impressive programme and it seems it was followed fairly closely.  In the light of ecumenism today, two things stand out.

The vision did not have a narrow Faith and Order focus.  In terms of content and its commitment to engage with all interested parties locally, nationally and internationally, the process showed a real vision for the whole church in the context of the wider world.

There was a genuine commitment to engage with local churches.  Given the technology of the time, they achieved something that would be unthinkable now.  It is amazing they were able to do all this 25 years ago.  With blogs and social networking today, it would seem easier to undertake these wide-ranging conversations.  In reality, this vision seems to have deserted the ecumenical movement and such a broad conversation seems impossible.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Inter-Church Programme Proposals: What is the Church for? (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• Inter-Church Programme Proposals: Creative Dislocation (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

Inter-Church Programme Proposals: What is the Church for?

The document, Inter-Church Programme Proposals, looks forward to the Inter-Church Process of Lent 1986.  The key question they hoped to address was: What is the Church and what is it for?  The aim was to consult widely with church leaders, church members and church related organisations.  After some brief speculations about how this question might be asked in terms of mission, God's Kingdom and God's final purpose for all, they write on page 5:

We might go on to ask whether our Churches might recognise each other as "other provisional embodiments of God's purposes".  However, our hope in tackling these questions is not just to produce new documents, but to enable action to follow to change our standing in one another's eyes and our relationship to each other within the fellowship of Christ, so that together we might follow our common calling "in and for the world".  And we shall also need to ask: What is the world saying to us?  What is the Kingdom asking of us as Christians?  What is the meaning of the Church in a secular society which sees no purpose for it?

Note the aim of this process was not restricted to unity.  It was not unity for the sake of unity but for the wider benefit of the world.  There is an expectation that things would change as a result of this initiative.

Our Churches' 'confessions' to one another of what we believe we are as churches, given both our varying size and the doctrinal, social, cultural and historical context of our life, will be placed 'on the table' for further use in the process.  These are not envisaged as final, but as provisional responses, incorporating the viewpoints of those concerned with the Church's mission, evangelism, ministry and social responsibility, as well as those concerned with Faith and Order and with Christian unity.  But they will be something new, in that we shall be saying how we see our own church in our overall perspectives, which will be encouraged by existing or new co-operation between us.  This will lead us on to ask ourselves together: On what basis, and on what understanding of the Church can we move forward?  And, out of this process, what shape might emerge for the ecumenical instruments needed to serve the Churches' common mission to the world?

Again it is clear that a vision of churches collaborating in a common relationship with the world was foundational to the Inter-Church Process.  It struck me, following the January 2009 conference about receptive ecumenism, that receptive ecumenism needed to be accompanied by ecumenical reception and a third process I called transformative reception.  This is where the churches together allow the world to form their mission and ministry.  It is unsettling to find it current 25 years ago, given I found it necessary to reinvent it following that conference.

Again, I am forced to ask why it is, given the undoubted success of the Inter-Church Process, modern ecumenism stepped back into Faith and Order debates, losing its sense of commitment to the world?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Inter-Church Programme Proposals: Creative Dislocation (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

Inter-Church Programme Proposals: Creative Dislocation

It is interesting, reading Inter-Church Programme Proposals, from February 1985, to see how much has changed in the British ecumenical scene over the last 25 years.   This is a short pamphlet written to outline the proposed Inter-Church Process, for Lent 1986.

Despite the failure of the English Covenant in 1982, the document is surprisingly upbeat, particularly in the light of the then recent visit of Pope John Paul II to Britain and the encouraging and supportive approach of the Roman Catholic Church at the time.

The Roman Catholic Bishops made a particular reference to the Documents of the Second Vatican Council, because it was there that a reappraisal of their understanding of the Church led Roman Catholics to a new relationship to other Churches and to the world, and to a new understanding of the churches' mission.  Their stress on local ecumenism arises from their concern that church members locally should experience the 'creative dislocation' of ecumenical encounters which change our perception of our fellow-Christians and lead to a new awareness of our common mission.  (Page 3)

This is an interesting paragraph for two reasons.  Much of it resonates with current interest in ecumenical reception and receptive ecumenism.  The warmth of the embrace of ecumenical dialogue by the Catholic Church is familiar through to this day, as is the emphasis on mission.

What strikes me though is the concept of 'creative dislocation', which seems to be a much more positive approach to local ecumenism than we find today.  This is something I think we'll see as we explore the story of the Inter-Church Process: a much more positive view of local ecumenism.

One of the questions I hope to address is, why has the commitment to local ecumenism become dulled over the last quarter century?  The Inter-Church Process was a success by any measure, so why is there so much scepticism today?  It is as if church leaders wish to protect local churches from 'creative dislocation' rather than encourage it.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Anglican Roman Catholic Relations (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Called to be One 10: Relationships Between Roman Catholics and Others (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• Fine Nets and Strategems (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

Called to be One 1: Some Concerns about Power

A few weeks ago I mentioned the document, Called to be One - what now? ; an account of a conference held last November.  Many of the people who attended were involved in the publication of a document, Called to be One, in 1996.  Re-reading this 15 years later, it seems both fresh and dated at the same time.

Much of it is still current today and yet things are very different.  The main difference is a loss of confidence in the ecumenical movement in England.  The people who organised and attended the November 2009 conference can easily be dismissed as an older generation, out of touch with the painful realities of the present day. I think the reality is more complex. 

Called to be One - what now?

I want to return to my sequence about the modern history of ecumenism.  The last post about the Marigold Book  was on 15 February.  In November 2009, an informal consultation on the future of the ecumenical movement  took place in Bristol. 

As a result of this consultation an open letter was sent to the church leaders of Britain and Ireland , calling on them to examine and question the commitment of the churches themselves to ecumenism:

What is being asked for is not another re-examination of the ecumenical instruments as such – these need the fullest possible affirmation, support and resourcing – but a self-examination and mutual questioning of the churches themselves as to their ecumenical commitment, attitudes, and actual performance. What were the expectations in 1990? How far have the churches actually lived up to them? How much closer are they today than they were then?  How far in practice are we ‘committed to’ each other?

Must Ecumenism be about Control?

More than a century ago, the sociologist Max Weber wrote at length to argue for a fundamental difference between the two religious groupings [Protestants and Catholics], which resulted in Reformed Protestants becoming identified with self-discipline and a 'spirit of capitalism', and Protestants associated with a highly regulated 'work ethic' rarely possessed by Catholics.  The notion still holds some sway in popular consciousness, but detailed acquaintance with the story of Reformation and Counter-Reformation makes it dissolve into qualifications and contradiction; it is an idea best avoided.  Discipline and the urge to order people's lives were ecumenical qualities.  (From: A History of Christianity , by Diarmaid MacCulloch, page 685)

I'm still reading Diarmaid MacCulloch's book and my eye was caught by this paragraph and particularly the last sentence.  Most likely MaCulloch means ecumenical in the sense that all traditions shared the same urge.  However, I must confess I do feel at times that the aim of full visible unity is discipline and the desire to order people's lives. 

Metropolitan Ecumenism

Yesterday , I referred to a post by Peter Phillips, Reflecting on metropolitan ecumenism and grassroots mission .  The idea of metropolitan ecumenism intrigues me.  Phillips implies he found the term elsewhere but I have found no other references to it following a Google search.  This is Phillips' definition:

So what is meant by metropolitan ecumenism?  Basically, to me it means ecumenism that is handled in London and by central office - hierarchical ecumenism - top down ecumenism.  My own first reaction to the speech was a good example - I went back to statements which had been issued by high-ranking meetings and agencies.  I went to the central tenets of Methodism and agreed wholeheartedly with what David Gamble said.  I argued it was fully in accord with what Methodists say about the Covenant and fits in well with that Covenant (and see the others who say the same within the same metropolitan media-style ecumenical perspective above).  I'd stick with that and I don't think there is anything wrong with such a viewpoint.  But the very danger is that we do stick there.  Sometimes we get set into a kind of networked mindset - where academics involved in a network end up in an ivory tower which is really helpful for their own research but misses the point of what is actually happening on the ground.  Metropolitan ecumenism is only as good as ecumenism on the ground.  We cannot and will not see unity within the Church through the dictat of any Synod or Committee.  Unity comes from the grassroots but can be enabled and empowered by metropolitan enthusiasm.  

On a practical level, metropolitan ecumenism might be a useful phrase to describe what I have tended to call 'central' or 'national' ecumenism.  I think the distinction between metropolitan and local is an important one and I have addressed it several times on this blog under the name of ecumenical reception .

The Marigold Book

'Churches Together in Pilgrimage' is better known as the Marigold Book , which alludes to the colour of its cover, or rather it used to, as the book has been out of print for a long time.  It was issued after the 1987 Swanwick Conference, towards the end of the Not Strangers but Pilgrims Interchurch Process , and detailed the new arrangements for ecumenism in the British Isles.

The link is to part of the Marigold Book, which can be found on Churches Together in England's website  (09.10).  This extract covers England only and it will do for now, as my context is England and this will help readers understand something of it.

The first thing that strikes me is, twenty years after it was introduced, the proposed structures seem to have stood up rather well.  Some aspects are being reviewed, eg intermediate bodies and the enabling group, but overall it seems to have served England's churches rather well.

Reflections and Observations of the Interchurch Process

Today I will make a few more comments on the paper by Colin Davey and Martin Reardon .