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: 12 - 31
The 'more excellent way' is featured earlier in this series. Here I compared the various traditions to stepping stones. In this current passage we are invited to compare them to parts of the body.
But let's take care here. It's hardly credible that Paul was writing of institutions as members of the body.
I posted a series some time ago about Yung Suk Kim's thinking about the Body of Christ. Kim's point is, to paraphrase it, the united community of all the traditions would necessarily be exclusive of those who are on the margins. This would be a result of institutional unity.
But the image of the Body of Christ is of a body divided. This allows space for those who would otherwise be marginalised. The point is not that we all have something to offer but that in Christ's broken body there is room for all.
Maybe some traditions exclude those they don't approve of. If so, then the body is necessarily broken and it is broken because God accepts all, whether or not church leaders agree with God.
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 5: 1 - 8
Oh dear, oh dear. A long passage, terminating in an ecumenical non-sequitur. Presumably the fish represent potential converts and we're supposed to summon our ecumenical partners, should we strike lucky!
This passage is not about evangelism. It is about economics. These are fishermen. If it hasn't escaped your notice, fishermen are interested in catching fish. Why? Because fish are valuable.
Here is a man who has the power to magic large numbers of fish from nowhere. But this same man has something he values more than fish. This is a story about discipleship, not evangelism.
The partners help with the catch, do they understand what is going on? Partners join in a common enterprise, even though they might do so for radically different reasons. This does not mean they cannot be trusted. It does mean it is important to understand why they are involved.
This story shows the benefits of Jesus are not restricted to the followers of Jesus. More important, it shows why the fishermen chose to follow Jesus.
So, here is a summary of what I'm saying about being stuck. This applies to ecumenical winter, the Anglican Covenant and many other issues that plague our thinking.
Being stuck is not a bad place to be, although it is a frustrating place to be. It is hard when everything's been tried and most actions make matters worse. Being stuck is a place where there are no manuals and no-one has any experience to offer.
Memory undermines us because all we can recall is we've tried everything. But we need memory because we need to know what has been tried. We also need to understand why we are where we are. But our memory is coloured by old models and so we also need to forget.
It is imagination what enables us to step outside the old constraints, the old models and try something new. Most likely it won't work because it isn't really new or we didn't really understand our old mindsets. So, we try again.
Trial and error or iteration; works where the only thing we can do is to keep trying until something works. The idea unsticking a problem can be done in theory first, in conversations between those with theological or some other technical expertise is simply false. Theologians will interpret whatever turns out to work, they have no foreknowledge of what will work. The academic thinks in a different way to people on the ground. For the academic there is something called truth and if only we can find it, we'll find a way forward.
For the person on the ground there is the ground. Old buildings, no money, broken relationships. Where do we go from here? And of course they are right. The doctrine of incarnation tells us God is found in the material world and not in our theories about it.
First, there is no need to move forward from here. Being stuck is a good place to be. To be stuck is to be close to God because to be unstuck we must abandon our assumptions, including the ones that we are not even aware of. For that we need prayer.
I am sure when Christians pray together, particularly enemies, those with very different views, the chances of being unstuck increase. As our assumptions fall away, perhaps we'll see more clearly the bars on our cages.
The aim is not to convert the other to my view but to find a way forward together that works for God's Kingdom.
In the last couple of posts, I wrote about the Anglican Covenant debate. I could also mention the recent meeting between Olav Fyske Tveit, General Secretary of the WCC and Pope Benedict XVI. Tveit gave the Pope a pair of gloves, as there is a need for the right equipment to address the problem of the ecumenical winter. 'The Norwegians have a saying, '"In Norway there is no such thing as bad weather just bad clothing".'
I am currently re-reading Robert M Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. In chapter 24, he writes of what happens when you need to unscrew a plate to access the insides of a motorcycle. The screw sheers off, what do you do? There is nothing about this problem in any manual. The screw is a tiny cheap device which is normally taken for granted. Once it sheers it prevents any progress whatsoever. So, what do you do?
You could throw the motorcycle over a cliff. Momentarily, this might feel good but really - throw away a good motorcycle for a little screw? There has to be a better way. The problem is that where the manuals run out of advice you need to take a wider view. The motorcycle is part of a larger system than the one the manual deals with.
So, for example, it must happen frequently in the life of someone who mends motorcycles for a living. Ask a mechanic and she might reply, something along the lines of ... ' well, I try something and if that doesn't work I try something else until I get the screw out'. This might not sound satisfactory but what else is there?
Ecumenism (and the Anglican Covenant) are both intractable in their own ways. Part of the problem is the Faith and Order approach. Its problem is its successes. Theologians have developed a significant body of material that has reconciled communions despite their differences.
Sometimes there's an arrogance; all these local churches working together are not enough they argue. We need formal conversations to move ecumenism forwards.
The problem is once you get stuck, more of the same is not enough. The bigger picture needs to be considered and new approaches tried until the system becomes unstuck.
On Friday evening, 17 September 2010, I attended the service of evening prayer at Westminster Abbey, led by Pope Benedict XVI and the Archbishop of Canterbury. It seems this was an historic event. This was the first time any Pope has set foot in Westminster Abbey and I think the first time a Pope has led a service with any Archbishop.
So, what do I make of all this? How will this service be viewed in 10 or 20 years time? I suspect it will be mentioned in the guide books at the Abbey; will it have any more significance than that?
One problem I had was, being somewhat hard of hearing, I had difficulty hearing what the Pope was saying. I hope to track down and read his speeches and so will comment on them later. I was sat in Poet's Corner, not far from William Blake, and there was a screen between us and the high altar, where the service took place. So, my comments this time are upon the event itself.
As a non-conformist, I find this type of ceremony less moving than many people seem to and so much of the emotion passed me by. But I think it was significant they were able to make this commitment together. The point at which they prayed together at the tomb of St Edward the Confessor moved many people. For me perhaps the most moving moment was right at the end of the service when the two men walked down the chancel steps. I noticed the Archbishop was supporting Benedict. Perhaps this is a sign of personal warmth between them, I hope it is.
This was an act that primarily took place between two traditions, Roman Catholic and Anglican. Leaders from other churches were present as witnesses but this was certainly not a multilateral ecumenical event. This is not necessarily a bad thing and is certainly understandable in view of the venue.
My deepest concern is more difficult to express. I've sat in on planning several liturgies where delicate issues have had to be addressed. I've seen the way in which positive gestures can be used to skirt around other difficult and deeper issues. My impression was Benedict was there to pray at Edward's tomb.
It did not feel as though the divisions between the two churches were being addressed. I wasn't expecting any grand gestures but the reality of the blood shed between these churches a few centuries ago was an unspoken presence. Was Benedict there to pray at the tomb or to heal the divisions?
Some would say both. Maybe that's true. But if both, why did we need the prayers at the tomb? Yes, I accept this was a significant step on the way (how significant we will learn in time) but it seemed to me the Pope was still holding this relationship at arm's length.
I feel uneasy about it. This was not ultimately the normally easy relationship Protestants and Catholics experience in England. It certainly isn't enmity. But is it friendship?
The idea of full visible unity has always been the primary vision of those involved in ecumenical work. The main alternative is sometimes called 'reconciled diversity' and it seems generally accepted this approach falls short of full visible unity. If the academic work has been done to fully assess reconciled diversity, I've never seen it or heard of it. The debate however appears to be closed.
The significance of Kim's book is, he makes the case for reconciliation rather than unity. It is interesting that he sets them up in opposition to one another. For Kim, unity and reconciliation are incompatible.
Why? Because unity is between leaders and is negotiated. It ignores legitimate diversity in an attempt to centralise authority.
Reconciliation is necessary where differences cannot be resolved and, according to Kim, we are left with the solidarity of the marginalised.
So, the challenge to ecumenists is not to find a solution that enables a single organisational approach to church. The task is to learn to love one another despite our differences.
I have written a great deal about the importance of relationships, of conversations as an end in themselves. Unity implies stasis, it implies it is possible to find a form of words to which all shall sign up and so unite the churches.
Reconciliation between marginalised people is inherently unstable. It implies the oneness of Christians will never be resolved because it is the act of loving despite differences that is important.
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.
Throughout this sequence of posts, I have disagreed profoundly with the paper's thinking about the nature of institutions.
Their view is a near universal problem. I spend most of my paid working life helping local churches find a way forward that enables them to engage with one another without breaking the rules.
They do not state what they mean by 'institution' and so I assume they mean the churches. It is bizarre that institutions are seen to be such terrible things and yet at the same time are expected to provide all the good things in the paragraph.
If they can provide these good things, it is because they are institutions. Time and again, I hear of fresh expressions of church which don't want to be tied up with buildings, or rules and regulations (many of which are requirements of the state rather than the churches). To me this seems childish - are they really saying they want someone else to do the hard work?
Often what they really need is an administrator and this is perfectly legitimate because administration is a gift of the spirit. It is in working around difficulties that creativity is born. Complex relationships may be an asset, generating new ideas and initiatives.
Ecumenism is based upon conversation and generative conversations can resolve many issues if we have the patience and stamina to see them through and to be open minded enough to understand when something new and significant emerges and that it might not emerge from the minds of experts or leaders.
This critical issue follows on from the last and in some ways responds to it. They write: In the past certain ecumenical networks (often quite informal) have been catalytic in challenging the churches and ecumenical bodies alike. This implies local churches are making their views known, although it is not easy to grasp what is meant by ecumenical networks (if they are not networks of local churches, what are they?).
I stand by my last post, confirming 'ecumenical prodding' must come from local churches. They need to be networked and they need to take the initiative. This has been the message of this blog from the beginning.
Ecumenism will get nowhere if it is solely the province of church leaders and academic theologians. This is in no way a criticism of their abilities. They cannot enable progress independently of fully participating local churches.
Paradoxically, the problem lies in the progress that has already been made. As more issues are identified and settled in formal talks, the remaining issues become more difficult; the easy things have been settled and now we turn to those entrenched issues, which have so far defeated the best minds. These issues are difficult because they are about authority and decision making; the thing Christians cannot agree about is how they make decisions together.
This is not as dreadful as it might seem. Churches can empower people to make decisions together and so now and again Christianity has inspired the growth of local organisations, co-operatives, businesses, trade unions, banks, insurance companies - you name it. This wealth of ways of making decisions has been a great gift of God to the world.
These form a generative tension and so will never be reconciled because this tension is the crack in the broken Body of Christ that allows God's love to flow to the whole of humanity.
This is why the prodding must come from local churches. As they struggle with the implications of irreconcilable authorities, against the need to collaborate for the Kingdom of God, they are generating solutions and pressing church authorities to relax their regulations.
It is out of this debate that real change will come.
This critical issue resurrects a debate I thought had been settled decades ago and manages to miss the point entirely. It seems some of those present at the consultation long for the ability of the old British Council of Churches to work outside of the churches.
The current ecumenical instruments assist the churches in their ecumenical relationships and do not initiate ecumenical activity themselves. The vision is to seek the commitment of the churches to ecumenism, rather than ecumenism pursued by a minority of enthusiasts.
The case against this culminates in the following: One view being powerfully expressed is that the instruments have been largely reduced in their capacity to act effectively even as ‘heralds’, let alone as promoters, of ecumenism, due to an over-reaction by those in the churches who were determined to have no return to ‘the old BCC ways’ of ecumenical bodies acting ‘on behalf of ’ the churches. The end result, on this view, is that there is now no effective promoter of ecumenism outside the churches themselves, many of whom are happy to acquiesce in this position.
The final paragraph does not effectively answer this criticism, merely reiterating that it is not the role of the instruments to take the lead. My answer to this is two-fold, a minor and a major point. The minor point is the claim that the instruments do not promote ecumenism to the churches is ill informed. The instruments do promote and remind the churches of their ecumenical commitments. Their focus is upon support for the churches rather than initiating work themselves. So, it is nonsense to suggest they are not effective in promoting ecumenism.
My major point is that there is an additional effective promoter of ecumenism ignored entirely in this argument: local churches. Now, it would be rash to claim they offer a coherent single message but the reality is local churches and local Christians are making their point loud and clear. They don't want the bureaucracy they associate with the national churches, they want to work together on mission and are not interested in anything that does not assist with their mission agenda.
The message may not be what some ecumenists want to hear but it is being expressed with substantial consistency and insistence across almost the whole of the country. The instruments know this; I wonder whether the people at the consultation are as aware of what is happening as they claim to be.
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