Exploring Ecumenism: Mission

Mission

Wednesday, 12 October 2011

Unity in Life and Mission

This is the second of eight posts reflecting upon a recent paper released by the Conference of European Churches. The background can be found in a post on Methodist Ecumenical News. The paper is Visions of Unity in Our Churches - Points of Convergence.

The report includes eight points of convergence and I thought it might be interesting to consider them one by one.

Convergence 2

Unity demands expression in life and mission. Our search for unity must always be seen against the horizon of a lost and broken world to which the Church is called to bring the Good News of Jesus Christ. In our divisions we need appropriate structures or networks to enable this to happen.

I agree with the start of the second sentence: church unity must be seen within the context of the wider Oikoumene. Christian unity is evidence of God's activity in the world, without it the Christian story lacks credibility.

But is this true? Divisions between churches often seem to lead to renewal (sometimes for both sides of the split). This leads me to conclude the unity we seek is not necessarily the obvious structural unity, the model in many people's minds.

Let's examine the first sentence. It is not a surprise to find 'mission' present as an expression demanded by unity. Unity and mission has been a mantra, at least since the Church of England report, 'Mission Shaped Church'. Must unity be expressed through mission? It is hard to find conclusive evidence. Churches compete in mission and still manage to get their message across. The problem is, we have tried to stick mission and unity together in a superficial way - too often we miss out on a significant part of the story.

So, does 'life' provide the missing part of the story? It is hard to say because I don't have a clue what they mean by 'life'. I have argued in a sequence of posts starting here, that formation is the stepping stone we need. Formation is the way we live as Christians and so perhaps 'life' is meant to represent this otherwise missing dimension.

The third sentence also needs unpacking. Ecumenism has become associated with structures and networks. This is not always to its advantage. Perhaps it would be better to emphasise the need for relationships and the means to deepen them through conversation.

Posted at 08:00 AM in Formation, Mission, Theoretical Ecumenism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, 05 August 2011

Mission, Formation and Unity

Cover via Amazon

This is the sixteenth and final post in this sequence about ecumenical formation.

In the book Theory U by C Otto Scharmer, the author uses the image of a painting to illustrate the nature of the U theory. I have previously covered U theory in a sequence of posts, starting here. To answer the question 'what?' we can look at the painting. The painting itself tells us nothing about the future but it has a history and in itself we may learn a great deal. To answer the question 'how?' we can watch the artist at work. And so we learn the technical aspects of the art of painting. Finally, we can ask the future orientated question 'why?' and this time the image is of the artist contemplating the empty canvass. In a sense there is little to see but without this vital step there would be no painting at all.

Perhaps mission, formation and unity express this threefold approach. When we speak only of mission and unity, we not only lose the contribution made by formation but lose a sense of the role mission and unity play in the church.

Mission addresses the question 'what?' It is inevitably past orentated as it is an expression of the faith. It is those who are formed by the church acting on their formation. This is not to say it is static, far from it; it is the church in action.

Formation addresses the 'how?' of the church. It is in formation that we encounter the insights of our own tradition and then the insights of others. As Christians we need to learn about our faith, about how to pray and how to preach and minister. We need to learn something of the breadth and diversity of faith. It is something we need to learn to do both within and between our traditions.

Finally, we approach the question, 'why?' We are brought back to the opening words of Genesis and John, 'in the beginning ...' And we discover it is about diversity, about the conversation between God and matter and later God and humanity. We are united in the conversation. In the conversation we find our purpose and grow into our mission.

I'm going to move onto a new sequence next but hope to return to formation as a theme later. The next step will be to explore the practicalities of ecumenical formation.

Posted at 06:00 PM in Conversations, Formation, Mission | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, 24 July 2011

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.

Posted at 08:00 PM in Conversations, Formation, Mission, Mutuality, Reception | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, 23 July 2011

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.

Posted at 08:00 PM in Conversations, Formation, Mission | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, 22 July 2011

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.

Posted at 08:00 PM in Formation, History, Mission | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, 21 July 2011

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.

Posted at 06:00 PM in Formation, History, Mission, Theoretical Ecumenism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, 09 December 2010

Humility

Image via Wikipedia

The problem is the overwhelming sense of being in the right many people have when they believe they are in possession of God's truth.

This is understandable but enthusiasm for a single tradition betrays lack of faith (illustrated). Let us consider faith for a moment. No-one ever makes an enthusiastic response to the undoubted fact the sun will rise tomorrow. It's true, there's no denying it. But I don't need to persuade anyone of the fact.

However, where I'm not persuaded myself, I have to be enthusiastic. The claims I make for the truth of my beliefs compensate for my own doubts.

As confidence grows, so enthusiasm falls away. I can have confidence in the faith into which I have been formed within my own tradition. This is why formation is so important. Without formation, I will not grow in confidence and so remain absolute in my beliefs.

Christopher Jamieson writes in his book, 'Finding Sanctuary', about humility. Humility is not denial of truth but demonstrates growing confidence in it. It means I can listen to others without feeling threatened or getting angry. I find as I listen to others' views, I grow in faith within my own tradition.

Perhaps a weakness of mission is its failure to form its converts? If no tradition is offered, people have nothing to argue with, to learn from, to grow with. We cannot be reconciled with other traditions if we have no tradition of our own. We'll either be overwhelmed by the confidence of the other or seek to overwhelm them.

As the roots of our faith grow deeper into our own tradition, we are able to walk alongside members of other traditions, learn from them and possibly have something of value to pass onto them.

Posted at 06:00 PM in Conversations, Diversity, Mission | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, 08 December 2010

Why Unity is Essential to Mission

Image via Wikipedia

Previously I suggested the formula 'Mission and Unity' is incomplete and we need to add a third leg, formation. On deeper analysis I suggest 'Mission and Formation' would be a better pairing, as both are essential.

Unity is harder to place with the other two. One reason for this is the experience of many churches, who find they do not need unity for mission. It could be argued the Roman Catholic Church, is huge and so clearly able to support 1.2 billion believers' needs. It doesn't need unity with other traditions for its success. Similarly, Protestant churches tend to grow by splitting. They are re-energised by splitting!

I remember as a child watching Thunderbirds. International Rescue had five vehicles. Thunderbird One was the frontline vehicle, which got there first and delivered immediate support and appraised the situation. Thunderbird Two was much bigger and slower. It followed on to supply necessary equipment. I was always disappointed Thunderbird Four, the submarine, was carried by Thunderbird Two alongside several other machines which for some reason didn't count as Thunderbirds! Of the five Thunderbirds, it is the only one not on the poster!

Similarly, unity is important but integral to formation. Outside formation, what role does unity have? Mission is possible without formation, perhaps disastrously but it is possible to perform a sort of hit and run evangelism (arguably this is worse than not doing it at all). Unity is a step in our formation as Christians; essential but subsidiary.

Initially a convert is formed in a single tradition. A brief exploration of Christian blogs will lead to encounters with writers who claim their tradition is the only true church. Some of these are Protestant, others Catholic or Orthodox. A non-Christian encountering these competing absolute claims would face a dilemma. How do I choose between competing absolute truth claims?

Usually converts are touched by a single tradition and formed by that tradition. To encounter the fullness of the diversity of the Christian faith with many competing truth claims, is a step in formation. The immature might erect fences and bolster their truth claims but sooner or later the reality is undeniable.

At the point where a tradition encounters and embraces other traditions, their formation and mission will be transformed. It is at this point they encounter the reality of God's love in all its depth and breadth.

For Methodists, this is part of their commitment to sanctification. It is commonly believed Arminianism is inclusive, opens the church to all comers of every tradition. In fact, Arminianism is more complex. It is initially exclusive. It invites those who wish to make a commitment to be a part of a church or class and put down roots. As roots into the tradition deepen, then the walls come down as the people sanctified have the confidence to embrace the other.

There is a single virtue that helps them to do this and my next post will describe it.

Posted at 06:00 PM in Diversity, Mission, Sanctification | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, 07 December 2010

Mission, Unity and Formation

Image by de la Ronde via Flickr

Towards the end of a recent post, I suggested we need to add formation to mission and unity, in order to comprehend the three legs of the ministry of the churches.

Without mission, the Gospel will not be experienced.

Without formation, Christians are ill-equipped for mission and people who hear and respond will find little or no support and are likely to fall away.

Why is unity also essential? The traditions are nothing if they are not lived. I realised only recently the extent to which I have been formed by singing traditional hymns. Hymns I remember finding incomprehensible a few decades ago make sense today. I don't remember this happening; they have grown into my consciousness over many years. This is why Methodist hymn books are important to my tradition, they are approved by conference after a long process to ensure they reflect Methodist doctrinal standards.

Christianity is an incarnational faith, known not through words on a page (scripture, hymns, prayer books, creeds, etc) but through life experience. As we live, we unpack and learn to use the contents of the Christian storehouse as presented to us through our own tradition and others.

So, when we consider unity, we consider relationships between several expressions of the same faith.

We tend to make mistakes of two types. One is to make absolute claims for my own tradition and the other is to insist all traditions should be the same. Indeed, upon analysis these are almost the same mistake. The former cuts itself off from the others and the latter claims all should join together on negotiated terms. Both tend to impose a single approach.

These two tendencies have been identified by Yung Suk Kim's boundary protected and boundary overcoming communities; he suggests a third approach, apocalytic community, that seeks reconciliation rather than structural unity. I have visited these themes several times.

So, why is unity essential? I will address this in my next post.

Posted at 06:00 PM in Culture, Mission, Music | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, 06 December 2010

The Diversity of Spiritual Direction

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?