Exploring Ecumenism

Neighbourhood Church 4: Proclamation

Linthicum's fourth and (sort of) final activity for the local church is Proclamation.  This is, of course, a highly contested area.  The reason is that some Christians have made this part of the Christian faith their own.  I want to state firmly it is only a part of the Christian faith and should not be left as the sole preserve of evangelicals.

Many evangelicals would agree so far.  It is a responsibility for the whole church alongside the much wider activity of mission.  The distinction is that mission relates to sanctification whilst proclamation relates to justification.

I have written a lot about sanctification in this blog and little about justification.  This is not because I think justification is unimportant but that sanctification is less well known and has important implications for ecumenism.

Justification is the experience of the individual who comes to know the power of Jesus and that they are saved.  It is the purpose of proclamation to tell the story and introduce the non-believer to Christ.  This is done in a variety of ways and all can contribute to it.  There are a few points I would wish to make though.

1. Like everything else proclamation should be thought of in terms of a conversation.  The word itself implies a one way transaction from those who know the truth to those who don't.  The reality is that a real grasp of the faith comes out of relationships which are two way.  To discuss the faith should deepen faith for Christians as well as those who do not believe.
2. The idea of Missio Dei is important here.  God is already out there in our communities.  The act of conversation uncovers where God is already at work and so the Christian will learn as well as those who work with them.
3. It is important to remember the commitment is to a community long term irrespective of their response to the faith.  The idea that Christians are saved and others are not is presumptive and offensive.  Christians are called by God to proclaim the faith.  They are not called to judge whether others are saved - their goal is salvation of the whole community not of particular individuals within it.  If lines must be drawn it is to include people, not to exclude them.
4. By making evangelism a specialism, most church people have been de-skilled in this area.  Instead of every member being a spiritual director for others, as Wesley intended, Christians tend to be de-skilled and lack confidence to simply to tell the story.
5. And of course it is essential to tell the story in a way that makes sense to 21st century people.  This is not to water it down but to confront people with the implications of their lifestyles and the call of God to each individual.

If we take these four activities - presence, prayer, practice and proclamation together, they offer many opportunities for local churches to collaborate and many do.  In my view these opportunities could be increased by developing new ways of collaboration and I may look at some possibilities in the future.  However, whilst mission will undoubtedly be enhanced by collaboration, it has to be admitted that collaboration is not essential.  All of these things can happen in a church working on its own and with some success.

However, Linthicum argues there is a fifth activity.  The four usual activities are not on their own sufficient.  There are times when it is essential to bring something else into play.  And this time ecumenical collaboration is essential.

Conversation between a Christian and a Secular Model

Over the last few days I have been comparing the Presence U model with the ancient hymn in Philippians chapter 2.  In this post I want to take a step back and ask to what extent this is a legitimate exercise.  I don't think I'm going to be able to come to a conclusive argument either way but I think it is important in any theological work to reflect on the methods deployed.

I have already stated several times that I do not think the U model and the hymn are the same thing.  They are images of each other and whilst I don't think it is even desirable to reduce them to a single process, it may be helpful to allow them to inform each other.

There is no copyright on the U shape.  The pattern of death and resurrection can be found in many faiths.  Indeed, Christian mission would be more difficult if this were not the case.  This congruence between faiths allows for the exploration of common ground.  Theologians and missiologists call this inculturation.

The U model was devised for use in businesses by people asking how they might meet the challenges of climate change.  It is not a religious exercise, although it has religious connotations.  This in itself is an opening for conversations about matters of faith. 

However, we should be aware that it is possible the U model might consciously or unconsciously have been influenced by Christian theology.  In places the book resonates with allusions to gospel material.  None of the authors in their biographies lay claim to a Christian faith although it is hard to imagine they have been shielded entirely from its influences growing up in the United States.  But these images are a part of our culture.  Anyone exploring matters of psychology, spirituality or philosophy is likely to encounter them.

We should also be mindful of Missio Dei, where it is understood the spirit of God goes before us into communities (similar to if not the same as Wesley's 'prevenient grace').  The issues facing us are so severe say the authors they cannot identify any power other than business able to effect the necessary changes.  In terms of how God may be working through humanity to mitigate climate change, it is not impossible that businesses have a crucial part to play in it, especially considering their role in causing it.

So, let me try to summarise the mutual advantage of an interplay between these movements.  It seems to me that Presence is a timely reminder to the churches of the power of conversations to effect change.  They offer us an opportunity to recall how the spirit transforms our values and helps us work collaboratively for the welfare of humanity and the whole cosmos.  In return, the Christian faith offers a challenge to Presence - is it likely that setting aside our assumptions and picking up new ones is enough?  Sooner or later the challenge will be to make material sacrifices.  Certainly it is apparent current global financial systems cannot last if they are to be fair and far less exploitative of the enviromment.  This implies a move towards a mutual approach to economics.  This will require a spiritual change which seems to go beyond what Presence has experienced so far.

Unity and Mission: some inadequate views

It is one thing to say as I did yesterday that mission is an essential dimension of unity.  But is the opposite also true?  Is unity essential to mission?

There is no straightforward answer and I suspect I will return to this topic many times.  However, it has to be said the most obvious answer to this is no, unity is not essential to mission.  Many missionary enterprises have worked very well (at least according to their own objectives) when practiced unilaterally.  There are many stories of break-away groups being more successful than their parent bodies.  Methodism (many times in its history) is a case in point.  However, it also must be recognised that the Edinburgh missionary conference of 1910 is viewed as the origin of modern ecumenism.  Here a wide range of missionary churches met to explore their missionary enterprises.

Today, I will explore two common arguments which aim to link mission and unity.  The first is the view that by pooling their traditions, churches will be more effective.  The offering of a range of resources for mission (as well as for worship, spirituality, pastoral support ...) will provide something for everyone perhaps even in every neighbourhood.  This could be true but the prevailing image is of churches in competition, rather than collaborating over provision of a range of spiritual services.  Many people have found spiritual sustenance from a single tradition rather than a variety of traditions, inevitably approached superficially.

A second common argument is that so long as churches are divided they offer an impression that Christians are at war.  Love is not paramount and adherence to each tradition is more important.  In theory this hangs together but as I pointed out earlier many successful missionary movements were split from parent churches.  It is almost as if Protestant churches at least, grow from splitting.

Both these arguments are unsatisfactory and I think it's worth asking why.  I think they betray an inadequacy  in our understanding of unity and it is only through understanding unity in diversity that we can find a better purchase on the relationship between unity and mission.