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.
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.
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.
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?
Contextual theology considers every tradition to be formed through a conversation between a particular time and place and the Christian faith. It does not cover solely those faith traditions, eg black, feminist, liberation, Asian, etc that differ from those of Western Europe. The growth of new traditions is natural for a living faith. Faith is not just words on paper but lives lived in many contexts and the insights shared are a small part of what is experienced on the ground.
Given this natural diversity, catholicity is essential for Christian unity. However, it does not imply all traditions are equally valid. The point is (1) all traditions are lacking, and (2) no-one knows for certain the frailties of either their own or anyone else's tradition. Receptive ecumenism addresses this in its exploration of exchanges of gifts between traditions, where each tradition seeks from others what is lacking from its own.
The mainstream traditions are compromises between a variety of traditions who determine to collaborate despite their differences. Their purpose is threefold (at least) - mission and unity, of course, and also spiritual direction. In the Roman Catholic traditions this is known as formation; in the Wesleyan traditions as sanctification.
John Wesley was not only the greatest evangelist since St Paul but also a skilled spiritual director. He saw the need for spiritual direction amongst the new urban poor and he set up the structures (Methodist societies) whereby the poor could be spiritual directors for each other. Formation was at the core of the early Methodist movement.
And I would maintain it is just as essential today as it ever was. When the evangelicals of the 1970s found Methodism wanting, they took the wrong road. They separated themselves into purist groups and focused on evangelism. It had disappointing results because it failed to form its converts. It failed to form its converts because it did not trust the wider Methodist Church. Today, Methodism's evangelicals seem to have recognised the importance of formation within the church.
Evidence of the importance of formation can be seen in the work of Father Christopher Jamieson of Worth Abbey. I have written before of his BBC TV programme 'The Monastery' in 2005 and the book that followed it, 'Finding Sanctuary'. Recently, he has fronted another BBC programme, 'The Big Silence' which once again demonstrated the hunger people have for God, even some who do not recognise God exists.
We need therefore to recognise three legs to the churches' ministry; mission, unity and formation.
I've taken the excursion into evangelicalism in my last two posts because the problem I identified towards the end of the last, is common to all aspects of mission. Perhaps evangelism is most prone to making absolute truth claims as it is a means of proclamation of the Word of God. There are dangers associated with being right and this is something we all need to acknowledge.
Whilst all Christians bear witness to the cross and resurrection, there is no single evangelical message, but many traditions who all carry an element of the truth only known fully to God.
I am not advocating relativism. I'm not arguing evangelists or others involved in mission should in any way water down their message. Our witness is distinctive in all its varieties and no point is served by watering it down.
Perhaps I can best approach the problem by returning to the theme of mission and unity. It is quite difficult to get hold of why unity is essential to mission. I can make this claim but many independent churches, who brook no contradiction to their message and so do not seek to collaborate or perhaps even recognise other Christians, can point to their evident success. 'You say unity is essential to mission, well we don't water down our message through collaboration with other (so-called) Christians and look at how fast our church is growing'.
I might argue radical atheists point to divisions between the churches (especially divisions which led to war) and so if we were united, their argument would be baseless. Unfortunately, this argument doesn't stack up.
Let's look at it another way. Absolute truth claims cause disunity. A casual exploration of blog posts about ecumenism will reveal how many Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox Christians reject ecumenism on the grounds their own version of the faith is the right one. Given there are several absolute claims, it is difficult to see how anyone unfamiliar with the Christian faith is meant to choose between them. Of course, they don't choose. They encounter one tradition and join it, discovering the others later.
The major traditions are catholic. I've written about this before and it is important to understand how each tradition has its own version of catholicity to offer to the others. Catholicity happens when a tradition no longer finds it needs to be absolute. Catholicity enables each tradition to put down its own roots, whilst at the same time being open to stimuli from other traditions. The rooted tradition deepens the faith of its followers but is not closed to being enriched thorugh encounters with others. This allows an element of accountability, as traditions both support and challenge each other.
Mission is not a competition between traditions. The Edinburgh 1910 conference delegates recognised the need to rationalise the competition taking place between traditions in the mission field.
Diversity happens when the Christian faith is incarnated in particular times and places. (The map shows worldwide distribution of Catholic (yellow), protestant and Anglican (purple) and Orthodox (cyan) churches.) We can choose to proclaim our own tradition as the one true version or we can see our tradition as one version of the same faith amongst many others. If faith is genuine, it will always grow into something new because the Christian faith is not words on paper but many living traditions.
This leads me to think mission and unity belong together but there is a third element we rarely seem to consider. I'll describe it in my next post.
Superficially the problem is fundamentalism because it seems fundamentalists have claimed evangelicalism as their own. Their extreme approach is one reason why Protestant ecumenism is split between the World Council of Churches and the Lausanne movement internationally; Churches Together and the Evangelical Alliance in Britain.
This problem cuts deep and often into our neighbourhoods. I remember meeting a well-known ecumenist on the train, who explained it was impossible for some churches to work with large evangelical Church of England churches. There was no point in even trying. I suppose the bigger you are the less you feel the need to be in conversation with other traditions; the less attention you need to pay to other expressions of your faith.
But there is a deeper problem illustrated by this excerpt from the blog 'Evangelism is your Comfort Zone'. The post is Evangelism as a Political Act:
This is a powerful political statement because our allegiance is hence forwards not to a flag. To evangelise is to say, clearly and boldly and usually by implication, No to all other idols – money, fame, success, power, sex: No to all other authorities – religious, political and personal. It is to declare by word and allegiance that the only loyalty we can own is to the two bits of rough wood that once held a man in place to die.
I largely agree with this argument but something isn't quite right and it took me a while to work it out. Perhaps the use of the word 'other' suggests evangelism is itself an idol or authority. That might be an unfortunate turn of phrase.
But these words imply evangelism is the one voice amongst others that is right. This turns Christianity into an absolute and it is the reason for evangelism's divisive tendencies.
As soon as I have the truth, it follows that those who do not agree with me do not have the truth. The dilemma is this. If I admit others who do not fully agree with me are right than there is no single truth and where does that end? If I stand firm then, with those who agree with me, I have to maintain purity of belief, which can only result in schism.
Is there any way of resolving this dilemma? I think there is and that will be the theme of the next few posts.
A few years ago, I attended a lecture about the history of Cliff College. Cliff is a Methodist college of evangelism and is about 15 miles from where I live, in the Peak District. The lecturer was a baptist scholar and the content of his story was quite surprising.
Cliff was founded just after the turn of the last century (indeed this was a centenary lecture). At the time, Methodist evangelism was Arminian in contrast with other evangelical traditions, which were Calvinist. The new college reflected the traditional Methodist emphasis on sanctification, in contrast to the Calvinist evangelical traditions. No Principle of Cliff was ever invited to attend the Keswick Convention (annual gathering of Calvinist evangelicals).
That is until the mid-seventies, when there was a subtle change. I became a Christian around that time and remember when I joined Newcastle Methsoc in about 1975. The new Chair of Methsoc, introduced sitting in a circle and singing hymns from sources other than the Methodist Hymn Book! This really was an issue at the time; today worship songs are the norm.
I think the then Principle of Cliff and these changes in the Methsocs were not unconnected and marked not only a movement towards a more Calvinist evangelicalism but also a move of evangelicals away from the mainstream life of the Methodist Church (which has always seen itself as an evangelical tradition). It seems from this time forward evangelicals and mainstream Methodists became estranged.
Conservative Evangelicals in Methodism, which later became Headway, represented a movement similar to the evangelical wing of the Church of England. However, something happened in Methodism in the mid-nineties. At the Derby Conference in, I think, 1994, the current statement about sexuality was adopted and Headway didn't like it one bit. Their opposition to what was and still is a rather safe compromise, was absolute. At the Blackpool Conference in 1996, they attempted to overturn the statement. Something happened at that Conference. They put everything into their case and were roundly knocked back. The then President made a firm request for a moratorium on the debate.
At the same time, the Decade of Evangelism (1990 - 2000) was also proving to be a disappointment and I can only surmise there was a lot of soul searching. In the last decade, there has been a move to build bridges with the mainstream church and the evangelicals have come in from the cold.
I remember a few years ago I sat in on a meeting of leading connexional evangelists. Amongst them was the late Rob Frost, a leading evangelical. He said when he heard young people saying they cannot belong to a church that condemns homosexuals, he had to listen to what they were saying. Everyone present agreed with what he said.
I think these changes within my own tradition are encouraging because they have shown evangelicals and others with different callings can work together in a constructive way. Indeed, the local evangelists I have met over the last 10 years have reminded me of the plight of many community development workers I have known during previous decades, undervalued and underpaid. Ten or fifteen years ago, I don't think I would have been able to write that I am honoured to work alongside evangelicals, today I can and that is because Methodist evangelicals have made a crucial decision to enter into conversation with their own church.
However, as I indicated in my last post, and will develop further in my next, there are still some outstanding issues.
Sometimes it is important to examine our assumptions. One such assumption is no ecumenical activity can be justified if it does not support the mission of the church. This seems to be accepted by all the traditions.
Perhaps one reason is the centenary of the the Edinburgh 1910 World Missionary Conference. If the modern ecumenical movement started with that conference, mission and unity have always been two dimensions of the same activity. Later in the twentieth century, the Life and Work and then the Faith and Order movements started and so perhaps mission and unity had less prominence for a while.
There is a perception ecumenism and mission have become separate movements. While the celebration of Edinburgh 1910 had its official (sponsored by the World Council of Churches (WCC)) conference in Edinburgh in June (Edinburgh 2010), a much larger Cape Town 2010 conference in October, was sponsored by the Lausanne movement.
The first Lausanne Congress was in 1974 and marked a split in the ecumenical movement, or at least the Protestant part of it. The supporters of the Lausanne Covenant (formulated in 1974), founded in this country the Evangelical Alliance. This evangelical movement is an alternative ecumenical movement, open to all Christians. It operates independently of the movement supporting the World Council of Churches.
Although some churches belong to both movements, it is a significant split that is only slowly being healed. One encouraging event, is the WCC General Secretary addressed Cape Town 2010, for the first time.
We must not make the mistake of thinking these two movements are split along the lines of mission and unity. Just as the Lausanne movement is ecumenical in nature, so the Councils of Churches / Churches Together movement focuses on mission. Local Ecumenical Partnerships, which today are understood to be formal organisational structures, were a few decades ago the equivalent of today's Fresh Expressions. Indeed, it may be argued in their explicit linkage of mission and unity, they set a better example than some mission projects, where unilateral initiatives or initiatives that bypass established churches are not questioned.
In my next post I will say a bit more about evangelical ecumenism before I go on to highlight what I understand to be the weakness of the mission and unity model.
In a recent post, I discussed Harmon's book and his argument against a rejection of denominationalism amongst the young. In this post, I intend to put the case for belonging to more than one tradition.
I don't disagree with Harmon at all and indeed, I tend to agree that digging deep into a single tradition has significant advantages. I believe we are formed by our traditions. Years of singing Methodist hymns has formed my beliefs in ways I am gradually becoming aware of.
Wesley's Arminianism was in some respects exclusive. John Wesley warmily invited those who did not like the Methodist way to move to other traditions. His reason for this was that he wanted a people committed to meeting in classes for spiritual direction. They would put down roots deep into the faith, under the guidance of each other. Only then could they open their doors to others.
However, from an ecumenical point of view belonging to more than one tradition can have advantages. Often people who, for example, are brought up in one tradition and then change to another, can in later life play a significant role bridging the two traditions. This might be something like a translater who understands both traditions.
Many Methodists, for example, worship in other churches. They might worship at the parish church and join the parochial parish council. Is it possible for them to retain their identity as Methodists? It is certainly possible to be formally a member of the Methodist Church, whilst fully committed to Anglican Parish life. And many would argue they are still Methodists although to all appearances fully committed to the Parish.
This becomes even more important when we ask, what makes a Methodist? What is central to Methodist identity? (The same argument would apply to any tradition.) If the Methodist Church were allowed to die and to become a part of a wider tradition such as the Church of England, would the Methodists remain Methodist?
The question is, what aspects of Methodism are core to Methodist self-identity? Is it connexionalism? Is it Arminianism? Some Methodists would, I suspect, have no problem with this. Some because they are latecomers who have not taken on board Methodism, simply worshipping in a particular church because they like it. But even life long Methodists might find it possible to remain a Methodist in another tradition. Others would not.
Perhaps it is those who have already made this type of transition who could show the way. The challenge is how in unity, we can maintain our diversity.
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