Exploring Ecumenism

Monday, 31 October 2011

Conciliar Fellowship and Mutual Reception

This is the seventh 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 7

The unity of the Church also requires both conciliar fellowship and mutual reception of conciliar decisions by the churches. There need to be structures that allow us to receive and reflect together on ecumenical texts, including the challenges outlined in the previous points of convergence.

Again there are a mass of assumptions in this text. The phrase 'mutual reception of conciliar decisions' gives the game away. What it means is that the councils of the churches make their decisions and then the rest of us will need to be persuaded or cajoled into following them.

Wouldn't it be better all round if local churches, that's the churches that are working towards unity (or picking up shards of past failures) were a part of the decision making, rather than meekly receiving what has already been decided by academics and power politicians?

We really need to get away from the idea that there is a band of courageous theologians who can sort out the problems facing the churches. They are part of the problem. We need a new generation who understand unity as a task for the whole people of God.

The aim is not to safeguard the interests of the hierarchies but to bring to birth something new and unexpected. Many of us no longer share the interests of those who lead the churches. But we're also fed up with growth through schism. There has to be a way of ordering our lives so that we can choose which tradition we belong to, whilst making a contribution to the life of the whole of the church.

Posted at 06:00 PM in Leadership, Local Ecumenism, Reception, Theoretical Ecumenism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, 27 October 2011

Expressing Catholicity in Common Confession

Image of Euphemia of Chalcedon by Nick in exsilio via Flickr

This is the sixth 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 6

“One Holy Catholic and Apostolic” is the starting point of the theological reflection on unity. The unity of the Church has to find expression in a Catholicity formed by a common confession of the Apostolic faith, common worship/liturgy, and a shared life and mission.

So, 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic' is the starting point? A starting point, maybe a good one. But the starting point? Really?

Let's be clear, the creeds divided the church. There were disagreements before the creeds but the great schism between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions are based upon one instance of particular reading. Furthermore, the non-Chalcedon's are highly significant in Christian history, even though they were divided from the Roman Empire because of differences over the creeds.

And how on earth are they intending to enforce common worship and liturgy? Once again we're back to control and the inability to conceive of the church without entrenched leadership. It is the accumulation or centralisation of power that leads to divisions.

We need a much more careful analysis of what causes divisions and how we might order our lives as Christians so that we share our traditions rather than enforce them.

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

Wednesday, 26 October 2011

Patience and God's Timing for Unity

Image of patience on a monument by Maia C via Flickr

This is the fifth 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 5

The search for unity always exists in a particular context. We have to discern how our quest for unity relates to the timing of God and demands of mission in any given time or situation. Patience is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5) and one we must exercise when considering how to take forward the ecumenical agenda, not confusing God’s timing with our own.

The search for unity takes place in many different contexts. The way this is phrased implies it can nevertheless be controlled from a central perspective. We identify the particular context and then our theologians will come up with a well researched and reasoned answer.

Well, theologians of the world, I have news for you (and most of you will know this already): there is no particular context for the search for unity. It's much more complicated than that, isn't it?

Let's start with geography. A neighbourhood. How many churches are in that neighbourhood? Do they all relate to one another? Is it not possible churches close the edge might relate to different churches or even think they're in a different neighbourhood?

And can we be certain the members of any given local church agree about church unity, have the same aims? And of course, the context is not just local. Do the church members know the views of their local, regional and national church hierarchy?

Then there are inter-generational differences. And differences based upon race or family background.

It is comforting to know patience is a fruit of the spirit and 'one we must exercise when considering how to take forward the ecumenical agenda'. Who is this 'we'? It is a little word that often gives a lot away. Does it mean the people at this particular consultation? Or the church hierarchies? Whoever they are, it seems we can safely leave it in their hands. God's timing?

We're offered some platitudes about patience. What is it about God's timing? You'd think God has agreed with the ecumenical statements made by the churches but not finally settled on a timescale. Nonsense! Whatever happens will not emerge from the writings of theologians or agreements between church leaders. We will stumble upon the living reality of unity in Christ in the struggle to work out a way forward together in many localities, despite the impossibility of fully comprehending what is going on globally.

Posted at 06:00 PM in Leadership, Local Ecumenism, Neighbourhood: Theory, Theoretical Ecumenism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, 25 October 2011

Ecclesial Indentities and Visible Unity

Image by Man Alive! via Flickr

This is the fourth 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 4

Christian Identities are rich gifts of God to be shared with each other. We have to wrestle with the question about the relationship between the maintenance of our particular ecclesial identities and the search for the visible unity in the One Church of Christ.

We understand the church as a single entity divided. So, ecclesial identities are in tension with visible unity. Being part of one such identity or tradition is perceived as in tension with being part of the One Church of Christ.

It's difficult to imagine what unity could possibly mean, if it does not in some sense already exist. Is salvation on hold until we sort out the unity of the church? Of course not. Indeed later in the paper the claim is made that 'the unity of the church already exists since all God’s faithful people living and departed are perfectly united with God in Christ and therefore with each other in the communio sanctorum.' (Page 4)

So, why do we seek structural unity, given that all are already saved? In the extreme an enforced unity, in the sense of one church you must join to be saved, would seem to be superfluous. (Many people already belong to such a church, the problem being there is more than one.) Or do we seek unity through relationships between members of different traditions?

The unity we seek has to be solidarity between traditions in the teeth of those who would dominate us through their superiority; their trousering of the keys to salvation. Paradoxically, it is the claim that there is one true church, that divides us.

In practice, I don't have too much of a problem with the power elites in our churches so long as they are accountable to the faithful. The problems would be insurmountable if there were one single hierarchy.

Posted at 06:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, 19 October 2011

Ecclesial and Eucharistic Community

Image via Wikipedia

This is the third 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 3

Between ecclesial and Eucharistic community there is an organic link. Any separation between these should be avoided. Unity of the church and in the Eucharist have to go together. There are steps that lead towards this but they are not a substitute for the ultimate goal of unity.

Oh dear, I have a number of issues with this convergence. This is a statement agreed between a relatively small group of people. To reflect on what they are saying might demonstrate some of the assumptions made in formal conversations.

The point here is eucharist and ministry belong together and are understood to be essential to unity. So, the argument goes, if the non-conformist churches adopt episcopacy, this will then enable them to move closer to the episcopalian churches.

The first sentence bewilders me. What are these two communities? Surely for episcopal traditions they are one and the same? The ordained priesthood (ecclesial community) is solely responsible for the Eucharist (and so is also the Eucharistic community). Lay people participate in communion but cannot themselves consecrate the bread and wine. The ministry is ordered hierarchically and it is the hierarchy that legitimates the conduct of the Eucharist by the clergy. Surely, from an episcopalian perspective, the ecclesial and Eucharistic communities are the same?

The problem is of course, there is no evidence this type of community supports unity. The ongoing debates between Anglicans, Roman Catholics and Orthodox show they are if anything moving further apart. Are we really expected to sacrifice women priests for unity?

And will the non-conformist traditions adopt bishops for the sake of unity? Maybe some of the traditional Protestant Churches will but it is the Pentecostal churches that are growing most rapidly and I can't see how they are expected to adopt the necessary episcopal and eucharistic approaches.

It may be true the unity of the church and the Eucharist go together. It is difficult to imagine a church where communion cannot be shared, being perceived as united by non-Christians. But it has to be asked to what extent are we expected to make sacrifices for the sake of the ecclesiastically powerful? Make no mistake about it, this business of the Eucharist is about power. There will always be Christian radicals who challenge this power.

The final sentence seems to suggest intermediate steps on the way to unity are not enough. I suppose this is fair enough. But it is not at all clear what they mean. I suspect it is a dig at reconciled diversity. I would question whether reconciled diversity is a step on the way to their vision of unity, rather than an approach in its own right. To what extent is this insistence on control of communion a barrier to unity itself?

Posted at 10:16 PM in Conversations, Theoretical Ecumenism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

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)

Tuesday, 11 October 2011

Visions of Unity in Our Churches

Image via Wikipedia

This and the next seven posts will comment 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. So, here we go:

Convergence 1

The Unity of the Church is from God, it is the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is not of our making but at the same time it demands our commitment to respond to God’s call to be one in word and deed.

It is likely John 17:20-23 is behind this Convergence. Perhaps it is the text most frequently referred to when making the case for ecumenism. The link will take you to one of my posts devoted to this text. How might we interpret this text? Is it about Jesus' disciples or the Oikoumene of the whole earth? Is unity already reality or something to work towards?

I think the word 'glory' is central to this passage. If we understand glory to mean our experience of God, then Christian unity is evidence of God's work in the world. Convergence 1 captures much of this, especially in the second sentence where they hold in tension the eternal and the 'not yet realised' dimensions of unity.

The first sentence is perhaps less successful. Unity is a gift but more than a gift, it is evidence of God's work in the world and as such it is naturally the outcome of our response to God's call to be one.

Is unity something already real, coming into fruition or do we need to take steps to create it? The former is often seen as a soft option, perhaps called reconciled diversity.

When we take such a relaxed view, we are left with churches unreconciled to the extent they cannot share communion. Why can they not share communion? It is fundamentally about the authority of church leaders. Unity is not visible when there is clear and public separation of the churches.

Oikoumene is not only about churches; it is the reconciliation of all things to God. The reconciliation of church structures seen in this context, is a relatively small step. Perhaps our disunity demonstrates God's priority for this wider Oikoumene? Does the power politics of church structures distract us from commitment to the reconciliation of all things to God?

It is tempting to see unity as eschatological, something to do with end times. And yet perhaps we should think of it as something of beginning times too. Perhaps the act of creation should be seen as an act of unity. For in the creation of diversity, perhaps there is a hint of the kind of unity we seek. It is a unity rooted in reconciliation and there can be no reconciliation without diversity.

Posted at 09:55 PM in Diversity, Theoretical Ecumenism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, 09 August 2011

On Being Loyal to a Tradition

Image via Wikipedia

Many posts on blogs around the world oppose ecumenism on the grounds that the writer's own tradition is the one true church.

Some writers claim it is not possible to be loyal to their tradition unless they believe it is the one true church. It is this belief I want to consider.

To be loyal to a particular tradition is a good thing. It is possible to be loyal to something that is not perfect. The problem we have is the only thing we know for certain is that we are in error. Unfortunately we do not know in which particulars we are in error.

We can claim to examine the evidence but we can be self-deluding, as we can always find evidence to back up our beliefs. Find someone who does not believe what you take to be self-evident and true, eg a believer in the flat earth or UFOs, and you will find they can interpret any data to support their views. So can I and so can anyone. We do not know we are doing it and if we did know we would not believe the things we believe now in the same way.

So, what is the alternative? I can say I am loyal to my own tradition and on that basis join in the debate with others. Our aim ceases to be to prove the truth in my own tradition and becomes encouragement and support for those who seek the truth in their own tradition. This will from time to time lead to challenging views held in another tradition from the perspective of my own. In doing this I am inviting deeper reflection rather than promoting my own tradition.

Fr Andrew in his 'Roads from Emmaus' blog, posted Ecumenism with a Gun, where he approaches this same issue in a very different way, which remains committed to ecumenical conversations:

I believe that Orthodox Christianity is the one, true way, that the Orthodox Church is the one, true Church, and that every single man, woman and child should be an Orthodox Christian. I hope that other religious people believe the same things about their religions. If they don’t, they are at least partial relativists, and if one is a relativist, I don’t see the point in being part of a religion. (Or they could simply be very mean—their faith is the one, true faith, but they don’t want to see other folks in it.)

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

Monday, 08 August 2011

Strategic Barriers to Visible Unity

Image by Rickydavid via Flickr

Last time I suggested a model of Christian diversity based upon historical connections, rather than structural unity.

Two posts ago, I mentioned a pathway towards visible unity for the Church of England and British Methodist Church. This pathway starts with the Anglican Methodist Covenant, then shared ministry leading, via Methodist and women bishops, to interchangeability of ministry and then to visible unity.

Strategically this sequence is problematic. The basic problem is the arguments in favour of unity themselves create barriers to unity.

So, we achieve shared ministry, which means closer collaboration between local churches becomes possible, so long as local church leaders (Bishop, District Chair and Superintendents) are prepared to collaborate. Interchangeability means all ministers, whilst still under their denominational authorities, are fully recognised by the other church. Visible unity is where the two churches are effectively one.

Let's say we achieve shared ministry, which is likely to happen. Does this increase or decrease the possibility of persuading the Methodist Church to adopt Bishops? It is not at all clear. Whilst it seems shared ministry is an essential step, what if people think shared ministry is sufficient, they have the freedom to manoeuvre they need, why go any further? Similarly, if interchangeability is achieved, it does not necessarily mean structural unity will happen. The costs of the final step might outweigh any tangible gains. If we have interchangeability, why go to the extra lengths of structural unity where the legislation (in Parliament) will be huge, as well as all the legal costs?

Worse, even if the necessary steps take place it doesn't mean the churches are meaningfully united. For example, the British Methodist Church is being invited to have Bishops who have the 'sign of the historic episcope', or laying on of hands. No other Methodist church has this, even where they have the title of Bishop. I don't think Methodists in Britain not value this sign; it lacks meaning for them. What does have meaning for Methodists is the means by which a Bishop is appointed. If they are voted in by church members, for example, they might be seen as genuine representatives of the people and so be accepted (this is how Bishops are supposed to be appointed - although episcopal churches are not always quite so democratic). The Presidents of Conference are the suggested candidates to be Methodist Bishops and they are elected by Conference representatives. If this is seen as sufficiently democratic, this might be easier to navigate through Conference than the sign of the historic episcopate.

But hold on. If this is so, in what sense can it be said the two churches would then be closer? The Methodists accept the sign even though they don't value it, whilst accepting Bishops for a reason the Anglicans don't value.

Note, I am not saying this is what will happen, what I am trying to do is illustrate the issues we have to face as we approach visible unity. The diagram in my last post illustrates why I think unity lies in history rather than across the branches of the tree. Trying to reconcile traditions that have developed separately is bound to encounter deep resistance, not necessarily from those who take a principled stand against further unity.

Posted at 06:00 PM in Covenant, Ecclesiology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, 07 August 2011

Re-thinking Full Visible Unity

Having a Canon (and we can include the creeds) is liberating. The liberal critique might be (1) the Canon is restrictive and (2) much has been written that is equally valid.

Two points. We can be confident, with some significant but small exceptions, the Canon and the creeds are common ground between most traditions.

Also, strategically having these agreed texts liberates us in the use of them. They will always be there. We can and do depart from them in all sorts of ways. Sometimes this can be highly creative, to the degree a new departure leads to a new tradition. At other times it can be destructive, especially when an interpretation is identified with the Canon and creeds. Their unchanging nature (apart from new translations) means any interpretation is legitimate insofar as the interpreter is aware that is what they are doing.

So, we can experiment with confidence that no harm can be done to the foundations of faith. This is theology based on forgiveness, we can be confident because we know that there is always forgiveness if we make a mistake. But it is crucial as well for those who take a strict traditional view; they too can be forgiven.

We find our common life then, not through the branches of the traditions but in their roots. The diagram illustrates what I mean. It shows the general progress of faith as different traditions split off. The rules are we can flow only in the direction of the arrows. Each numbered node is a point where there was a split in the tradition and the dashed line is where one tradition influences another.

So, nodes 1, 2 and 3 could illustrate the great schism where the Western and Eastern churches split.

But let's consider nodes 5, 8 and 9. These could be the Church of England in the eighteenth century (5), the Church of England today (8) and the Methodist Church today (9).

Here are a few comments:

The diagram is actually no different to a growing church, where each node is a congregation that splits when it reaches a certain size. Splits that create new traditions might be different in motivation but may still be evidence of growth.
Node 5 no longer exists. We tend to talk loosely as if nodes 5 and 8 are the same. They are not. Both 8 and 9 are new churches descended from node 5.
If node 9 is the Methodist Church, the dashed line shows how other traditions made a contribution to its foundation. It was formed by a split in node 5 but was influenced by node 7 which might be the eighteenth century Moravian Church. John Wesley was influenced by several traditions.
The creative times may well be at the times we see splits between traditions. What is the nature of the inspiration that leads to a split? Some may be more creative than others. I suspect the most creative insights are not meant to lead to a split. A split motivated by a leader's lust for power is not likely to lead anywhere significant. But where there is genuine inspiration, then the split represents a genuine choice which in fact creates two new traditions, which go on to develop in parallel.
We could see the various traditions as organised ways to explroe different aspects of the faith, over the generations. Together they represent the entirety of the Christian faith. There is no single correct tradition.

So, we can see the churches are united in history but not in the present. Our unity is in history rather than in contemporary structures.

I have presented this as an example of an alternative way of looking at the diversity of Christian traditions. What are its implications in practice? Next time I'll attempt a worked example.