Exploring Ecumenism

The Eschatological Rollercoaster

In my last post I promised to compare the passage in Philippians (2:5-11), believed to be an early hymn, with the U theory from Presence.  Before I attempt the comparison I thought it might be worth making a few points about the passage.  In the main these are from Crossan and Reed's In Search of Paul, chapter 5.  I have given the hymn my own name, the eschatological rollercoaster, (for those professional theologians who are not reading this blog, I apologise for the long words and explain that a rollercoaster is a fairground ride that goes up and down).

1. The hymn needs to be read within its context, especially verses 1 - 4 and 12 - 13.  The Philippians are invited, or commanded even, to 'be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind'.  The hymn therefore does not simply tell a story, it is intended to be normative for the Christian community.  It is meant to be a template for Christian life.
2. This is a story told in retrospect, it is a story full of interpretation.  This is I think entirely legitimate, it offers us an insight into what the earliest Christians believed about Jesus.
3. The hymn describes a U shape.  This is what made the link for me with the Presence U model.  I will in future posts explore the similarities and differences.  For all sorts of reasons the downward motion is what is notable in the hymn.  This was not understood by Paul as a random act.  Could Jesus have died of leprosy, for example?  If he had, it would have been a slow, terrible and humiliating death on the margins of society.  Clearly, leprosy would have placed a barrier between Jesus and society and made his ministry almost impossible.  But the crucial point is the cross was an official, legal and formal death.  Religious and political authorities colluded to bring about his death.  This is what religious and political authorities do.  They do it because they have vested interests and perceive themselves as under threat.
4. We cannot have the exaltation of Christ in the second half of the hymn without the downward motion.  This downward motion, from God, to human, to slave, to death, to cross is an act of kenosis, of self-emptying.  To get hold of its significance, we have to make the comparison Paul and the other early Christians would have made, even without thinking about it.  That contrast is with the Roman Emperor.  The Roman Emperor was addressed as Lord, the same as the address given to Jesus in verse 11.  The reason Jesus Christ is confessed as Lord is because of what happens in the rest of the hymn.  The Roman Emperor was Lord all his life.  There was no downward motion, the Emperor was automatically exalted upon his death.  Jesus is exalted because of his humility, unlike the Emperor.  The Lordship of Jesus has nothing to do with aggrandisement and everything to do with humility.
5. Note that in the first half of the hymn, Jesus empties himself and in the second half it is God who highly exalts Jesus.  At the bottom of the U shape, something changes around, in a sense God takes over, when Jesus can go no further.  But we must also note that in doing so God affirms Jesus' humility.  So, through Jesus' humility we see something of the character of God.  God is seen as a God of Love who is prepared to give all for the love of his creation.

Learning from the Future

The question according to Presence is how we avoid applying old frameworks to new realities (page 84).  Their approach is through learning from a certain type of conversation. 

Wesley's theology of The New Creation, is based on a cosmology of the future.  He contrasted the Calvinist emphasis on creation in the past, where God created the universe just so and we are called to uphold God's standards, with his own emphasis where God has planned a new creation through transformation.

Presence describes a type of learning where we learn from the future.  Here we discover our part in bringing the future to pass.  Learning from the past is helpful where the past is a guide to the future.  But issues such as climate change and the recent credit crunch have no precedents (page 86).  'New wine, new wineskins'. 

At this point Presence introduces its U theory.  I haven't been able to find the diagram on the net, so imagine a U shape.  There are three stages as we move through sensing in the top left, presencing in the bottom and realising in the top right.  I will explore these in the next few posts using the ancient hymn Paul quotes in Philippians 2:5-11.

Living with Uncertainty

Just under a month ago I posted an article about Separation.  At the end of that article, I took leave for a period of the book Presence.  Today, I return to that book and start where I left off with the theme of separation.

Over the last month or so I have explored Wesley's doctrine of sanctification and I hope shown it is a doctrine that seeks reconciliation between the Christian and non-Christian worlds.  There is a sense in which the separation Christian traditions experience, is a subset of the separation we experience from the wider world.  This wider separation might be understood as the alienation of modern people from the cosmos.  The sense in which we can live our lives cut off from one another, from the natural world or even the physical reality of the night sky.

In Presence the authors write:

... we tend to get stuck in a single story that we accept without thinking.  And it seems to me that's exactly our larger predicament in the world today: we're stuck in a story of who we are on this earth as human beings, and something in us wants to break free of it.  (Page 72)

Whilst this passage refers to the assumptions or world views all people live with, it can be applied to the experience of Christians within their traditions (or even narrower takes on the faith in local churches). 

But as the authors go on to say, We have no idea the cost we pay for living this story of separation.  Indeed, when we look at the history of persecutions, warfare and rivalries between Christians of different traditions, each convinced they are right to the exclusion of others, it is hard to imagine what we have lost. 

The opportunity ecumenism offers to all Christians is to learn how to belong to a tradition whilst being challenged by the others.  This is why the imposition of full visible unity is so problematic; is it at root the old Christendom approach to the faith?  Somehow we have to learn how to live with uncertainty, our certainty about salvation must grow from our humility; faith in a God who is essentially unknowable.  We must free ourselves from the tyranny of being right.  Our commitment to ecumenism (or even oikoumene) might help us in this journey towards certain uncertainty.

Future Plans for 'Exploring Ecumenism'

A few days ago I summarised where I have got to over the last few months.  Today I am going to outline my plans for this blog.  They have developed over the weeks since I started and I suppose they will continue to develop.

I intend to do some work on the layout of the blog so that it will be possible to visit pages to explore certain themes.  I have already worked on themes around conversations, systems theory, reception, diversity and sanctification.  The first two will require a substantial amount of additional attention, the last three less so. 

The idea is these pages, and a few new ones, will in time form an archive of my explorations of ecumenical theory.  I will also from time to time contribute posts that relate to immediate themes, as they come up in the news or in my experience.  These will tend to be shorter and link to longer posts in the archive pages.

So, what about future themes?  The first of the bullets below is an overarching theme, relating to all three dimensions of ecumenical work.  The other bullets all relate to transformative reception.

• A lot more about conversations and participative approaches to ecumenism.  This will form an overarching theme and I hope a more practical one.
• The relationships between the Christian traditions and modern science.  In particular, to explore modern cosmologies, as understood through quantum mechanics and complexity theory.
• Darwinism as a case study about the relationships between the traditions and science.
• Socio-economic challenges to the traditions, especially climate change, racism and debt / the credit crunch.
• I am also considering some work on violence and atheism although these are less central to my overall plan.

Wesley's Understanding of Ecumenism

The modern ecumenical movement is typically traced back to the World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh 1910.  I haven't seen anything in print about the history of ecumenism before that date.  There certainly must have been attempts to bring the traditions together although doctrinal controversies and nationalism must have made this difficult to support.

It is remarkable that Wesley drew on five traditions in developing his innovative take on the Christian faith.  Runyon examines each of the traditions he has identified on the pages following page 207 of The New Creation.  The five traditions he lists are Puritanism, Anglicanism, Moravian Lutheran Pietism, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.  He writes on page 213:

It is not surprising, therefore, that the claim has been advanced that Wesley combines the Protestant emphasis upon justification with the Catholic emphasis upon sanctification.  There is a certain cogency to this claim, but it seems more accurate to say that after 1738 he placed the Lutheran doctrine of justification within the context of a doctrine of sanctification derived ultimately from Eastern patristic sources.  Although parallels to western Catholic sources are clear, important distinctive features are traceable to the Eastern Fathers, and this background needs to be recovered to place Wesley properly in context.

Modern Methodism has always professed a strong affinity to ecumenism and possibly its origins in the leadership of John Wesley has something to do with it.  Certainly his emphasis upon his Three Grand Scriptural Doctrines suggests a way forward that in effect overlooks the major differences and focuses upon what Wesley saw as the common features of all Christian traditions.  This is a thought developed in his sermon 'The Catholic Spirit'.  It is difficult to say whether this approach has any mileage today.

Revelation through Faith for Faith (Romans 1:17)

John Rogerson is (I think) Emeritus Professor of Biblical Studies at Sheffield University.  He has been retired for many years, most likely at least 11 years as he has been leading a more or less monthly Bible study for that long.  His main interest is in the Old Testament but this year we are looking at Romans. 

Last night we got as far as Romans 1: 16, 17.  John read from Karl Barth's 'The Epistle to the Romans', a passage which seems to be a response to verse 17 'the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith'.  The following indented paragraph is the gist of what Barth writes.  The original is in German and the only English translation isn't very good apparently.  Furthermore I've taken this from my notes of what John read out.  However far this text has strayed from the original, it is still interesting.

What is named God is not God.  This God affirms the world as it is.  A cry of revolt against such a God is nearer the truth.  All the time we think we know what God is like apart from Jesus.  But we must accept we don't know what God is like.  If we talk about God without Jesus we talk of this no-God who does not redeem creation.  The God we conjure up is no God.  The cry of revolt is nearer the truth.  In Christ God speaks as he is and punishes the no-God.  Christ condemns the no-God, affirming himself by denying us as we are and the world as it is. 

John also quoted from Paul Tillich - 'To argue that God exists is to deny him.  Accept the absurd as divine, the executed criminal.'  John said verse 17 is the willingness to accept that God is trying to put things right.

This reminded me of the atheist bus campaign.  Richard Dawkins and others have collected a huge sum of money to advertise on the sides of buses all over the country.  The advert reads, 'there is probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life.'  The 'probably' is delightful and has caused at least one Christian group to make a contribution on the grounds that it will get people talking about God.  There is a paradox here because according to Barth the atheists are right to reject God but wrong to talk of God in the absence of Jesus.  By the same token the Christians who have contributed are also wrong.  Both, according to my interpretation of Barth have a false image of God (as have we all). 

This also reminds me of Wesley's 'Three Grand Scriptural Doctrines'.  How far does his rejection of doctrinal "opinions" share Barth's insight about the nature of what we call God?  But is he also in his three rather intellectualised doctrines making the mistake of moving too far from Jesus?

Christopher Jamieson in 'Finding Sanctuary' states we cannot know God.  God reveals himself to us by revealing to us the true nature of ourselves.  I think Wesley's doctrines of original sin, justification and sanctification are all about us learning of God through learning our own true nature.  It is the life and teaching of Jesus that helps us know ourselves.  We cannot compare ourselves to God, but we can compare ourselves to Jesus.

The Problem with Ecumenical Partnerships

I suppose, compared with some people, I am a fan of partnerships.  It is an effective way of working, particularly in community regeneration.  I'm sure too that many business partnerships are entirely beneficial (at least to the business).  On the other hand I've sat on partnership boards and they can be bloodless affairs.  The problem is people are there to represent their organisations, so there is little opportunity to socialise or develop friendships.

That is why I have always felt a little uneasy about the Methodist Church's use of the word partnership when it speaks of its 'partner' traditions.  Partnership is a good thing but is it in this instance the right thing?

Theodore Runyon in The New Creation writes:

Clearly orthodoxy by itself is not the answer, and just as clearly orthopraxy by itself is insufficient.  Not even putting the two together will work.  Believing the right things, plus doing the right things, still does not add up to what Wesley considers essential.  This is our clue that there must be another factor to be taken into account, a tertium quid not covered by the usual standards of right belief and right practice.  What is this third factor?  I have called it "orthopathy", from the Greek ortho (right) plus pathos (feelings affections, and in the larger sense, experience), the new sensitivity to and participation in spiritual reality that marks genuine faith.

Wesley applied orthopathy to faith (he called it experience) but it is experience of things spiritual.  This is intended to be a practical spirituality, not personal subjective faith.  I think it can equally be applied to ecumenism.

Formal talks are concerned with orthodoxy.  Unity in Mission emphasises orthopraxis.  But it is experience that makes the difference.  The experience that cements relationships to a common enterprise.  

A lot of local ecumenism is based upon friendships between ministers of different traditions.  The positive dimension to this is that such friendships can make a significant positive difference and this can be seen time and again.  The problem is when one of these friends moves on, the ecumenical enterprise can be lost. 

Yes, friendship may be more powerful than partnerships but it needs to be friendships between the lay people, the people who have a long term commitment to the area, if their work is not to be in vain.

Inter-generational Ecumenical Conversations

When we consider ecumenical reception it is easy to assume that it is an activity entirely within churches; indeed that is how I have presented it so far (see especially the second subheading at this link).  Today I want to suggest that this dimension of ecumenical conversation is somewhat more complex.

It is easy to think that ecumenical reception is simply advocating the outcomes of formal conversations between church leaders to local churches.  I have already stated several times that I think this view is flawed unless it is seen as a conversation.  But there is a further flaw in this one way view, and that is to see the conversation as solely between church authorities and local churches.

I think there is also a need for reception between young and old.  Of course, this is not about old people, who enjoy traditional church activities imposing their preferences on the young.  There is a real need for conversations between young and old for the following reasons:

• on a basic level younger people tend to practise different styles of worship to older people, and indeed different Christian lifestyles
• there is far less adherence to a particular tradition amongst younger people in Britain, many younger people 'shop around' and attend a church in their locality that feels right, and will change tradition when they move to a new neighbourhood
• this is also a trend from neighbourhood based congregations to congregations based around shared interests, or demographic groups
• there is a trend to new styles of congregations, eg evangelical, charismatic and pentecostal churches, house churches or fresh expressions
• traditional ecumenism is seen as something older people do in mainstream churches, and new traditions are seen as inherently ecumenical

We are certainly considering people under 30 here and possibly people under 40.  In other words this new take on ecumenism (which has strengths and weaknesses) will one day be a majority view, ecumenism will change beyond recognition.

Conversations of this type whilst primarily within traditions may also have an element of receptive ecumenism (between traditions) because the goal will be mutual enrichment, a learning from the history of the older traditions and the new discoveries amongst the new.

One last thought.  Are there other sorts of conversation within traditions?  There may be a geographical conversation needed, eg between south and north in England.  That's all I've thought of so far but there will almost certainly be others.

Distinct and Related

I'm currently reading 'Exclusion and Embrace' by Miroslav Volf.  I suspect I will base a few posts around it sometime but this is a passage that caught my eye.

We are who we are not because we are separate from the others who are next to us, but because we are both separate and connected, both distinct and related; the boundaries that mark our identities are both boundaries and bridges.  ... boundaries are part of the creative process of differentiation.  For without boundaries there would be no discrete identities, and without discrete identities there would be no relation to the other.  (Pages 66 - 67, author's emphases)

If this is right, then the churches in Britain are not far from being in the right place.  They are distinct and connected.  What is unity like when the united are both distinct and related?  Is it possible the push for visible unity, is distracting the churches from what they have achieved?  Perhaps churches outside of Europe can see our achievements better than we can.

Ecumenism in Three Dimensions

In several posts, most recently yesterday's, I have referred to ecumenism in three dimensions.  I thought it might help to examine what I mean by dimensions.

The problem with many formal talks is that they take a linear view of the world.  People with authority make decisions, which people in the local churches are supposed to follow.  This process is in one direction, from those that know to those who don't.  A dimension allows movement in two directions.  (Time is referred to in physics as a dimension and from our point of view it moves in only one direction, however physicists more accurately refer to this as a half dimension.)

On the surface, dimension 1, between traditions may be a full dimension insofar as formal talks allow movement in both directions.  In reality the mindset is too often, how can we get those others to accept our way of seeing things?  Receptive ecumenism attempts to question this by asking, what do we need from the others? 

The second dimension, between the centre (church hierarchies) and the periphery (local churches) is too often treated as a half dimension.  This is one reason why ecumenical reception is rarely seen to have taken place, that is decisions made through formal talks are rarely taken up locally.  One reason for this is that the conversations between traditions locally are ignored and therefore devalued.  This second dimension added to the first means that conversations at all levels of the church count.  There are some practicalities but they are for future posts.

Again the third dimension, of transformational reception, is often treated as a half dimension too - what do we have to communicate to the world?  Adding the third dimension means issues in the world are addressed by all traditions at all levels.  The big advantage, if all dimensions are full dimensions, is that the insights of several traditions and expressions of those traditions are focussed on the issue, or indeed a complex interplay of issues.

I am sure some of this already happens.  However, it is often not acknowledged and frequently not seen as the core of ecumenical work.