Exploring Ecumenism

The Dignity of Difference

British ecumenism is dominated by a model of ecumenism called 'full visible unity'.  I suppose if there is an old ecumenical paradigm this is it.  How does it work?  Simple.  If two traditions become one tradition, that is visible unity.  An example would be the United Reformed Church, where the Presbyterian, Congregationalist and Church of Christ traditions have become a single church.  When all the churches join together this would be 'full visible unity'.  It is important to understand something of the energy around this paradigm and I will return to this in a future post.

Various attempts have been made to identify a new paradigm.  One of these is known as 'reconciled diversity'.  This stops short of visible unity and argues reconciled traditions will learn to collaborate.  The problem with this approach of course is that it is potentially an escape clause for those who do not agree with the 'full visible unity' paradigm.  Somehow, this model has never built up a sufficient head of steam to be a contender for ruling ecumenical paradigm.  I don't know why this is. I'm told there were papers written a few years ago that ruled out this approach.  I don't know who wrote them or what they said.

There is a popular vision of 'unity in diversity' which attempts to reconcile full visible unity with diversity in some way although I've never seen this set down in any formal way.  I must confess I find it hard to visualise what it might mean in practise and so I suspect do most other people.

To move this debate forward we need to examine unity and diversity and ask questions like, 'what do they mean?' in theory and in practise.  I'm not seeking a new paradigm as such, merely to try to throw some light on the subject.

Initially I plan to comment on some aspects of 'The Dignity of Difference: How to avoid the clash of civilisations' by Jonathan Sacks.  This book is written from a Jewish perspective, close enough to make sense to Christians but distant enough to allow for some perspective.  In writing this blog I am attempting to take a step back from the usual content of ecumenical conversations and to ask what we are trying to achieve and whether or how we can be more effective.

On page 20 Sacks writes:

... the proposition at the heart of monotheism is not what it has often been taken to be: one God, therefore one path to salvation.  To the contrary, it is that unity is worshipped in diversity.  The glory of the created world is its astonishing multiplicity: the thousands of different languages spoken by (hu)mankind, the proliferation of cultures, the sheer variety of the imaginative expressions of the human spirit, in most of which, if we listen carefully, we will hear the voice of wisdom telling us something we need to know.  That is what I mean by the dignity of difference.  (The emphases are Sacks'.)

In his prologue, Sacks tells us something ecumenists learn very quickly,  Through conversations with other traditions we learn about their tradition and more about our own.  This is something we should celebrate.  We should be mourning the loss of languages and cultures to globalisation rather than trying to reduce their numbers ourselves. 

The Peace Church and the Ecumenical Community

This post is a book review of by Hazel Barkham.  Hazel is, amongst other things, a peace activist and from the Reformed tradition.

The review can be found through the link below.  Look under 'Featured Books' for a link to the book.

Download ReviewofthePeaceChurch&TheecumenicalCommunity

Ecumenism: the dissenters

In an earlier post I briefly told the story of ecumenism and the move from the old Council of Churches model to the new Churches Together model.  In a later post I suggested that the new ecumenical paradigm is already with us.  By this I meant there is significant dissent from traditional or mainstream ecumenism and suggested the main determinant of this dissent was age.

This time I want to attempt an initial overview of the diversity of this dissent in Britain.  There is no way this can be anything other than incomplete but perhaps I will revisit this list from time to time to clarify it further.

1. I suppose there has always been a traditional dissent from mainstream ecumenism.  The Free Church Group (FCG) includes members who for one reason or another are unable to join Churches Together in Britain and Ireland or the national instruments in England and Wales.  The FCG maintains a close working relationship with Churches Together in England and so I suppose it represents those who dissent from the mainstream but not so much as to sever all links with it.
2. The formal ecumenical instruments are parallelled to a degree by the Evangelical Alliance (EA).  This is an ecumenical organisation in its own right and some members of the mainstream instruments are also members of the EA.  I'm not sure what the breadth of theological perspectives are in EA with respect to ecumenism; it will cover a range from sympathy to suspicion to antipathy, I suspect.  Suffice it to say that financially, EA could lay claim to being the most successful ecumenical organisation in the country.
3. Evangelical, charismatic and pentecostal churches comprise many local congregations and have a range of theological positions.  Some will take extreme positions, believing they represent the narrow range of those churches that are truly Christian.  There are recent signs of a more open stance, especially through the Global Christian Forum.  These might be described as churches with a conservative theological position.
4. Some house churches take a position described as post-Christendom.  This includes a rejection of the ecclesiology not only of the mainstream churches but also of the Pentecostals.  They reject most of the paraphernalia of church and meet in homes like the first century church.
5. There are those like the Progressive Christian Network which although sympathetic with ecumenism in theory, are disillusioned and see modern ecumenism as an exercise in control.  These groups will take a radical or liberal theological stance.
6. There are a growing group of people who do not understand the traditional denominations or simply don't want to know.  Fresh expressions are one way these people can relate to the churches.  Sometimes fresh expressions are overseen by established churches and sometimes they are more like house churches with little or no explicit link to mainstream denominations.
7. Others simply shop around until they find a church they like.  They will attend for a few months or years and then move on, perhaps because their work takes them away.  These people genuinely do not see the denominational differences as relevant and consequently will be reluctant to become members and take part in running the local church.
8. There are also significant world church in Britain congregations which have a variety of relationships with mainstream churches but for one reason or another keep their distance.

This is my first attempt and I am immediately aware of several inadequacies.  I hope to return to some of these in more detail so that I can fill in the detail and clarify these types.

One last point, the purpose of this list is not to criticise the various stances but to clarify the nature of dissent from mainstream ecumenism.  I suspect a new ecumenical paradigm may already exist amongst or between these groups.  I also suspect this new paradigm will be difficult to articulate.

New Ecumenical Paradigms

I found this paragraph in an article by Jill Sandham and Hugh Dawes, chair and honorary secretary of the Progressive Christianity Network, Hope for Church in the 21^st century which can be found in Together in Hope: Proclaiming God's Justice Living God's Love, edited by Adrian Alker.  The article refers to Christianity's history of 'self-preservation and justification':

In reaction to that history, it is hardly surprising that in the twentieth century institutional Christianity became so preoccupied with the pursuit and recovery of unity.  We who write shared in that ourselves, and were excited by it.  But the liberation all too quickly turned sour.  In the hands of institutional Christianity, unity, which briefly seemed so exciting and so possible, got twisted into a concern for uniformity of a narrowly doctrinal and credal form.  With the result that today the institutional church can appear more divided and distorted than ever before.  (Page 39)

They look forward to the end of the institutional church and the formation of an associational church.  They argue that Western society 'uses power to enforce obedience'.  Further, 'institutional church governs largely through the clergy in much the same way'.  In an associational church, authority is 'something freely granted and bestowed by others'.

When I started working in formal ecumenism in 2003 there was some excitement about the possibility of a new paradigm for ecumenism.  Overall the thought was that it was not for us to formulate this paradigm; perhaps the generation of ecumenists to follow us would do it.

I am beginning to think it is too late.  The new paradigm is here, perhaps not fully articulated, but many Christians have already made up their minds about ecumenism.  The paradigm cannot be fully articulated by the Progressive Christianity Network or indeed any single organisation because the intriguing thing is there seems to be a consensus of sorts across a wide range of theologies and ecclesiologies. 

If there is a common factor it is age.  Somewhere between 30 and 40 years, there is a divide between older people who still see the traditional denominations as key to ecumenism and the younger who do not recognise denominations in the same way.  This younger group either rejects denominations altogether or moves between them; unwilling to make a commitment to one for life.

The quotation refers to the excitement at the pursuit and recovery of unity.  I hope to try to convey some of that excitement, as well as ask what has happened to it, in a future post.

Perhaps PCN is right and we must look forward to a future associational church.  The problem is that not everyone is going to travel in that particular direction.  It is an idea that is attractive to me but I don't see how we can turn our back on other churches that do not choose this path.  Somehow the ecumenical vision has to be wider than any one approach to the faith.  The ecumenical task has become more complex.

Soft Systems

Is it true that all human systems are divergent?  Soft systems is the term given to human systems; not all divergent systems include human activity and so this is how I will understand the term; divergent human systems.  Of course, there have been times, many times during history when people have tried to forge convergent systems out of human nations or organisations.  This can be seen in companies and churches, in armed forces and nations.  Sometimes it is possible to maintain an image of convergence for a while but always in time, their divergent nature becomes evident.  For those leaders who do not understand how systems work, this can lead to tyranny and oppression.

So, what are the characteristics of soft systems?  They are difficult to measure using quantitative measures.  They are apprehended through stories, views and perspectives rather than things that can be measured.  Neighbourhood regeneration identifies both outputs and outcomes.  Outputs are things which can be measured.  They are what the funding bodies pay for.  They expect to see so many meetings or clients or people into work.  Outcomes though are less tangible but more important.  What has been achieved through the activity funded?

Qualitative data is difficult to analyse and consequently is difficult to use in planning.  However, this is true only where qualitative analysis is constrained by the expectations of quantitative analysis. 

Qualitative analysis is based upon making choices.  Each choice generates more options for other choices but in doing this a picture of the consequences of making choices can be built up, from your own perspective or that of others.

This does mean any individual's analysis will include a subjective element but at the same time it can result in analyses of considerable subtlety and depth.  We have to accept qualitative systems cannot produce objective pictures but it is possible to follow a thread of narrative; it is possible for the analyst to be open about the choice they have made and show how they have arrived at their conclusions.

A big advantage of qualitative analysis is that it allows us to glimpse the world through the eyes of others.  A subjective approach does not constrain us to our own subjective choices but allows us to ask what choices others might make.  It is an invitation to view the world from another's viewpoint.  It is sad that so many formal talks focus on finding solutions rather than seeing from the perspective of others.  The change likely to flow from this is quite different from our usual understanding of change.

Poverty and Empowerment

I spent Monday and Tuesday attending the Urban Forum conference in Central Manchester.  The conference theme was poverty and was in support of next year's Get Fair Campaign.  Monday afternoon included a bus tour of East Manchester.  We saw several neighbourhoods that have had or are having their hearts torn out.  Terraces are being demolished and residents decanted into new housing.  The area is also host to the biggest Asda (Wallmart) in Europe.  On the bus we were told how 75% of the staff were recruited locally through a local recruitment agency; they all live 10-15 minutes walking distance.  Someone else told us later that local shops had closed down when Asda opened (where have I heard that story before?)

I am reminded of Robert Linthicum's stories of churches in the States combining to resist property developers.  I'll post a reference to it sometime soon.  It was notable that we did not meet one local resident all afternoon - I suppose if we had we might have heard a different story but somehow I suspect not.

Today an interesting session exploring the links between poverty and empowerment.  This was led by Liz Richardson of Manchester University and the results will be published in February or March next year.

Just a few reflections on this theme:

1. Someone commented that she was very suspicious of the idea of empowerment as it implies it is something external, rather than something people must reach out for themselves.  I would add my own suspicions that there is an element of control behind this terminology; if it means that someone thinks they are bringing power into the neighbourhood.

2. I was reminded of Dark Holy Ground.  If this is something the government is seeking through its sustainable communities white paper, we might be heading for interesting times.

3. But empowerment seems to me to have a social aspects - those who experience it will tend to be more inclined to collaborate.  This is part of Linthicum's experience of course.  It goes back to Saul Alinsky, the founder of the Industrial Areas Foundation - today no-one had heard of him or his intention to 'rub raw the sores of discontent'.

Churches and Taylorism

I want to clarify what I said about churches and Taylorism in a recent post.  Churches are not and never have been similar to businesses employing a Taylorist approach.  My point is that there are sufficient parallels between churches and traditional manufacturing businesses for there to be a degree of unconscious confusion. 

Aspects of Taylorism have entered the public imagination and often when the role of management in churches is debated I get the impression it is this model that is being criticised as unsuitable for churches.  On the principle that there's no smoke without fire I suspect that a lack of awareness of the range of approaches to management can lead to this confusion shared by some leaders and some of their critics.

Churches can be deeply hierarchical.  An immediate objection is that church hierarchies predate modern manufacturing businesses and so also Taylorism.  Churches were never intended to be led in this way but that does not mean that churches are immune to the influence of this approach.

Another similarity is that just as Taylorist businesses produce thousands of standard products so churches, sometimes across the world, produce standard activities to a timetable or lectionary.  The model of authority descending through hierarchies to be consumed by thousands of consumers must be seductive at least to some leaders.

Despite these similarities churches cannot in practise perform to the Taylorist model.  The reason for this is not theological but economic.  It is the threat of redundancy that enable Taylorist managers to achieve their goal of a standard product.  Workers who will not comply lose their jobs.

Churches face a very different reality.  They do not employ their congregations and although it is possible to discipline their ordained ministers, the members are far harder to control, especially as they pay the bills.  Consequently church hierarchies must resort to other sanctions if they wish to control the beliefs and activities of their congregations.  Leaders with a Taylorist mindset will employ any means to do this but others will see the need to use discussion and debate as a means to arrive at a consensus. 

This is one reason why reception is important.  Decisions cannot be imposed and in even the most top down traditions there still has to be consent from the ground up.  People might accept a degree of coercion but in reality it will not do as a means to conduct long-term change.

I offer this explanation of the tendency for churches to be top down in their approach to change.  This model of change is likely to be the default position of any leader who knows nothing of organisations or management.  For ecumenists, the search for effective ways of finding consent for the results of ecumenical talks is complex and needs close examination.

The People of the Way

The Christian Praxis Group met this weekend and we studied this week's lectionary reading Mark 1: 1 - 8 in the Greek.

Arche means beginning and indicates in verse 1 this is about Jesus.  But there are preliminaries before we get onto Jesus.  The story of Jesus begins with Isaiah (chapter 40) vv 2,3 and then John the Baptiser vv 4-8.  John in particular goes before Jesus calling attention to him.

Idou in v2 means behold, and is a word often used by Jesus in Mark - it means look here or get focused, pay attention. 

Prepare the way of the Lord - the word for way is hodos which means a paved way.  I had a couple of thoughts about this - first is the word an example of onomatopoeia?  For a paved route the remarkable thing would be the sound of horses' hooves.  This might be an allusion to the Roman occupiers as the straightening is not done to the hodos but to the paths - tribous.  Staying with hodos - the first Christians were known as 'the people of the way'. 

The Greek word translated as straight is eutheias which is derived from eutheos which is usually translated as immediately.  See verse 10 for the first use of this word in Mark and note the King James version translates it as straightway! 

Tribous means paths and its origins are with the verb 'to rub'.  In contrast to the paved route; these are the beaten paths.  And note the plural, make straight the paths, all paths are to be prepared not just the one paved road.  There is no equivalent to this in Isaiah 40.  This implies a wide range of people not just those who travel by the established route.

So, what can we make of all this?  The Good News that is to come is for all - not just those who travel on the main roads but by many small paths will come together (we were not sure whether tribous has any connection with tributary).  Attention is drawn to this at the outset as people familiar with Isaiah 40 would note the difference.  The people of the way are invited to recognise the many small paths onto the way.

Convergent and Divergent Systems

It is important to understand the distinction between convergent and divergent systems.  Convergent systems are often thought of as closed systems.  They are in some way separated from the wider universe and so it is possible to control their performance.  To a degree the idea of a closed system is an illusion.  Every system must be a part of the wider universe and will to some degree be influenced by the wider universe.  However, a convergent system will be closed enough to enable the parameters to the system to be set.  So, for example, it is possible to design an engine to specific tolerances because an engine is a system which can be isolated sufficiently to enable engineers to do the calculations and come up with a solution.  Sometimes, the solution will be approximate and the resulting engine will be seen as a step towards the desired engine.

In other words a series of designs (over time or by different engineers) will converge upon certain types of engine.  There may be more than one solution or there may be better designs yet to be discovered but in principle a single solution or set of solutions will emerge.  Technology may be a limitation on these systems, eg Charles Babbage was able to design his difference engine but unable to find parts that were accurate enough for him to assemble a working engine.  Crucible steel was invented when watch makers found contemporary steel was too brittle to make watch springs.

The fact that engineers work within tolerances shows that these convergent systems are to some degree open to wider universe.  Better designs might improve the performance of engines but there will always be limitations; the aim is to minimise them so that systems can be designed within any given tolerances.

Divergent systems are different not because they are less accurate but because there are multiple solutions.  Instead of one or a few possible outcomes there are numerous possibilities and the more that is known about the system the more possible outcomes there are.  In general human systems are like this, so are many natural systems.

It is easy in a business with a hierarchical management system to believe you are in effect working in a convergent system. Employees will do as they are told or else they won't be paid.  If the business involves manufacturing, it is likely most employees will perform a number of repetitive activities.  This is known as Taylorism (after its inventor) and the method deployed is time and motion studies leading to tighter definition of activities for each worker.

But most human systems are not like this and any business with this type of structure today will, if it still survives, find this inflexible structure undermines its long term survival prospects.  The problem is that many managers do not understand this and still have a Taylorist model in mind when they attempt to manage an organisation.  Churches are not exempt from this.

Human systems are divergent.  There is no single model for human systems.  Sometimes these are called soft systems.  It is possible to analyse and understand them but through a different approach to convergent systems.  I will describe them in a future post.

Unity in Diversity

The British Council of Churches between the late 1940s and 1989 was largely Protestant and its vision was of full visible unity.  This vision was supported by other parts of the world where uniting churches, eg the Church of South India, demonstrated that it was possible for Protestant churches to unite.  In Britain this vision was supported by the Methodist Deed of Union in 1932 and the birth of the United Reformed Church in the early seventies.

Since 1989, with the new Churches Together approach, the model of the Council of Churches, decisions made independently of the parent churches, has given way to churches making their own decisions together.  I described this in an earlier blog.

Imperceptibly, the emphasis has shifted from unity to diversity; to unity in diversity.  The problem has been to find a model of reconciled diversity that is not seen as a means to avoid the complexity and difficulty of full visible unity.  Even unity in diversity has to be made real in some tangible way.

I think the problem in part is that the movement from a focus on unity to a focus on diversity is not simply a shift in emphasis.  Unity is a model based upon control.  To place all churches under one model of governance implies this.  It also implies that if we work at it hard enough we will in time solve the remaining problems and find the model that will bring all the churches together.  This is to see the human relations under God as a convergent system.

Unfortunately human systems are divergent.  Diversity implies no single centralised control and no overall solution to the problems we face.  The approach is one of devolved centres that seek to identify and join in the movement of the spirit through their dialogue or conversation.  Unity will emerge from the interactions of many players rather than the reception of decisions made through formal talks.

Clearly this will be unsatisfactory to many but we have to ask ourselves how likely it is that formal talks will unite all the churches (rather than a few) and that they will stay united.  The diversity model implies we will stumble upon unity rather than plan it and this itself might seem unsatisfactory.

Divergent systems are sometimes known as soft systems and it would be helpful for ecumenists to understand them.  They will, I'm sure, be described in a future strand of this blog.