Exploring Ecumenism

Three corners of ecumenical conversation

First, the obvious type of conversation is the conversation between people.  In one sense we converse when we are involved in any exchange of information through signs such as words, pictures or gestures.  These conversations can be with people in the past, present and future.  When I read a novel or manuscript written by someone long dead, I can build a picture of their world; this glimpse of their reality might lead me to new thoughts and insights.  As I write, I can imagine the future reader and how they might respond and this to a degree forms what I write.  Of course, not all exchanges of information are fruitful.  There is an element in a fruitful conversation of hearing the other, seeing the world from their perspective.  As our perspectives mesh, perhaps new insights will emerge from the interstices; the gaps between our worldviews.  When we fail to listen our views may become entrenched or defensive, the possibilities close down.

The second type of conversation is through prayer.  Prayer can take many forms but all true prayer must be based upon listening, watching or perceiving.  Some will claim prayer is a conversation with God if that is so, it leads us to an odd conclusion.  The point of conversation is change.  Just as in human conversation, nothing happens unless perceptions change; so with God prayer implies change in God as well as in me.  I find this an exciting idea and will explore it further in future.  The thing is to resist the temptation to rush in and protect God against change.  The question is how does prayer change God; in what sense can change and God go together?  I leave it there for now.

The third conversation is between humanity and the universe.  The work of the scientist comes first to mind.  To ask questions of the universe demands answers that build up a dialogue between the scientist and the world.  The artist does much the same thing: if I make this change to  these materials what do I have now? 

All three of these conversations demand human involvement.  I will at some stage explore non-human conversations but this will wait for the future.  What I want to assert is that to be human, conversation is essential.  Where there is no conversation, humanity is thwarted.  Repression destroys freedom to converse.  People under repressive regimes quickly lose the ability to converse.  Only controlled exchanges are permitted and often this is policed by the people themselves.  Similar regimes can be found in workplaces where people fear for their jobs and of course in churches where freedom of thought is frowned upon.

What of ecumenism?  Oikoumene is a form of the word ecumenism sometimes used when we mean the reconciliation of the whole cosmos to God, rather than the narrower meaning of relationships between churches.  This is the dimension of ecumenism I want explore further.  The understanding that is too often lost when conversations take place between traditions.  This type of ecumenism is a three cornered conversation between humanity, God and the universe - it is the context in which conversations between church traditions take place.  We need to understand this context.

Conversations: cosmic and prosaic

So, why insert conversation for word when translating logos?  Generally, word is the accepted translation.  I think yesterday's exercise points up the meaning of word; clarifies our understanding of it.  I'd always thought of it as something static - a noun.  In the beginning there was the word - plonk!  Conversation implies something dynamic and participative.  And so does word.  What is the point of a word if it is not to communicate?  In context, word must mean more than a word on the page or in speech.  It implies a response.  Word implies conversation, at least in this context.

Let's not be diverted into asking who the conversation was with.  It is however interesting the refrain in the opening verses of Genesis is that 'God saw that it was good'.  Again this implies some sort of conversation or response.  If God knew it was going to be good, if God had embarked on an enterprise with a definite and clear outcome, why say this?  God acted (spoke?) and received a response, checked to see it was good before moving onto the next stage.  God saw it was good because God was seeking a response to her/his actions.  It admits the possibility it might not have been good.  If there were not that possibility - why look, let alone remark upon it?  The pattern is act, check, act.  The process any creative artist might adopt.

This implies a universe not created by a pefectionist who pre-determines all things from the beginning.  But a universe where the outcome is predetermined but the means to the outcome are not predictable at the outset.  I will return to this in more detail at some later date.

One last point, we speak of ecumenical conversations - am I implying some common ground between these prosaic conversations and the great universal conversation which started all things and keeps them going?  Yes I am.  This might sound outrageous - my point is that the most prosaic conversations contain the seeds of the same creativity we find in God's creative act. That is all conversations are potentially creative; free conversations will always lead to the creation of new things.  This is what the Quakers mean by the spirit of the meeting.  They do not mean consensus but a new creation.  All our conversations are important.  Ecumenical conversations are a small number of the conversations that are going on - they are likely to be more effective if seen in their cosmic context.

How it all started (in the pub?)

My new word of the week is Targum.   A friend when I asked explained it is ‘is an Aramaic translation usually in the form of an expanded translation of various books or section so of the Old Testament’.  This accounts for the origin of the word but it seems to be used to mean an expanded translation of scripture.  This implies a significant hermeneutical element as it will be expanded to make or underscore a contemporary point. 

My Targum for today is an exposition of the opening verses of John’s Gospel.  Some time ago I read the word logos is usually translated as word but it can equally be translated as conversation.  I read this in a Methodist Mission Education publication in 2003, unfortunately I have been unable to track it down.  (If anyone can find it I would be grateful to see it again.)  If memory serves this article included a Targum based on the same opening verses.  So, I suppose this is my attempt to reproduce it of course with my own spin.

Tenuous as this may seem to be, it has been the start of a fruitful line of enquiry, one I intend to pursue further.

‘It all started with a conversation, God was there of course, indeed you could say God was the conversation.  God’s conversation was there from the beginning.  All things came into being through the conversation and without the conversation not one thing came into being.  Life is what came into being through the conversation and life illuminates all people.  And so life and God are in conversation and this illuminates the dark places and brings them into the conversation.’

Many years ago I heard the story of the invention of the cloud chamber (used in particle physics to show the tracks of particles, which leave a trail of bubbles in some medium).  Apparently, it was invented in the pub, where there was a salt cellar on the table and someone started to drop grains of salt in the beer and observed they left a trail of bubbles. 

I suspect many things have been invented during this type of unstructured conversation (and messing about) and so why not the universe?  There is something magnificent about the idea of the universe emerging from a pub conversation. 

If anyone thinks this is a bit too flippant I am trying to capture something of the feel of the casual way in which things come into being.  This is enormously important and I will pick up on it later.

Theological departure points

So, where am I coming from and why ecumenism?  Surely I can't fill a blog day by day solely about ecumenism?  Wherever you turn ecumenism comprises long winded documents, constitutions for Local Ecumenical Partnerships which take forever to approve, an annual cycle of events for churches who are mainly not terribly enthusiastic.

Ecumenism can be like that.  But this is not what I hope to explore.  My main interests are not in the minutiae of ecumenical conversations.  It is in the dynamic, the theology, the understanding of conversations.  Let me illustrate what I mean with some biographical data.

I studied at university first in biology and then in computer science.  I have always been interested in science although I have done no research since 1979.  Ecumenism is about the reconciliation of the whole world (or cosmos) to God - it is not in essence about reconciling denominations.  There is a cosmological dimension to ecumenism.

Since then I have been a community development worker in Tyneside, Teesside and South Yorkshire.  The presence of churches together in neighbourhoods, the building of wide partnerships, local regeneration have interesting parallels and overlaps.

In Teesside I first encountered the power of listening through a churches project called RESPOND! and its Dark Holy Ground course.  From there I have increasingly seen the importance of deep listening and the power of conversation to make a difference.

Through community development I have developed a keen interest in community enterprise and particularly in mutuals.  The economy of ecumenism is fascinating from the arrangements to share buildings to the vision of a world where economy serves the people.

I have had a long association with the Urban Theology Unit in Sheffield and from there I have followed my own path with the help of the Christian Praxis Group, a group of friends who meet to study radical theology and for support 2 -4 times a year for 25 years now.  I also studied applied theology at Westminster College specialising in mutuals and social auditing.

In recent years I have worked for the Methodist Church in the fields of ecumenism and resourcing mission.  This continues to be a privilege and of course this work will inform my writing from time to time.  But this blog is not in any way an exposition or critique of Methodist Church policy.

I suppose ecumenism will be a central thread around which I will organise my interests.  At times I might drift far away but hopefully being drawn back to my starting point from time to time will add a degree of coherence to what might otherwise by a confusing whole.

Why I am still a ....

(This is my response to the question implied by ‘Why I am still a ...’ – if you read this please consider leaving your response to the same implied question as a comment.)

I’ve always believed if you’re going to be Christian you have to be something.  Christianity is an incarnational faith embodied in the meeting of believers. 

I was brought up in a family which if it was anything was Unitarian.  Once I became a Christian I drifted into Methodism, although at one time I chose between Methodism and the Society of Friends.  I can’t remember why I chose Methodism; perhaps because it was the more difficult option.

When I trained as a local preacher in the early eighties I remember being told Methodism is a part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and whilst it has certain doctrinal emphases there are no major differences between Methodism and the rest.

It is interesting in recent years, as I have been drawn into the ecumenical scene, I have started to identify, understand and value these emphases. 

From its earliest days Methodism was a society where ordinary people supported each other in their spiritual journey.  This is how John Wesley saw his movement.  There has always been a strand of self-help, not just spiritual, but co-operative ventures supporting the whole person, particularly in the old northern chapel culture.  

Maybe these values are thin on the ground today.  Certainly, they are less understood; the spectre of the sanctimonious teetotal authoritarian Methodist still haunts folk memory alongside the genuine self-help and caring.  I hope there is a future for Methodism as a practical movement who care about each other’s relationships with God as well as the practicalities of faith. 

Ecumenism - New Horizons

Ecumenism is not all about Local Ecumenical Partnerships and the Faith and Order debate. Indeed this is why I wanted to start this blog - to explore some of the wider issues and possibilities - I believe ecumenism has a lot of potential to surprise in all sorts of ways if only we can shift the log jam of debate about church structures. The exploring of each others traditions, the deepening of understanding of our and other traditions can open up many new possibilities. Let's identify the real issues as we search for meaning in the modern (post-modern?) world.

Possible features - this list is an attempt to indicate what I hope to cover.  The aim is to explore possibilities rather than criticise what's happening; to widen the scope of ecumenical conversations, rather than continue the existing ones.

1.     To share stories - this is important but I'm not sure how this will happen on a blog.  It would be good to find out why readers are still with their own tradition (or moving on) and how they got there in the first place. This is a reflection of recent developments in ecumenical work as some of the new Pentecostal churches have started to show interest in ecumenism.
2. Websites, books - where are issues being addresed that open up new horizons?
3.  Ecumenism means the reconciliation of the whole cosmos in God - isn't it time we took this seriously?
4.  If it's not Faith and Order - what are the issues we should be addressing?

5.  Re-framing full visible unity - it's not going to go away - how can it adapt to our changing context? And are there really no credible alternatives?
6.  Exploration of the role of consensus, participation, finding the spirit of the meeting - practical ways to engage people in real conversations. John 1:1 'It all started with a conversation' - my translation.
7.  Deep listening - there's a lot going on in this area, so why are the churches so bad at it?
8.  Complexity theory and ecumnenism.
9.  Starting with the local - why have the fresh expressions become so disincarnate (or have they)? The flight from the technicalities of property and finances - why do we make our spirituality so unreal?