Exploring Ecumenism

To Draw Everyone to Himself

Image by Tod Polson via Flickr

This is part of a series of posts based on the Churches Together in England publication one light: one world.  If you click on the link you will find the biblical texts.  This post of the same name covers the purpose of this series.

John 12:32

One verse today, from John.  John differs from the synoptic gospels because he climbs inside the story, telling it from an inner perspective.  All the gospels are post-resurrection, John takes this to the furthest point those who chose the canon could tolerate.

Why should all people be drawn to a man on a cross?  It is difficult to imagine, living in a country where we have no death penalty.

I imagine most people treat executions as 'there but for the grace of God go I'.  'I'm just relieved I'm not being executed.'  Perhaps some people delight in judicial killing, they see justice enacted before their eyes.  Whose justice?

The point is, physical force is used as the ultimate last resort for the powers and authorities.  The Christian story negates this power.  They no longer have any means to scare us into compliance with their delusions of perfection.

Some find God on the cross offensive.  God is supposed to be perfect.  If God hasn't got things sorted, what hope have we?  It is bad enough believing God could be incarnated as a mere human being.  But then for him to be treated in this way ...

Eventually, the penny drops.  How else can God approach us, except from the cross?  If God comes in some other form, how are we tell God from all the ego-maniacs who would possess our souls? 

God Will be All in All

Image by Combined Media via Flickr

This is part of a series of posts based on the Churches Together in England publication one light: one world.  If you click on the link you will find the biblical texts.  This post of the same name covers the purpose of this series.

 

1 Corinthians 15: 24 - 28

This is a passage about Oikoumene, the final reconciliation of all things to God.  Let's take note of a few things about it.

First, it is about the destruction of every ruler, authority and power.  Paul understands that oppression is not only physical; it has a spiritual dimension.  Our fear of death, enables rulers to oppress us or recruit us to oppression.  They are not loving fathers, whatever their self-image might be, but people who thrive on fear.  They are driven by their own fear and fueled by others fear of them.

Second, it is hard not to read this passage as about the ultimate end of the universe.  Indeed, it is not wrong so to read it.  But we need to remember that if God has said it is so, it is so.  Thus we need to read it as true now; we can live as if it is true!

Paul's ironic style would have been understood by the churches he wrote to because their experience was of the rule of Rome.  Today, after centuries of Christianity as the continuation of Roman rule (I refer to all institutional religion, not just Catholics), we tend to read him literally.  This passage is about liberty.  To love God is not to be subject to Rome (or any other power or authority).  We can achieve that in our own lifetime whilst at the same time look forward to when all things will be subject to God and so free of oppression.

Related articles

• Better that One Man Die for the People (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• The World Belongs to the Lord (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• Called to be God's Holy People (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• A Great Nation (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

We Are His Children

Image by brtsergio via Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is part of a series of posts based on the Churches Together in England publication one light: one world.  If you click on the link you will find the biblical texts.  This post of the same name covers the purpose of this series.

Galatians 4: 6 - 7

Two points about this passage.

It is one of only three places in the New Testament, where the Aramaic word 'Abba' is used.  It is always presented as 'Abba! Father!'.  In the original Greek, the word for 'Father' is 'Pater'.  The reason 'Pater' features is the first readers did not know Aramaic and so needed a translation.  Why feature 'Abba' at all?  Because it was the word Jesus actually used.  The beauty of it is all Christians, whatever their language read 'Abba' followed by their word for 'Father'.  Given that to this day in some places 'Abba' is the first word a child speaks, it is a word for all people - all ages and everywhere.

My other point is, what difference does being a child of God make?  The text says God has sent the Spirit into our hearts because we are children.  So, what does this mean?

The meaning hinges on how we understand the metaphor of a loving father.  The slave receives and obeys orders.  The good father encourages his children to stand on their own two feet.  It is no longer a question of obedience to a dictator God, but liberty supported by a father (or loving parent).  To be a child is a commitment to learning to do without the father figure.  This includes human father figures such as priests. 

When the inevitable questions start about why God allows the good (whoever they're supposed to be) to suffer in earthquakes, for example, our understanding is these are not judgements on human behaviour.  We do good in the way we take responsibility for others, as we respond such events.

One Flock, One Shepherd

Image via Wikipedia

This is part of a series of posts based on the Churches Together in England publication one light: one world.  If you click on the link you will find the biblical texts.  This post of the same name covers the purpose of this series.

John 10: 14 - 16

This is a similar message to the last post.  The difference is a matter of emphasis.  You can read this passage as a vision of unity;  all the different traditions will in time be united.

Or else you are invited to understand there are others, not counted by the existing churches because they are peripheral.  They are people who Jesus died for (John is writing from after the passion) and are not a part of the recognised Christian traditions. 

There is a lot of debate these days about Universalism, the belief that ultimately all people will be saved.  One argument against Universalism assumes those who are saved must accept Jesus Christ as saviour. 

What is rarely discussed is, the identity of the saved.  It is easy to discount those who are on the margins.  It is very easy to condemn those who are peripheral to social norms, for example gays; people who are already oppressed because they are despised.

If the anti-Universalists are right, and the axe will fall, cutting some off from God, the question is where the axe will fall.  I suspect it will fall in unexpected places.

But it seems many are only too keen to leap to conclusions on God's behalf.  Those who are saved in this passage are those who listen to God's voice.  The key is not their goodness, you do not have to be good to qualify.  It is by entering into a relationship with God that we learn to be good.  It is those who 'listen to my voice' who are part of the flock.

Better that One Man Die for the People

Image by Happy A via Flickr

This is part of a series of posts based on the Churches Together in England publication one light: one world.  If you click on the link you will find the biblical texts.  This post of the same name covers the purpose of this series.

John 11: 49 - 52

Reading the passion narratives, it is obvious Jesus unites not his friends (they run away) but his enemies.  What united them?  Caiaphas does not speak for himself alone.  He's named because he was High Priest that year.  Those he represents agree because they are fearful of the Romans (v48).

The passion narratives show us the reality of human political and religious systems.  They will dispose of an awkward individual because they are under threat.  Make no mistake, their fear is not for the people but for their own power base.  We have seen this caricatured in recent weeks by General Gaddafi's self-serving rhetoric.

Of course, the reason CTE has chosen this passage is v52.  The idea is Caiaphas prophesied the gathering into one of 'the dispersed children of God'.  So, what are we to make of this? 

First, whatever it means it is obvious John is reading post-resurrection learning into his account of events.  So, why are the children dispersed?  We cannot divorce our understanding of this text from the passion narrative.  It is about oppression.  The children of God are dispersed because they are oppressed.  This story is uniting them, so they may act as one people.

These days in England, the children of God are neither oppressed nor dispersed.  They are not a people on the margins, but a people at the power centres.  To a degree, adepts themselves at oppression and dispersal.

We see the Christians in the Middle East suffering because of the activities of Western Christians, alienating the settled religious peoples and causing conflict between them.

What really divides Christians is power. 

We Are His People

Image by B A Bowen Photography via Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is part of a series of posts based on the Churches Together in England publication one light: one world.  If you click on the link you will find the biblical texts.  This post of the same name covers the purpose of this series.

Psalm 95: 1 - 7

This and three previous texts are meant to illustrate, as far as CTE is concerned, 'The Unity of God's People'.  I find these texts rather unconvincing.  I don't find nationhood theologically helpful and the last two, whilst moving onto more helpful ground, don't really lead me anywhere meaningful.

This last text in the sequence presumably invites us to see Christians worshipping the same God together.  The (Jewish) community for whom this was written will have found this helpful, they were a real, not metaphorical, nation.

When I read this in the context of unity, it reminds me of our divisions.  This is one kind of worship for one kind of people.  It is not my worship or any other Christian's.  The ways in which we worship tend to divide us.  From disagreement about what constitutes a good hymn (or song) through to the politics surrounding the eucharist, worship divides.

The frog croaks, the bird sings.  We don't believe their prayers are devalued because we like the noise of one but not of the other.  We worship according to our dispositions.  Genuine worship is accepted by God, whatever it is.  The problem is where we find we cannot enter whole-heartedly into another's worship.  But is it so difficult to find at least a little common ground?

Called to be God's Holy People

Image via Wikipedia

This is part of a series of posts based on the Churches Together in England publication one light: one world.  If you click on the link you will find the biblical texts.  This post of the same name covers the purpose of this series.

1 Corinthians 1: 2 - 3

The image of Christendom haunts our ecumenical conversations because, whilst many of us long for unity, we dread the idea of a single institutional church. 

Perhaps in the second half of the last century, when the British churches were enthusiastic for unity, Christendom was a distant historical memory.  Today, many movements are suspicious of unity schemes.  Radical Christian movements see Christendom as an aberrant form of Christianity and seek church structures that resist it.  I suppose radical Islam, at least as it is represented in the Western media, also reminds some Christians of the dangers of theocracy.

I share these suspicions.  I don't see any value in a future where we are subject to a single institution.  I have always understood holy obedience, not as obedience to institutional power, who justify their actions through claiming God's support, but as listening and discerning the will of God.

Paul is writing to the church in Corinth, a church which is prone to delusions of power.  Paul doesn't build them up in terms of authority.  Their unity is through Jesus Christ and their calling is as one community amongst many.

They are defined as church not through a single coherent church structure but with reference to their calling and the many other communities who share their calling.

The key to unity has to be in mutual recognition and solidarity, not through the imposition of a single universal church structure.

Related articles

• The Holy Nation (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• Harmony in Diversity (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

The Holy Nation

Image via Wikipedia

This is part of a series of posts based on the Churches Together in England publication one light: one world.  If you click on the link you will find the biblical texts.  This post of the same name covers the purpose of this series.

1 Peter 2:9 - 10

Once again we have the image of Christians as a nation.  I suppose, despite our differences, nationhood implies we're all one at base.  But it equally could mean we're separated from others because we are a nation and they are not a part of it.

Christendom is still an idea active in the minds of some Christians, often unconsciously.  It was a time when the Christian faith was a nation.  Or at least Christendom was the basic idea behind the nations of Europe. 

This passage is larded with grandiose ideas - we're not only a holy nation but also a chosen nation and a royal priesthood.  I hope the author meant these terms ironically, although they have often been taken as a literal justification for the status quo of the wealthy.

I suspect the author was saying to a weak and despised community, 'Look, it might seem you're the dregs but actually you have been called to be like kings.  Don't let the kings of this world tell you otherwise.  Glory in your poor status, knowing you have been called by God.'

This is a call to humility, not a reason for priests to lord it over the rest of humanity.

A Great Nation

Image via Wikipedia

This is part of a series of posts based on the Churches Together in England publication one light: one world.  If you click on the link you will find the biblical texts.  This post of the same name covers the purpose of this series.

Genesis 12:1-3

It is difficult to believe many people in the modern West see themselves as children of Abraham.  The story goes, he is not only father of the Jews but also (directly through Ishmael) of Muslims and (indirectly) of Christians.

I suppose this passage is here to make the point that we are all of one nation.  But the very concept of nation implies there are other nations.  Can this be read as divisive, as well as implying the unity of all Christians?  Certainly insisting that we're all part of the same nation will cut little mustard in the entrenched conflicts around the world.

We are it seems divided according to whether we bless or curse Abraham.  The final clause however says, in Abraham all families of the earth shall be blessed.  Perhaps there is a glimpse here of the final Oikoumene.

I can see the logic but I must confess I am indifferent to this line of argument.  Christians are one in the Spirit, in our recognition of Jesus Christ and in our hope that ultimately all shall be reconciled in Christ.  Abraham seems a little superflous to me although I appreciate others might disagree.  Perhaps it is a helpful text where there are conflicts between Christians, Jews and Muslims?

To God be the Glory

Image via Wikipedia

This is part of a series of posts based on the Churches Together in England publication one light: one world.  If you click on the link you will find the biblical texts.  This post of the same name covers the purpose of this series.

Romans 11: 33-36

In this passage Paul builds upon what it means to love God.  The Good News is God's Kingdom is present in the here and now.  Paul can hear God's call to the whole of creation to explore God's riches, wisdom and knowledge.

But these things are just out of reach.  Who has known the mind of the Lord?  The question invites a positive answer but implies no-one can quite give such an answer.  It is this longing that draws on not only the churches, but the whole of humanity and indeed the whole of creation.

What we learn from modern cosmology is the whole creation is itself a response to God.  Evolution is matter's way of responding to God.  Against the constraints of entropy, life responds in ever more ordered ways.

One final point about this sequence of posts about the creation.  My purpose has been to make a theological point.  I have not attempted to prove God has a role in evolution.  What I'm suggesting  evolution itself is a response to God.  It is not that every individual aspires to know God but individuals are themselves a response to God.  It is not terribly important whether scientists agree with theologians on this point.  It will always be possible to understand evolution from both atheistic and theistic perspectives. 

Related articles

• All of Creation Waits with Eager Longing (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• It Was Very Good (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• The Lord Encompasses All (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• The World Belongs to the Lord (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)