Exploring Ecumenism

Called to be One 8: Ecclesiastical and Ecumenical Ambiguity

This post relates to the eighth critical issue in Called to be One: What Now?, Ecclesiastical and Ecumenical Ambiguity .

This critical issue is a sense of distance between contemporary churches.  It is in contrast to the pre-Marigold  dispensation, presumably up to and including the Interchurch Process .  Is this a really a problem?  Apparently, the following account for this distance:

1. Courtesy can create distance.
2. So can pragmatism.
3. The argument that ecumenism is a luxury we cannot afford.
4. The final point reads: Distance legitimises theological difference and in turn we become comfortable with theological difference. Theological difference in turn legitimises distance and the end result is complacency.

Spiritual Ecumenism

A short break from Called to be One - What Next? to explain Spiritual Ecumenism.  My main source is a short book by Cardinal Walter Kasper (above), President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.  The book is called A Handbook of Spiritual Ecumenism .

Metropolitan Ecumenism

Yesterday , I referred to a post by Peter Phillips, Reflecting on metropolitan ecumenism and grassroots mission .  The idea of metropolitan ecumenism intrigues me.  Phillips implies he found the term elsewhere but I have found no other references to it following a Google search.  This is Phillips' definition:

So what is meant by metropolitan ecumenism?  Basically, to me it means ecumenism that is handled in London and by central office - hierarchical ecumenism - top down ecumenism.  My own first reaction to the speech was a good example - I went back to statements which had been issued by high-ranking meetings and agencies.  I went to the central tenets of Methodism and agreed wholeheartedly with what David Gamble said.  I argued it was fully in accord with what Methodists say about the Covenant and fits in well with that Covenant (and see the others who say the same within the same metropolitan media-style ecumenical perspective above).  I'd stick with that and I don't think there is anything wrong with such a viewpoint.  But the very danger is that we do stick there.  Sometimes we get set into a kind of networked mindset - where academics involved in a network end up in an ivory tower which is really helpful for their own research but misses the point of what is actually happening on the ground.  Metropolitan ecumenism is only as good as ecumenism on the ground.  We cannot and will not see unity within the Church through the dictat of any Synod or Committee.  Unity comes from the grassroots but can be enabled and empowered by metropolitan enthusiasm.  

On a practical level, metropolitan ecumenism might be a useful phrase to describe what I have tended to call 'central' or 'national' ecumenism.  I think the distinction between metropolitan and local is an important one and I have addressed it several times on this blog under the name of ecumenical reception .

Reflections and Observations of the Interchurch Process

Today I will make a few more comments on the paper by Colin Davey and Martin Reardon . 

How Conversations Can Heal Our Divisions

It is something deep in the way human beings structure their organisations, that things do not always turn out the way they were expected to turn out.  This is the problem we face when we contemplate the history of the Franciscans and Dominicans (see my last post ). 

People do not set out to be evil.  We tend to have a Dr Evil view of evil.  The villain in the Austin Powers series, is evil because he enjoys being evil.  Usually, we set up our organisations for the good of humanity.  Something goes wrong and this particular group of people, with the best of intentions, sets off down the wrong road.

Ecumenical Reception: a Cinderella Discipline?

I wrote about ecumenical reception  about a year ago and I return to it for just one post.  This links with recent posts about the Global Christian Forum  and its implications for local ecumenism.

A helpful text about ecumenical reception is Ecumenical Reception: Its Challenge and Opportunity  by William G Rusch.  It is rather dry although persistence might reward the reader with a few interesting insights.

Local and Global Ecumenism

Reading about the Global Christian Forum  has helped me think about local and national ecumenism in Britain.  It appears local ecumenism has more in common with global ecumenism than the national  ecumenical work of the denominations.

It seems local and national ecumenism have had less in common in recent years.  Think back to the English Covenant in the early eighties and then the 'Not Strangers but Pilgrims'  process in the late eighties.  The latter involved many local churches in meeting over Lent 1986 to discuss the future of ecumenism in Britain.  This process led to the Swanwick Agreement  and the new ecumenical instruments.

A New Ecumenical Vision

In this and the next few posts I want to explore a few scenarios.  I suppose the first post in this series is the one about scenario planning .  One drawback of the method is its costs in terms of people, time and finance.  It would be a major step forward to carry out something like it.  Even within one country, to bring together the widest range of representatives of all types of church to work on future scenarios would be a very significant step.  Whilst this is something which could be attained over a few years focused work, it is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future. 

So, I want to ask what some new scenarios might be like.  The point of this and next two posts is not to suggest a way forward for the churches in Britain, only they can do that, but to show there are positive scenarios available to us beyond traditional full visible unity.

The Goal of Ecumenism 4: Openness versus Effort

This is the fourth in a sequence of posts based upon Chris James' blog post  The Goal of Ecumenism: Why and how to be one , part V.  The first of these posts is  Why Are We Divided?, the second is  The Visibility of the Church and the third is Ecumenism and Ecclesiality .

I must confess to a degree of impatience with the idea that ecumenism is a some sort of eschatological truth.  Of course I understand that the fullness of God's plan for humanity will not be revealed until the end times.  But how practical is it to assert this truth?  It feels like a cop out: we can't do anything about it now because it is an eschatological truth.

The Goal of Ecumenism 3: Ecumenism and Ecclesiality

This is the third in a sequence of posts based upon Chris James' blog post  The Goal of Ecumenism: Why and how to be one .  The first of these posts is  Why Are We Divided? and the second is The Visibility of the Church .

Section IV of the post explores 'Ecumenism and Ecclesiality'.  Here James contrasts the view that the churches are united through a common baptism with the view that no church is in itself complete.  This incompleteness is expressed through disunity amongst other things and requires repentance as the root of the ecumenical vision.