Exploring Ecumenism

Boundaries Overcoming Communities

In my last post, I described the boundary protected community and showed how in neighbourhoods and in the churches these tend to sustain the power of elites, both internal to these communities and external to them.

One way of challenging this is to consciously view community as open to the whole of humanity.  Such a community would seek to overcome boundaries and offer a welcome to all people irrespective of their origins or beliefs.  The problem is that this understanding, whilst theoretically acknowledging marginalised people, still tends not to hear them.

Unity as a Rhetoric of Control?

Today I intend to change direction and return to the theme of unity and diversity.  I will do this by way of a short book with an interesting theme that links unity and diversity to justice.  The book is Christ's Body in Corinth:The Politics of a Metaphor by Yung Suk Kim.  It examines the metaphor of the Body of Christ in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.

Over the next few posts I will examine what Kim is saying and how it applies to ecumenism in England today.

Before I do that I will review the three dimensions of ecumenism and identify where the divisions are. 

1. The first dimension is divisions between churches.  In Britain and Europe a great deal of progress has been made towards reconciliation between the mainstream churches. 
2. However, when we look at reception of the results of formal talks in the churches, things cannot be said to be quite so successful.  There is a definite sense of antagonism between local Christians and national church leaders.  Formal talks locally are seen as irrelevant and petty whilst church leaders do not take the experiences of local churches seriously or are seen as patronising when they do.  Frustration is manifested at the local level by the growth of fresh expressions and a plethora of small non-alligned churches.  Many of these see themselves as ecumenical, meaning they ignore denominational differences.
3. The introspection on the part of the churches leads to a perception that they do not care about people, about the marginalised.

From the perspective of oikoumene, ecumenism seems narrow and fixated upon relationships between church leaders, and the activities acceptable to them.

Kim argues (page 2) that churches tend to make claims of Christ as a 'boundary marker' and he asks the following questions (page 3):

Who gets to speak about unity?  Is unity an essential goal?  Or is it an ideologically disguised political rhetoric of control?  Did Paul really emphasise unity as we conceive of it today? 

These questions cut to the core of the assumptions made by ecumenists and perhaps reveal something of the tensions between local and national ecumenists.  Perhaps also it reveals something of the assumptions they have in common.  Kim writes (page 3):

... from the perspective of the powerless or the marginalised, unity is often not the solution to their predicaments, because it too often serves a rhetoric of power that sacrifices diversity.

I would argue this happens where the churches have stopped receiving from the poor and marginalised, where the churches have been too concerned with ordering their relationships with each other to the negligence of their relationship with the rest of the world.

Neighbourhood Church 5: Power

The problem is that presence, prayer, practice and proclamation are not always enough.  If churches genuinely care for their communities there are times when they must confront the principalities and powers.

I have already described the participative method Citizens' Organising and in the United States, churches have acted together to change policies that have a negative impact on their neighbourhoods (see Linthicum's Building a People of Power).  In Britain Citizens' Organising has been tried and has not been found to be very successful.  Many of its insights are helpful but a combination of British culture and political arrangements accounts for this.

I still maintain that churches need to take Power seriously.  I have suggested that in their relationships with the world outside of the churches, churches together need to engage in transformational reception.  It is not enough to provide services to our communities, however empowering they may be.  A further step needs to be taken to change things for the better.

So, here are a few points for local churches who wish to exercise power together:

1. Churches need to think very carefully about power and how they use it.  It is easy to use power for conquest.  This is not the example of Jesus.  It is easy to use power to impose solutions on unwilling people.  This is not about Christian hegemony.  It is about the churches leading and organising to bring about change for mutual benefit.
2. Churches choosing to do this need to understand the need for consent.  They do not have the material resources to challenge government policy and so their power derives from organised people.  This means there needs to be an active building of consensus through conversations, the use of force will simply not work.
3. Whilst it is possible to get away with isolated working for the first four Ps, this type of mutual power is only possible where churches are able to work together.  This should be the focus of local conversations.  National leadership can encourage these approaches but have a minimal contribution to make.
4. It is local issues that need to be the initial focus.  As the recession bites and other intractable problems kick in, it is the local focus that will result in some successes.
5. As churches develop this focus, it is possible they might also have an impact at the national level.  But this has implications for how churches work, particularly in terms of leadership. 

The ecumenical vision has to turn outwards if it is to survive.  The luxury of ongoing debates about the minutiae of faith and order are no longer seen as relevant locally.  But the problem remains, identifying what is relevant locally and how churches might effectively work together.  I will in future suggest new approaches and where possible quote examples where new initiatives seem to be working.

Neighbourhood Church 1: Presence

This short series about neighbourhood church will look in more depth at the role of churches in their neighbouthoods.  This builds upon several strands, (1) conversations as the basic ecumenical activity; (2) the development of an understanding of transformational reception as a basic characteristic of local ecumenism; and (3) the fourth chapter of Linthicum's Building a People of Power.

The latter proposes a basic four plus one approach to active church in a neighbourhood.  I will not refer to Linthicum very much as my purpose is to explore the role of churches together in exercising reception from the place they find their mission to be in.

The point is that churches are often the community organisations with the longest standing commitment to their neighbourhoods.  Churches can be present for decades or even centuries.  This Presence is important where the people who use church buildings see their calling not to their faith but the people they live amongst.  This can be expressed in a variety of ways:

1. I have already touched on an important aspect of Presence a few days ago when I posted about unstructured meeting places.
2. The ability to enter into conversations with ease and without embarrassment, grows naturally out of traditional ecumenical conversations.  The goal of any conversation is not to convert but to find a new place together, which neither side has inhabited before.  A conversation with someone who does not believe may help the believer see the weaknesses in their own faith, to understand and know God more intimately.  Hopefully this will be a discovery for all those who take part.  The Methodist publication Time to Talk of God seeks to help church members enter into conversations short of evangelism.  But even good evangelism is in essence conversation rather than proselytising.  I'll explore this in more detail in a few posts time.
3. Being a place of quiet, of inspiration of sanctuary.  Many neighbourhoods lack somewhere people can go for inspiration.  Churches are often full of art that no longer speaks to modern people or look like community centres and offer nothing beyond another meeting space.  The design of our meeting spaces needs to be done sensitively, as a response to the neighbourhood and not a criticism of it.  Father Jamieson's book Finding Sanctuary shows how many people are seeking sanctuary and raises the question in my mind, why are churches so bad at providing it?

Local people are seeking signs from our churches of a commitment to them and their lives.  Churches should never be havens for the chosen few but open to and committed to the places they find themselves in.  Churches alone cannot provide all that is needed; to fully address the complexities of a neighbourhood requires commitment from many traditions.

From Structural to Relational Unity

I intend to develop the theme of mutuality further but before I do that, perhaps this is a good point to step back and ask why it is important to ecumenism.

Throughout this blog I am developing a theology of ecumenism based upon oikoumene, the reconciliation of all things to God, rather than the ecumenism which focuses upon reconciliation of the churches.  After the failure of the English Covenant during the early 1980s, the enthusiasm for structural unity began to fall away.  In 1987, the Swanwick Agreement led to the Churches Together approach, an approach based on relationships rather than structures.  Here we are 20 years on and it seems Swanwick was ahead of its time.  The mainstream churches still cling to the old vision whilst other churches and younger generations have abandoned structural unity and are developing their own approach to relational unity.

We need an approach which contextualises ecumenism within the world as we find it.  My approach is to develop a theological approach to conversations.

Clearly if we understand conversations to mean simply talks between churches we will not progress very far.  This is where Kahane's typology of conversations and particularly his generative type of conversation is so important.

Generative conversations embody a collective commitment to act according to a shared vision.  So does mutuality as a shared economic vision.  Mutuality is a word we use to describe generative conversation.

At some time in the future I will introduce the theme of post-Christendom to this blog.  Some churches see their calling as a return to the authentic witness of the first century church.  This is a view with which I have some sympathy but my question is whether it goes far enough.  It is easy for a small congregationalist church to claim authenticity.  Maybe they are right but if they are it is still not good enough.

Why not?  Because our call is not to simply save ourselves but the transformation of the whole of creation.  When the churches ignore this greater calling, called sanctification by Wesley, then things go wrong for everyone.

The reason I focus on issues such as the economy is that I believe it is by focusing on these issues together, the churches will be much more effective than attempting to be authentic alone. 

I have called this dimension of ecumenism transformational reception. 

Less Ecumenism, more Oikoumene

Throughout this blog I have contrasted the words ecumenism and oikoumene.  I use the English word in the narrow sense of relations between churches, whilst the Greek I use to mean the wider reconciliation of the whole cosmos to God.

When we consider the content, the 'What?' of ecumenical conversations, it is hard for me to resist the call of this wider subject area.  Indeed, oikoumene is the topic of transformational reception, my third dimension of ecumenical conversations.

Of course, what I can't resist is easily resisted by most ecumenists.  Usually ecumenical conversations are about the churches.  How churches differ and how they might change to accommodate each other.  This accounts for many of the difficulties modern ecumenism is encountering.  Most people are voting with their feet because they no longer see the point.

We face a time in the early twentieth century something like the Edwardian era in the last century.  It was a logical continuation of the Victorian era, brought to an abrupt end in 1914.  Similarly, we have seen a growth in wealth, primarily but lately not exclusively in the West, which has continued throughout my life, effectively since the end of the second world war.  We all know it cannot go on for ever.  So far our political leadership has kept up the pretense that we can continue with business as usual.  More people learn each day that all of us are living a lie.  So, now what?

Let's face it the churches have colluded with the politicians.  The call of transformational reception is to address this wider oikoumene, to bring the inherited wealth and wisdom of our traditions to bear upon what is happening to humanity.  The contribution ecumenism can make to oikoumene is to bring more than one approach to bear.  Through ecumenical conversations, we have all learned much more of our own and others traditions, let's use that knowledge for the benefit of all.

Does this mean I'm advocating the abandonment of our formal talks?  Not exactly.  What we need to do is recognise that our traditions do not stay the same, what we see as the same tradition 100 years ago is significantly different to the tradition we know today.  Why do traditions change?  Because of their encounter with the world, the wider oikoumene.   

Now we have an opportunity to move forward together.  A complex interplay of traditions entering into a complex exchange with the wider world.  This is God's call to God's churches, to respond to his call to move onto the wider oikoumene.

Who should take part in Ecumenical Conversations?

So, yesterday I answered the question, why conversations?  Conversations are not just playing with words, they are at their best generative of something new.  We will return to this many times but it is worth asking to what extent ecumenical conversations are generative of something new.

Over the next few days I want to address three similar questions.  We have covered 'why?', the next is 'who?'. Following on their will be 'what?' and 'how?'. 

So, who should take part in ecumenical conversations?  In today's ecumenical movement, it is hard to escape the sense that it is the formal talks that count.  The idea seems to be that you place your best theologians at the centre, and they meet with best theologians of other traditions.  Once they agree it is taken for granted the traditions are in agreement.

This leaves aside the question of ecumenical reception.  Why should local churches, perhaps thousands of them accept what has been decided, often behind closed doors?  This is compounded by the problems these centralised talks get into.  It is often difficult for local churches to understand why the centre has got to where it has. 

I once sat through a fascinating conversation about the shape of the table for these talks.  Apparently, if it is a round table it sends out a different message to a square one.  Maybe it does, after all round tables do have advantages over square or rectangle ones; as a person who is hard of hearing I'm all for round tables.  But if the usual people are sat around the round table, does it make any difference?  Precious little in my view.

If we are to make progress, then conversations at all levels of the churches have to be regarded as of equal value.  Obviously it is in the nature of things that some conversations will go better than others, so what I mean is that we should not expect the answers we're seeking to come solely out of central conversations - everyone has a contribution to make and has a similar interest in the outcome.

There are two immediate problems people will have with this.  First, not everyone can be trusted with the niceties of the theological debate.  Truth is not determined by the majority but is perhaps determined by the few who are right.  I'm not suggesting a free-for-all.  Any group of Christians undertaking serious conversations have to start where their churches are, not where they would like them to be.  They must be challenged to engage with the reality of where they are.  This objection boils down to a lack of trust the leadership has in the majority of Christian people.  This problem isn't with the people, it is with the leaders.

The other problem is if there are hundreds of conversations, how can we keep track of them all?  There are a few methods that can be employed, some used by growing movements across the world addressing issues such as climate change.  I will explore these later.  The other big change is the rise of Web2.  The use of blogging software, can enable conversations not only on line but also through posting of in the flesh conversations.  

Does this mean we don't need leaders?  No, it doesn't.  We need new leadership skills to enable conversations to take place freely but mindful of the real issues facing the traditions.  We also will still need academics, particularly those able to undertake empirical research of qualitative data.  It should keep them going for a while! 

Ecumenism and the U model

There are plenty of precedents for schism in the history of Christian churches.  Falling out over matters of doctrine is always a possibility where our primary focus is on preserving doctrinal insights from the past.  The Presence U model encourages us to focus on the future, on new insights to the faith we have yet to experience.

About a week ago, I started to explore the U model and how it might relate to the Christian faith.  Today, I want to look at how it might help us understand the ecumenical task.

I don't want to forget the many achievements ecumenism has made over the years.  In the UK relationships between the mainstream traditions are very positive.  There is at present a level of positive work together unthinkable before the second world war.  There have been major steps forward, most prominently the Methodist Deed of Union in 1932 and the formation of the United Reformed Church in 1972.  Around the world there are several United or Uniting Churches. 

One problem is that we may be victims of this success.  This success suggests that full visible unity is achieved by uniting churches.  This is achieved through formal talks that aim to resolve differences between churches, so they can move towards formal unity.  Indeed these churches can claim a significant degree of success.  Advances in understanding has done much to remove the suspicion between churches.  The remaining problems are I think these:

1. There remain many significant churches outside of formal ecumenism.  In the UK a major split is between the ecumenical instruments such as Churches Together in Britain and Ireland or Churches Together in England on the one hand and the Evangelical Alliance (EA) on the other.  The EA is a much larger organisation than the mainstream ecumenical instruments, at least in terms of staff.  I suspect there are many churches that are outside the EA too.  These will include Pentecostal, Charismatic and Evangelical Churches that choose to be completely independent.  Also, BME (black and minority ethnic) churches, some of which are 'home grown' and others branches of of movements from overseas.  There are also smaller house churches and fresh expressions which for one reason or another do not join wider organisations.  How meaningful would full visible unity be if it excluded some or all of these churches?
2. Formal conversations are often said to help participants understand their own tradition better.  The downside of this from the point of full visible unity is that as our own tradition becomes clearer we find more obstacles to unity!  Certainly ecumenism can come over sometimes as defensive of traditions, rather than a willingness to make the first move towards unity.
3. Not everyone involved in mainstream ecumenism shares the objective of full visible unity. 
4. For some a movement through bilateral conversations towards one tradition is a move further from another.  For example, women bishops will help the Church of England in its search for unity with the Methodist Church but distances it further from the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.
5. Even where agreements have been made through formal conversations, they are not always acceptable to local churches.  This is not always expressed through forthright resistance, but sometimes by simply ignoring the agreements.

All of these factors and possibly more account for a sense of stuck-ness amongst the churches in the UK.  The churches have had the dialogues and are even contemplating conversations where they try on the shoes of other traditions as it were, through receptive ecumenism.  But trying new things works only when old assumptions are set aside.

Vision according to Presence is not just words, it is something that is discovered in the future by being acted out now.  To perceive something new the churches must find a new route based upon trust and faith.  They must trust one another and have faith that by stepping out together they will discover a new ecumenical vision.  I have called this dimension of ecumenism transformative reception.

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.

Transformational Reception

I am working on a new subtitle for this blog.  My working draft is: 'A radical Wesleyan approach to transformation through ecumenical conversations'.

This is meant to pull together many of the strands I have covered over the last few weeks and I will try to outline here how I see it coming together.

Radical Wesleyan

My roots are in radical theology and so I think 'radical' is important but my roots are also in Methodism and I think from a Methodist perspective Wesley is important and especially his doctrine of sanctification.

Furthermore, sanctification is the key to unlocking the third dimension of reception.  Wesley was a high church Tory and yet against his own preconceptions he introduced several radical approaches to the Christian faith.  From 'consenting to become more vile' over field preaching to his ordination of ministers for America, and many other times, he acted with reluctance but decisively.  I think the reason is that his conservative inclinations were covered by the first two dimensions of reception (ie receptive ecumenism between traditions and ecumenical reception between the local and central church) but the third dimension (the new industrial poor in particular) radicalised him.  Here the issue was reception by the world of the Christian faith but also reception by the church from the world.  I shall name this dimension 'transformational reception'. 

Transformation ('transformational reception')

This is where we find reception of ideas by and from the world.  The other two dimensions (the traditions, and local and central church) are largely internal conversations whilst this dimension opens up these other two dimensions to the reality of the world as it is.

The churches observe the world and respond to the world through the inspiration of the spirit.  Without this third dimension ecumenism becomes an inward and solipcistic activity.  Increasingly little of what the traditions say to the world will make sense or seem relevant or even loving.  This is why so much street preaching these days is marginal; most of the groups that practice it are sectarian and live in their own world cut off from the reality most people experience. 

Ecumenical conversations

The tendency is for formal ecumenism to be understood in a linear fashion.  It is communication of my tradition to others, ecumenical decisions to local churches and the faith to the rest of the world.  My point is that each of these dimensions is two way; they are conversations.  The challenge to ecumenists is to learn to work in these three dimensions and in both directions.

A further complexity depends upon how we understand conversations.  First, conversations are not second best to action.  To enter into a good conversation is to act, even though it may be an exchange of words.  But conversations do not have to be words; any action that causes a response is a conversation.  In this sense the divine word is not only spoken but also acted.

So far I can think of three distinct categories of conversation for transformational reception:

• Conversations, usually verbal between the traditions and the world; secularists and people of other faiths.  Each tradition may well have such conversations of its own but there needs to be a pooling of insights and ideas, if not full collaboration.
• Conversations that consist of interventions into matters of socio-economic reality.  A great deal of ecumenical chaplaincy work, community work and even campaigning will come under this heading.
• Science and the study of the cosmos as a whole.  An experiment or field observation can be seen as a conversation.  Each tradition will of course have its own interpretation of scientific findings.

The study of missiology has a term Missio Dei, by which is meant God taking the initiative in mission;the experience of finding God already active in the most unexpected places.  I'm not sure whether this is any different from what Wesley meant by prevenient grace.  Transformational reception incorporates this activity into my model of ecumenism.  It also begins to offer us a theoretical framework for understanding 'mission in unity'.