Exploring Ecumenism

Positive and Negative Reflections upon Receptive Ecumenism

I will return to the Receptive Ecumenism Conference in future as the conference papers become available.  In this post I shall summarise my current position.  The conference was only a week ago and there is an immense amount to assimilate.  To structure my comments I will refer to previous posts about two and three dimensional ecumenical reception.

Receptive ecumenism between traditions

In many ways this is the dimension where receptive ecumenism makes the most helpful contribution.  Its contribution is to offer a new distinctive objective to ecumenical conversations.  Formal talks tend to seek ways in which we can persuade other traditions to become more like our own tradition.  This approach recognises that all traditions are deficient in some ways and that other traditions may be able to offer new approaches to tackling these deficiencies.  The deeper hope is that if this is pursued with sufficient vigour the traditions will move closer together.  I see this as being both in terms of cognitive closeness, in that certain beliefs might converge but perhaps more significantly in terms of affective closeness.  The latter would be where each tradition learns to value the contribution of others and will seek to preserve other traditions for their contribution to the larger Christian project.

Whilst I welcome all of this I am not able to shake off a degree of suspicion that ecumenical reception is a strategy to maintain the faith and order debate.  So long as it is seen as a means to deliver ecumenical reception of faith and order agreements I think it will be viewed with suspicion in some places.  The problem is that the normative model of formal church decision making processes has not been examined critically.  This can be seen more clearly as we move onto the second dimension.

Receptive ecumenism within traditions

I would not in any way wish to convey the impression that the local church was ignored but whilst formal conversations between church leaders are the main game in town, it is inevitable that the local church is marginalised in thinking.  The Centre for Catholic Studies is conducting a three year collaborative research project to assist with understanding receptive ecumenism amongst local churches.  This is an empirical study and as such it is to be welcomed but I have some methodological reservations.

The project reads as a comparative study of local churches in various traditions in the north east.  It seems an odd omission that the study does not include an examination of ecumenical relationships between these local churches.  A couple of us raised this point at the conference and the response was that the team conducting the project is ecumenical.  There was not much time spent on the topic and it may well be that this will be addressed now it has been raised, as some of the local people present promised to raise this directly with the project.

It is an interesting response though because it may betray underlying top-down assumptions.  The problem is to get the results of formal talks adopted locally and we do that by examining local churches, identifying their problems and then seeking amongst the traditions for solutions.  By omitting talks between local churches from the study, those talks are devalued.

Whilst this opens up a number of assumptions which need examination it perhaps also illustrates that church leaders and academics do not know how to manage the practicalities of multiple local talks.  This does not mean they don't happen or that they don't count.  What it means is that local churches will never behave as they are expected to because the reality of their relationships is not visible from a national or formal perspective.

Receptive ecumenism between the traditions and the rest of the world.

The conference was very full and deliberately did not include mission as a major theme in its programme.  This was referred to from time to time but the place of mission with respect to receptive ecumenism remains something of a mystery.  I think the reason for this is that very little theology was offered that enabled the role of mission in ecumenical relationships to be made visible. 

Given that many churches prioritise mission and evangelism this is somewhat unfortunate.  Do we really want to continue with the impression that ecumenism and mission are somehow independent or even in competition?  There is an urgency to straightening out these relationships because the world is moving on and will not wait upon Christians' conversations.  The implications of climate change for example place ecumenical conversations into context.

The conference mentioned justification several times and seemed to see this doctrine (however expressed) as  a means of addressing mission.  Unfortunately, it is a doctrine that relates directly to inner church matters and to evangelism rather than mission as a whole.  As the conference progressed it seemed to me that sanctification might be a better doctrine to use when addressing these issues.  This is something I will explore further in future posts.

A Message to Western Churches

Receptive Ecumenism Conference - Wednesday 14 January 2009

One Australian speaker during the final plenary told a story about what people say to him during his travels around Asia and the Pacific (I paraphrase).

Why do you not express the gift of God to churches in the west?  You always talk about the decline of your churches.  We see your ecumenical behaviours.  Are you not ungrateful to God who cares for you so deeply?  Are you not being idolatrous by not receiving this gift?  Turning away is the Biblical meaning of idolatry.

Apostleship: Conversations with Pentecostal Churches

Receptive Ecumenism Conference - Tuesday 13 January 2009

Professor Veli-Matti Karkkainen, from the University of Helsinki spoke about receptive ecumenism and Pentecostalism.

It seems those churches usually described as Pentecostal cover a variety of theologies and many of them are currently asking what they can learn from the mainstream churches.  The professor identified three areas which might be fruitful for further exploration. 

1. Apostleship as a way into understanding ecumenical mission.  Apostleship is a dialectic and dynamic concept.  Most churches have some sense of apostleship as their case for continuity with the first century Christians. 
2. The quest for mutual recognition of ideas about apostleship.  The older churches might be able to help Pentecostal churches understand its meaning, if they are able to interpret their traditions together.
3. Ecclesiology from below.  This relates to many empirical studies of church life.  For Pentecostals the early churches were self-determining and so a congregationalist approach to ecclesiology is appropriate.

To me an Apostle is a church leader who is not present.  Paul wrote letters and John Wesley travelled around Britain on horseback.  The Apostle visits on rare occasions and their role is one of oversight, to strengthen those features which are true to the faith and to identify where local churches are departing from the faith.  This style of leadership leaves local churches with significant freedom to determine their direction.  This is an important idea and I shall return to it later in connection with how John Wesley supported early Methodism. 

The more traditional churches trace back apostolic succession to the first Apostles.  This forms a basic understanding of church and this succession for those churches is a basic requirement of ecumenism.  The Methodist Church in Britain has struggled with finding some meaningful way of accepting historic episcope.  The difficulties for the churches with a historic episcope is the danger of clouding the original vision through a mist of tradition.  For the Pentecostals and similar churches, their claim of being like the early church is undermined where such claims are received uncritically.  A dialogue in this theme might therefore help both types of church.

Receptive Ecumenism or Ecumenical Reception?

Receptive Ecumenism Conference - Sunday 11 January  2009

There are times when the ecumenical enterprise makes you want to scream!  So, receptive ecumenism is not the same as ecumenical reception.  Tell that to your congregation.  As I understand it ecumenical reception is where an agreement from formal ecumenical conversations is (or is not) received into the life of the whole church.  Receptive ecumenism is where a tradition recognises its own weaknesses and seeks support from other traditions.

So for receptive ecumenism:

1. No tradition is perfect, all encounter problems, difficulties and dysfunctions.  Just as an individual might seek counselling when they encounter problems, so traditions can look to others for support.  So receptive ecumenism can be thought if as therapeutic.
2. Receptive ecumenism has no programme for change.  It is open to new insights from other traditions.  It will turn to neighbouring churches rather than take recourse in doctrine (where the problem might be).
3. A shared problem is an opportunity to learn something of the deep instincts of the other.

My main problem with this is that the focus is still upon traditions talking to other traditions at the centre.  There is no sense so far of local churches being involved in the dialogue.  To some degree this is a matter of emphasis but is there also a lack of the particular skills needed to enable local conversations to be heard?

An Ecumenical Winter?

Sunday 11 January - Receptive Ecumenism Conference

In his lecture Donald Bolan suggested that although formal talks had made some tangible progress, the results had been far from adequately received.  He suggested this had resulted in slippage where before there had been consensus.

Some people are saying we are in the midst of an ecumenical winter, although others argue the setbacks might be a sign of transformation.  Certainly the context has changed:

1. there has been a decline in the mainstream churches and a growth in evangelical churches, particularly in the global south
2. there have been internal tensions and fragmentation, the arguments over sexuality in the Anglican communion are usually quoted as an example
3. the weakness of confessional identity has led a movement away from a focus on resolution of ecclesiological issues to a simpler desire for mutual recognition.

If receptive ecumenism is likely to address these issues we need to remember that it is formulated to continue formal talks by other means.  As such my concern is that behind receptive ecumenism we might still see the unregarded model of ecumenical talks as something that happens between senior people and the results passed down to the local churches.

This may have had a degree of success in the 1960s but now, for a variety of reasons, local churches are less likely to view these results with equanimity.  Writing now at the end of the conference I feel that whilst some the insights of receptive ecumenism may be helpful, its academic origins mask a deeper model that is unconscious and hardly addressed at all.

Four Priorities for Local Receptive Ecumenism

Receptive Ecumenism Conference:  Sunday 11 January 2009

As usual at these events we were asked about our hopes and expectations.  These were mine.  They're all about how ecumenical issues might be shared and developed locally.  I hope we will be able to

1. explore how local churches together might share in strategic thinking about ecumenism.  It is a fallacy that you need to be at least at national level to work strategically.  Communications and new approaches to participative group work should assist with this.
2. Theological papers should carry a Crystal Mark for plain English. 
3. consider seriously how to engage the interest of people aged under 30 years.
4. consider how theologians and others might transfer some of the debates to the Internet.  There is an urgent need to explore what can and can not be done on line.

Receptive Ecumenism

This week I am participating in a conference at Ushaw College in Durham.  'Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning: Learning to be Church Together' aims to:

1. scrutinise the practise of receptive ecumenism and explore its potential for development,
2. engage with a wide range of traditions to ask 'what can and need we learn with creative integrity from others?'
3. explore the relevance of receptive ecumenism at the level of local church.

So what is receptive ecumenism?  Unfortunately, the academics tell us it is not at all the same as ecumenical reception, although the two are related.  Never fear I will in due course try to explain the distinction once I've got my head around it.  The good news, if you're into this sort of thing, is that it helps flesh out some of the issues in two of my earlier posts about ecumenical reception, where I explored two and three dimensional ecumenical reception.

Receptive ecumenism does not ask that other traditions might change to bring them into line with my own.  Instead it asks whether other traditions have insights which might address the needs of my own tradition.  This serves to flesh out one of the three dimensions in my earlier posts, where traditions are talking to each other.  It remains to be seen how effectively this is addressed and indeed how effectively the other dimensions (local to international churches, mission) are addressed.

In my posts this week I will try to cover briefly some of the issues that emerge for me - I'll try to keep them short!

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.

Ecumenical Reception - conversations in three dimensions?

It appears then that conversations take place in two dimensions; between and within traditions.  But this cannot be the full picture.  William Rusch in Ecumenical Reception writes on page 116:

It should be noted that to date there is virtually no evidence of even partial or preliminary ecumenical reception of ethical or gender issues that are now showing the potential of being church-dividing within and among churches.  Until some clarity is obtained on these subjects, further steps towards ecumenical reception will be hampered.

If the aim of ecumenical reception is full visible unity, it has to be asked what would be the consequence of achieving such a goal?  Our local churches wrestle with a range of ethical issues, sometimes as a result of a decision they have made, sometimes because they're forced to and sometimes without understanding what they are facing.  Sometimes local churches do this together.  Usually, we call this mission and sometimes it is asserted that unity is essential for mission. 

So, two churches of different traditions are wrestling together with a local issue.  How would closer agreement about the conduct of holy communion help them to do this?  Let me be clear, I'm not saying communion is irrelevant to the mission of these churches.  I am saying we need to understand how our ecumenical conversations are relevant to local mission.

The churches in Cleveland were able to collaborate over long term unemployment through RESPOND!  I have no recollection of ever discussing the traditional concerns of ecumenical conversations.  The churches journeyed very deeply into practical theology, especially through Dark Holy Ground but I don't think the formal differences ever made any difference.  It is a long time ago and my memory may be faulty but I think many churches jointly engaged in mission today would also fail to see the link.

Indeed formal ecumenical conversations might even inhibit collaboration if Rusch is right and the churches cannot agree about gender and ethical issues.  The cries asking why we always have to wait for the slowest before we can do anything would be deafening.

Of course, most local churches collaborate over mission and ignore the ecumenical conversations as at best irrelevant and at worst divisive.  Perhaps mission is a third dimension where formal conversations are prepared to enter into dialogue with the issues that engage local churches.  As we contemplate climate change, debt and racism (to name three out of many intractable issues of our time) what do our ecumenical conversations have to contribute? 

Ecumenical Reception - conversations in two dimensions

Let me attempt my own explanation of ecumenical reception.  First, what is meant by reception?  Imagine a major political party that decides on a substantial policy change.  Its first task is to persuade its members.  This is simple basic reception, where a decision is made by the governing body of an organisation and it must ensure, for the decision to be effective, that it is accepted by its members.  A number of factors will come into play and not least amongst these would be the members' understanding of the party's founding principles. 

Reception applies within churches too.  Presumably, the early church would have perceived reception as simply working out the implications of their faith as the widening membership encountered new challenges.  Reception should not be confused with evangelism, which is about telling the good news to new people.  Reception is agreeing on what the believers in fact believe.

Ecumenical reception is more complex because members of various denominations are being asked to receive new ideas that do not originate solely from the councils of their own traditions.

William Rusch's in his book Ecumenical Reception offers a variety of definitions of the term.  One of them, from Gilles Routhier (page 61), has the advantage of being short and perhaps straightforward.

Reception is a spiritual process by which the decisions proposed by a council are received and assimilated into the life of a local church and become for that church a living expression of the apostolic faith.

The way I see it is this.  A council for a major denomination with several thousand local churches make a popular decision.  This decision is so popular that every church agrees with it, enthusiastically endorses it and incorporates it into their life.  The chances are we will find several thousand interpretations of the decision.  Usually, decisions are not so popular, are not successfully explained or passed onto the churches and, if more than one tradition is involved the reality will be even more complex.  In the latter case we may find not only that the councils of the 2 or more traditions differ but where more than one local church addresses the change their views might be jointly and severally different too.  Fortunately, a wide range of interpretations might be acceptable and be perceived as creative interpretation but even so churches will wish to understand and interpret this variety.

These are merely the problems ecumenical reception seeks to address but I suspect there are some problems with the way it is framed.  Return to the Routhier definition and note the movement is all one way from council to local church.  There is no real recognition that there might be a conversation not only between the council and local churches but also between local churches. 

A decision made by a council might be itself in response to demands from local churches, who find existing regulations no longer meet the needs of their mission.  Indeed much ecumenical work begins with local churches, who then ask their councils for changes.  But this will not merely start locally, the dialogue has to continue into the later reception period.  And of course if it is a dialogue, who can predict where it might lead?

Ecumenical reception implies then that ecumenical conversations are not only between traditions but also within them.  Neglect the internal conversations and serious problems are likely to be encountered.

But this is in fact a conversation in three dimensions and I will turn to the third dimension tomorrow.