Exploring Ecumenism

Delight in the Law of the Lord

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.

Psalm 1: 1 - 3

I can only conclude this was included as a space filler.  I can't see what this has to do with ecumenism, let alone the main section heading 'Recognising that we belong together' or the subheading 'Interdependence and partnership'.  It does not seem in any way to relate to the other passages under this subheading.

I have another problem with this passage and that is it needs to be read in the context of the New Testament.  The law has been superceded by grace and peace in Jesus Christ.  Whilst this does not invalidate it, it does mean we have a different focus or should have. 

Ultimately the law on its own is divisive.  We see this in the way the Pharisees used the law to exalt their own position in Jesus' day.  We see it in the way churches have used the law to justify marginalisation of those who break it.

A few nights ago we read the story of Jesus' last week in Matthew.  It included this verse (21:32): 'For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him ...'

Leaving aside how disconcerting it might be for both tax collectors and prostitutes to be lumped together in this way, we should understand it is they who really meditate on the law!  If you know sin, you somehow also know the law.  You understand the nature of the hypocrisy Jesus inveighs at in these chapters.

It is those who inhabit the margins who know the law, value the law and desire to follow the law.  Do they prosper?  At this question the Pharisee rushes to the head of the queue and claims 'I prosper unlike the tax collectors and prostitutes'.  The latter turn away humiliated.

And yet is it not those who turn away humiliated, those who know the reality of the law and of hypocrisy, who are like trees planted by streams of water?

Keep On Loving with All Your Heart

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 1:22

I will focus on 5 words in four paragraphs.

'Obedience to the truth' raises a number of issues for the modern reader.  I have previously explored the meaning of the word 'obedience'.  It means to listen and the opposite of obedience is not disobedience but 'acting inappropriately'.  So, we must not  understand it as following orders; it may be obedient to refuse to follow orders.

So understood, obedience helps us understand the meaning of truth.  We see obedience to the truth as discerning the truth and then acting appropriately.

The fifth word is 'heart'.  An atheist friend told me the other day, the heart is only a pump.  Some argue it is the seat of emotion.  Maybe it is but I don't find this particularly helpful.  If we can use heart and emotions interchangeably, we are just using heart to obscure what we mean.

I prefer to think of heart as a way to stay focused on love.  Our thoughts too often get in the way.  When we need to act, the state of our heart determines how we act.  Through prayer we can change the disposition of our hearts towards love or away from it.  To be sanctified is to have a heart full of God's love all the time.  Is this possible?  There's only one way to find out.

Related articles

• We Are His Children (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

To Gather Up All Things in Him

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.

Ephesians 1: 7 - 12

This passage moves between past, present and future, although not necessarily in that order.  It focuses on Oikoumene, the ultimate reconciliation of all things to God.  But we need to understand this is pointless, unless it makes a difference in the here and now.

So, the author begins in the present, reminding his readers of their experience of gifts of redemption and forgiveness.  A third gift we have here and now is knowledge of the mystery of his will; the gathering up of all things in Christ, in heaven and on earth.

It is interesting how Universalist this passage seems to be.  It does say 'all things'.  The main problem with Universalism is, to imply all will be saved rather subverts the idea that a saviour is necessary.  My understanding of the Methodist take on this question is that it is God's intention that all shall be saved.  There is, however, no certainty that all will be saved.  If there is free will then there must always be the possibility that some will not choose God.

I feel great discomfort with the idea that we must fear the wrath of God.  God is wrathful certainly, but the wrath is not directed to those who don't believe in evangelical doctrine.  It is directed against the oppressors, those who exploit others for personal gain, lust for power or take pleasure in cruelty.  Make no mistake about it, these are the true atheists.  Whether or how they might be saved need not detain us here.

Christians are not called to condemn those who do not believe.  They are called to lead the way in every generation.  The passage deals with the past in its final verses.  Christians have obtained an inheritance, they are destined, they are the first and live for the praise of Christ's glory.

To be destined is to be selected for a purpose.  It does not necessarily imply anything about those who are not selected.  They surely have a destination too and this might be facilitated in a positive way by those who have already been selected.  It is easy to jump to the conclusion that we are called for our own benefit rather than the benefit of others.

The problem from an ecclesiological point of view is this reading of the passage sets aside the necessity for church.  Institutional structures are not necessary for salvation.  They support those who choose to live in the way of Jesus Christ but are not necessary as institutions.  This will be a less than welcome idea for several traditions.  There is more to be said about this.

Related articles

• One Flock, One Shepherd (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• A Great Nation (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

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)

Why Unity is Essential to Mission

Image via Wikipedia

Previously I suggested the formula 'Mission and Unity' is incomplete and we need to add a third leg, formation.  On deeper analysis I suggest 'Mission and Formation' would be a better pairing, as both are essential.

Unity is harder to place with the other two.  One reason for this is the experience of many churches, who find they do not need unity for mission.  It could be argued the Roman Catholic Church, is huge and so clearly able to support 1.2 billion believers' needs.  It doesn't need unity with other traditions for its success.  Similarly, Protestant churches tend to grow by splitting.  They are re-energised by splitting!

I remember as a child watching Thunderbirds.  International Rescue had five vehicles.  Thunderbird One was the frontline vehicle, which got there first and delivered immediate support and appraised the situation.  Thunderbird Two was much bigger and slower.  It followed on to supply necessary equipment.  I was always disappointed Thunderbird Four, the submarine, was carried by Thunderbird Two alongside several other machines which for some reason didn't count as Thunderbirds!  Of the five Thunderbirds, it is the only one not on the poster!

Similarly, unity is important but integral to formation.  Outside formation, what role does unity have?  Mission is possible without formation, perhaps disastrously but it is possible to perform a sort of hit and run evangelism (arguably this is worse than not doing it at all).  Unity is a step in our formation as Christians; essential but subsidiary.

Initially a convert is formed in a single tradition.  A brief exploration of Christian blogs will lead to  encounters with writers who claim their tradition is the only true church.  Some of these are Protestant, others Catholic or Orthodox.  A non-Christian encountering these competing absolute claims would face a dilemma.  How do I choose between competing absolute truth claims?

Usually converts are touched by a single tradition and formed by that tradition.  To encounter the fullness of the diversity of the Christian faith with many competing truth claims, is a step in formation.  The immature might erect fences and bolster their truth claims but sooner or later the reality is undeniable.

At the point where a tradition encounters and embraces other traditions, their formation and mission will be transformed.  It is at this point they encounter the reality of God's love in all its depth and breadth. 

For Methodists, this is part of their commitment to sanctification.  It is commonly believed Arminianism is inclusive, opens the church to all comers of every tradition.  In fact, Arminianism is more complex.  It is initially exclusive.  It invites those who wish to make a commitment to be a part of a church or class and put down roots.  As roots into the tradition deepen, then the walls come down as the people sanctified have the confidence to embrace the other.

There is a single virtue that helps them to do this and my next post will describe it.

Related articles

• Mission, Unity and Formation (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• The Mission and Unity Problem (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• Spiritual Direction (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• The Diversity of Spiritual Direction (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• Mission and Unity (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• Ecumenism and Culture (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

Spiritual Direction

Image via Wikipedia

Contextual theology considers every tradition to be formed through a conversation between a particular time and place and the Christian faith.  It does not cover solely those faith traditions, eg black, feminist, liberation, Asian, etc that differ from those of Western Europe.  The growth of new traditions is natural for a living faith.  Faith is not just words on paper but lives lived in many contexts and the insights shared are a small part of what is experienced on the ground.

Given this natural diversity, catholicity is essential for Christian unity.  However, it does not imply all traditions are equally valid.  The point is (1) all traditions are lacking, and (2) no-one knows for certain the frailties of either their own or anyone else's tradition.  Receptive ecumenism addresses this in its exploration of exchanges of gifts between traditions, where each tradition seeks from others what is lacking from its own.

The mainstream traditions are compromises between a variety of traditions who determine to collaborate despite their differences.  Their purpose is threefold (at least) - mission and unity, of course, and also spiritual direction.  In the Roman Catholic traditions this is known as formation; in the Wesleyan traditions as sanctification.  

John Wesley was not only the greatest evangelist since St Paul but also a skilled spiritual director.  He saw the need for spiritual direction amongst the new urban poor and he set up the structures (Methodist societies) whereby the poor could be spiritual directors for each other.  Formation was at the core of the early Methodist movement.

And I would maintain it is just as essential today as it ever was.  When the evangelicals of the 1970s found Methodism wanting, they took the wrong road.  They separated themselves into purist groups and focused on evangelism.  It had disappointing results because it failed to form its converts.  It failed to form its converts because it did not trust the wider Methodist Church.  Today, Methodism's evangelicals seem to have recognised the importance of formation within the church. 

Evidence of the importance of formation can be seen in the work of Father Christopher Jamieson of Worth Abbey.  I have written before of his BBC TV programme 'The Monastery' in 2005 and the book that followed it, 'Finding Sanctuary'.  Recently, he has fronted another BBC programme, 'The Big Silence' which once again  demonstrated the hunger people have for God, even some who do not recognise God exists.

We need therefore to recognise three legs to the churches' ministry; mission, unity and formation.

Related articles

• On the Nature of Evangelism (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• The Mission and Unity Problem (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• An Evangelical Problem (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

Belonging to More than One Tradition

Image by Diego Plentz via Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a recent post, I discussed Harmon's book and his argument against a rejection of denominationalism amongst the young.  In this post, I intend to put the case for belonging to more than one tradition.

I don't disagree with Harmon at all and indeed, I tend to agree that digging deep into a single tradition has significant advantages.  I believe we are formed by our traditions.  Years of singing Methodist hymns has formed my beliefs in ways I am gradually becoming aware of. 

Wesley's Arminianism was in some respects exclusive.  John Wesley warmily invited those who did not like the Methodist way to move to other traditions.  His reason for this was that he wanted a people committed to meeting in classes for spiritual direction.  They would put down roots deep into the faith, under the guidance of each other.  Only then could they open their doors to others.

However, from an ecumenical point of view belonging to more than one tradition can have advantages.  Often people who, for example, are brought up in one tradition and then change to another, can in later life play a significant role bridging the two traditions.  This might be something like a translater who understands both traditions.

Many Methodists, for example, worship in other churches.  They might worship at the parish church and join the parochial parish council.  Is it possible for them to retain their identity as Methodists?  It is certainly possible to be formally a member of the Methodist Church, whilst fully committed to Anglican Parish life.  And many would argue they are still Methodists although to all appearances fully committed to the Parish.

This becomes even more important when we ask, what makes a Methodist?  What is central to Methodist identity?  (The same argument would apply to any tradition.)  If the Methodist Church were allowed to die and to become a part of a wider tradition such as the Church of England, would the Methodists remain Methodist?

The question is, what aspects of Methodism are core to Methodist self-identity?  Is it connexionalism?  Is it Arminianism?  Some Methodists would, I suspect, have no problem with this.  Some because they are latecomers who have not taken on board Methodism, simply worshipping in a particular church because they like it.  But even life long Methodists might find it possible to remain a Methodist in another tradition.  Others would not.

Perhaps it is those who have already made this type of transition who could show the way.  The challenge is how in unity, we can maintain our diversity.  

Related articles

• What do we mean by 'Arminianism'? (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Better Together (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Archbishop of Canterbury at Methodist Conference 3 (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

Is Evolution Calvinist?

And so we arrive at Wesley's third great doctrine : Sanctification.  If Justification  is the decision to tread the narrow path between order and chaos; between license and morality, then Sanctification is how in practice we tread that path.  Sanctification is a lifelong journey; nothing like a life committed to one or the other of those so-called alternatives.

Wesley's theology is future-orientated.  For Calvinists, God is the all-powerful creator, who made the world, just so.  Everything was determined from the very beginning, down to who will and who will not be saved.  Their focus is on the past.

For Wesleyans, the future is more important.  From humanity's perspective, creation is incomplete.  The invitation is to contribute to the completion of God's creation.  This means all people can be saved.  Nothing is predestined. 

Justification and Imperialism

In my last post , I argued the Christian doctrine of Original Sin and the theory of evolution are entirely compatible.  This is something of an embarrassment because Augustine of Hippo's doctrine of original sin has encouraged so much Christian censoriousness.  He argued that the sin (of Adam and Eve) is communicated through the sex act and this has been enough to justify a fear of sex, damaging to the life of the church, including the position of women, who have been accused of the fall in much the same way as the Jews are accused of murdering Jesus.

Original sin is the first of Wesley's three great doctrines and so we need to look at the other two before we arrive at a final conclusion.  The next is Justification by faith. 

The Ichneumon Wasp

Williams goes on to quote another Australian colleague, who shares the national gift for chucking a bonzer phrase, on the Ichneumonid wasps, whose designer, if there was one, 'must have been a sadistic bastard'.  Darwin, although he visited Australia as a young man, expressed the same sentiment in staider, less antipodean terms: 'I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars.'  (From: The Greatest Show on Earth  by Richard Dawkins, page 370)

This criticism of the Christian faith, boils down to the question: why does God allow suffering?  In this and the next two posts I will attempt a theological response.  I will show evolution is a threat not to the Christian faith but to some interpretations of it.