Exploring Ecumenism: Theoretical Ecumenism

Theoretical Ecumenism

Monday, 14 November 2011

Analytical Theology: A Mixed Blessing?

Ivory Tower Pendant. Image by SelenaAnne via Flickr

This is the first in a series of posts exploring the role of analytical theology in ecumenism. It seems to me there is a problem and I aim to work out its exact nature as I write.

I remember, many years ago in 1981, I started the study year at the Urban Theology Unit. We were warned of the dangers of the type of theology studied by theologians in ivory towers. Urban theology is the theology done on the streets. Anyone can do it and indeed everyone has a theology.

Urban theology is not as chaotic as this might sound. Whilst everyone undoubtedly has a theology (irrespective of whether they know what it is), it does not follow they actively do theology. Doing theology requires discipline, possibly the most important of which is accountability. As we express our theology to others, as we share our stories, those stories and insights are validated through the Christian community. Academic theology sets certain standards but its purpose is best seen in the uses made of it by Christians engaged in living their lives on the streets, or wherever they are.

Central to urban theology (or more generally 'contextual theology') practice is the 'pastoral cycle'. I remember attending a conference, during the early nineties, where I found myself in a workshop with a group of male academics. The other members of the group were all women and the meeting was dominated by the academics. Indeed I was the only non-academic to speak. The theme had been introduced by James Fowler and we had been invited to discuss the pastoral cycle. It seems the academics were setting exam questions about the pastoral cycle! After about two thirds of the time I interrupted and suggested there is a problem. How, I asked, do you select the biblical passage to compare with your experience? I was shouted down for questioning the wisdom of James Fowler. In the dinner queue the women told me they understood my question but found the academics impossible to relate to (they had their backs to us!).

I wish I could say this behaviour is atypical of academic theologians but in my experience it is impossible to break into their world except by the route of study in academic theology, through first degrees and further degrees.

Before I finish this post, I want to make a point in recognition of the contribution analytical theology, a branch of academic theology, has made to ecumenism. I intend to be critical of this approach to theology and the way it dominates the ecumenical scene (in future posts in this sequence). However, I have written before of academic theologians' successes in ecumenism. They have contributed a great deal. Possibly, the best example of their contribution is to the recognition by mainstream churches of one another's validity as Christian traditions. Not so long ago, churches were prepared to go to war for their beliefs.

(I have added a couple of papers at the end of this post, making the case for academic theology. Not all academic theology is analytical. (I will define analytical theology later.) I have sat at the feet of some excellent academic theologians but I have not found analytical theology anywhere near as helpful as other branches of academic theology.)

However, it is time we recognise analytical theology has made its positive contribution to ecumenism because of pressure from local churches doing the spadework, building relationships despite the barriers erected by church hierarchies. Without this pressure I'm not convinced analytical theology would have made the progress it has. Indeed it is not unfair to note that it is academics, in service to church hierarchies, who consistently apply the brakes to relationships that would otherwise blossom without constraint.

What I want to do over this sequence of posts is to attempt to identify the problem the analytical theologians present to the ecumenical movements and the Christian faith as a whole.

Posted at 10:06 PM in Leadership, Theology, Theoretical Ecumenism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, 02 November 2011

Changes Ahead for Exploring Ecumenism

Image by elizabethdonoghue via Flickr

This post is one of my occasional orientations, introducing new themes for Exploring Ecumenism.

When I started this blog back in 2008, I was working for the Methodist Church and have done so until the end of last month, as Assistant Ecumenical Officer. The big change is that I have been made redundant. This will have implications for this blog. My relationships with the ecumenical scene will inevitably change. I will be more dependent upon the internet and my direct experience will be more local. This may not be a bad thing, as I have long doubted the relevance of national ecumenism.

Whilst I was with the Methodist Church, I started a second ecumenical blog, called Methodist Ecumenical News. My intention was to do something quite different from Exploring Ecumenism. EE has always been speculative. I have written mostly about my own thinking about ecumenism. Methodist Ecumenical News was intended to be more of a billboard, drawing attention to what others are doing.

With Methodist Ecumenical News suspended for the time being, if not forever, I plan to add some of its approach to this blog. However, the news sharing depended upon time and opportunity to pick up on things that were happening and those opportunities are harder now. My plan is to explore how I can introduce posts which pick up some of the characteristics of Methodist Ecumenical News, drawing attention to new developments as they come to my attention. My aim will be to combine the notice board elements of Methodist Ecumenical News with the comment typical of this blog.

I will also not be quite so constrained in my comments as I was. I will still adhere to the principle that writing about ecumenism should be constructive and supportive of the work of others but I have already started to introduce material with more of an edge. I will attempt to be an increasingly critical presence on the web because I believe anyone writing or thinking about ecumenism probably encounters a daunting lack of comments on their work.

I should note that my hope back in November 2008, three years ago, was this blog would become a forum for debate. I know it has readers but for whatever reason, few comment. I would value more comments but in their absence, the least I can do is comment on the work of others, hopefully constructively. If that generates debates, it would certainly be a welcome development as far as I'm concerned.

I am increasingly uneasy about the direction of modern ecumenism. I have so far been critical by implication, writing about how I think things should be rather than how they are. I have more freedom now to highlight bad practice and I shall begin to do that over the coming weeks and months.

In a nutshell, which shall take some time to unpack, I will make the point that national ecumenism is becoming bogged down with analytical theology, a mode of theology that was out of date in the 1960s (if it ever was up to date) and is increasingly counter-productive. This type of theology is not fundamentalist but rather it is technocratic. It is designed to keep power in the hands of church leaders. It is divorced from the needs and interests of local churches and causes unnecessary confusion.

The time has come for a sea change in the way ecumenism is done. I wouldn't be so arrogant as to suggest you will find it in this blog, but as one of the few people regularly blogging about ecumenism, I intend to challenge the old ways and encourage new radical thinking.

Posted at 06:00 PM in Current Affairs, Local Ecumenism, Orientation, Theoretical Ecumenism, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, 01 November 2011

Understanding Difference of Interpretation

Image via Wikipedia

This is the eighth of eight posts reflecting upon a recent paper released by the Conference of European Churches. The background can be found in a post on Methodist Ecumenical News. The paper is Visions of Unity in Our Churches - Points of Convergence.

The report includes eight points of convergence and I thought it might be interesting to consider them one by one.

Convergence 8

Using the same terms does not always lead to or reflect common understanding. Conversely different terms can mask a common understanding. We need thus to continue in dialogue in a way that listens closely to the different ways words are used and interpreted. This takes humility and a capacity to hear and receive. However difference of interpretation can be a means of spiritual enrichment so long as listening goes on.

Whilst I welcome this convergence, I am still concerned by the little word 'we'. 'We' has cropped up several times in these paragraphs and it gives away the theological game at the heart of too many ecumenical conversations.

These conversations are formal talks. Formal conversations take place behind closed doors. They are for a closed community of theologians who have qualifications and write in footnotes. They worry about the meanings of words and lose sight of what faith means to churches on the ground.

Our churches don't struggle with the meanings of words so much as with unreasonable people, hopeless property, lack of finance, unresponsive hierarchies, bizarre rules and regulations...

So, it seems for qualified theologians differences in interpretation of words can be a means of spiritual enrichment. Really? So long as you can encapsulate it in a footnote maybe. Spiritual enrichment can also come out of frustration, anger or despair - maybe they should try that?

It is hard to have confidence in people who write as if they have never walked along a pavement.

Posted at 08:00 PM in Conversations, Leadership, Theoretical Ecumenism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, 31 October 2011

Conciliar Fellowship and Mutual Reception

Image via Wikipedia

This is the seventh of eight posts reflecting upon a recent paper released by the Conference of European Churches. The background can be found in a post on Methodist Ecumenical News. The paper is Visions of Unity in Our Churches - Points of Convergence.

The report includes eight points of convergence and I thought it might be interesting to consider them one by one.

Convergence 7

The unity of the Church also requires both conciliar fellowship and mutual reception of conciliar decisions by the churches. There need to be structures that allow us to receive and reflect together on ecumenical texts, including the challenges outlined in the previous points of convergence.

Again there are a mass of assumptions in this text. The phrase 'mutual reception of conciliar decisions' gives the game away. What it means is that the councils of the churches make their decisions and then the rest of us will need to be persuaded or cajoled into following them.

Wouldn't it be better all round if local churches, that's the churches that are working towards unity (or picking up shards of past failures) were a part of the decision making, rather than meekly receiving what has already been decided by academics and power politicians?

We really need to get away from the idea that there is a band of courageous theologians who can sort out the problems facing the churches. They are part of the problem. We need a new generation who understand unity as a task for the whole people of God.

The aim is not to safeguard the interests of the hierarchies but to bring to birth something new and unexpected. Many of us no longer share the interests of those who lead the churches. But we're also fed up with growth through schism. There has to be a way of ordering our lives so that we can choose which tradition we belong to, whilst making a contribution to the life of the whole of the church.

Posted at 06:00 PM in Leadership, Local Ecumenism, Reception, Theoretical Ecumenism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, 27 October 2011

Expressing Catholicity in Common Confession

Image of Euphemia of Chalcedon by Nick in exsilio via Flickr

This is the sixth of eight posts reflecting upon a recent paper released by the Conference of European Churches. The background can be found in a post on Methodist Ecumenical News. The paper is Visions of Unity in Our Churches - Points of Convergence.

The report includes eight points of convergence and I thought it might be interesting to consider them one by one.

Convergence 6

“One Holy Catholic and Apostolic” is the starting point of the theological reflection on unity. The unity of the Church has to find expression in a Catholicity formed by a common confession of the Apostolic faith, common worship/liturgy, and a shared life and mission.

So, 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic' is the starting point? A starting point, maybe a good one. But the starting point? Really?

Let's be clear, the creeds divided the church. There were disagreements before the creeds but the great schism between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions are based upon one instance of particular reading. Furthermore, the non-Chalcedon's are highly significant in Christian history, even though they were divided from the Roman Empire because of differences over the creeds.

And how on earth are they intending to enforce common worship and liturgy? Once again we're back to control and the inability to conceive of the church without entrenched leadership. It is the accumulation or centralisation of power that leads to divisions.

We need a much more careful analysis of what causes divisions and how we might order our lives as Christians so that we share our traditions rather than enforce them.

Posted at 06:00 PM in History, Leadership, Theoretical Ecumenism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, 26 October 2011

Patience and God's Timing for Unity

Image of patience on a monument by Maia C via Flickr

This is the fifth of eight posts reflecting upon a recent paper released by the Conference of European Churches. The background can be found in a post on Methodist Ecumenical News. The paper is Visions of Unity in Our Churches - Points of Convergence.

The report includes eight points of convergence and I thought it might be interesting to consider them one by one.

Convergence 5

The search for unity always exists in a particular context. We have to discern how our quest for unity relates to the timing of God and demands of mission in any given time or situation. Patience is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5) and one we must exercise when considering how to take forward the ecumenical agenda, not confusing God’s timing with our own.

The search for unity takes place in many different contexts. The way this is phrased implies it can nevertheless be controlled from a central perspective. We identify the particular context and then our theologians will come up with a well researched and reasoned answer.

Well, theologians of the world, I have news for you (and most of you will know this already): there is no particular context for the search for unity. It's much more complicated than that, isn't it?

Let's start with geography. A neighbourhood. How many churches are in that neighbourhood? Do they all relate to one another? Is it not possible churches close the edge might relate to different churches or even think they're in a different neighbourhood?

And can we be certain the members of any given local church agree about church unity, have the same aims? And of course, the context is not just local. Do the church members know the views of their local, regional and national church hierarchy?

Then there are inter-generational differences. And differences based upon race or family background.

It is comforting to know patience is a fruit of the spirit and 'one we must exercise when considering how to take forward the ecumenical agenda'. Who is this 'we'? It is a little word that often gives a lot away. Does it mean the people at this particular consultation? Or the church hierarchies? Whoever they are, it seems we can safely leave it in their hands. God's timing?

We're offered some platitudes about patience. What is it about God's timing? You'd think God has agreed with the ecumenical statements made by the churches but not finally settled on a timescale. Nonsense! Whatever happens will not emerge from the writings of theologians or agreements between church leaders. We will stumble upon the living reality of unity in Christ in the struggle to work out a way forward together in many localities, despite the impossibility of fully comprehending what is going on globally.

Posted at 06:00 PM in Leadership, Local Ecumenism, Neighbourhood: Theory, Theoretical Ecumenism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, 19 October 2011

Ecclesial and Eucharistic Community

Image via Wikipedia

This is the third of eight posts reflecting upon a recent paper released by the Conference of European Churches. The background can be found in a post on Methodist Ecumenical News. The paper is Visions of Unity in Our Churches - Points of Convergence.

The report includes eight points of convergence and I thought it might be interesting to consider them one by one.

Convergence 3

Between ecclesial and Eucharistic community there is an organic link. Any separation between these should be avoided. Unity of the church and in the Eucharist have to go together. There are steps that lead towards this but they are not a substitute for the ultimate goal of unity.

Oh dear, I have a number of issues with this convergence. This is a statement agreed between a relatively small group of people. To reflect on what they are saying might demonstrate some of the assumptions made in formal conversations.

The point here is eucharist and ministry belong together and are understood to be essential to unity. So, the argument goes, if the non-conformist churches adopt episcopacy, this will then enable them to move closer to the episcopalian churches.

The first sentence bewilders me. What are these two communities? Surely for episcopal traditions they are one and the same? The ordained priesthood (ecclesial community) is solely responsible for the Eucharist (and so is also the Eucharistic community). Lay people participate in communion but cannot themselves consecrate the bread and wine. The ministry is ordered hierarchically and it is the hierarchy that legitimates the conduct of the Eucharist by the clergy. Surely, from an episcopalian perspective, the ecclesial and Eucharistic communities are the same?

The problem is of course, there is no evidence this type of community supports unity. The ongoing debates between Anglicans, Roman Catholics and Orthodox show they are if anything moving further apart. Are we really expected to sacrifice women priests for unity?

And will the non-conformist traditions adopt bishops for the sake of unity? Maybe some of the traditional Protestant Churches will but it is the Pentecostal churches that are growing most rapidly and I can't see how they are expected to adopt the necessary episcopal and eucharistic approaches.

It may be true the unity of the church and the Eucharist go together. It is difficult to imagine a church where communion cannot be shared, being perceived as united by non-Christians. But it has to be asked to what extent are we expected to make sacrifices for the sake of the ecclesiastically powerful? Make no mistake about it, this business of the Eucharist is about power. There will always be Christian radicals who challenge this power.

The final sentence seems to suggest intermediate steps on the way to unity are not enough. I suppose this is fair enough. But it is not at all clear what they mean. I suspect it is a dig at reconciled diversity. I would question whether reconciled diversity is a step on the way to their vision of unity, rather than an approach in its own right. To what extent is this insistence on control of communion a barrier to unity itself?

Posted at 10:16 PM in Conversations, Theoretical Ecumenism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, 12 October 2011

Unity in Life and Mission

This is the second of eight posts reflecting upon a recent paper released by the Conference of European Churches. The background can be found in a post on Methodist Ecumenical News. The paper is Visions of Unity in Our Churches - Points of Convergence.

The report includes eight points of convergence and I thought it might be interesting to consider them one by one.

Convergence 2

Unity demands expression in life and mission. Our search for unity must always be seen against the horizon of a lost and broken world to which the Church is called to bring the Good News of Jesus Christ. In our divisions we need appropriate structures or networks to enable this to happen.

I agree with the start of the second sentence: church unity must be seen within the context of the wider Oikoumene. Christian unity is evidence of God's activity in the world, without it the Christian story lacks credibility.

But is this true? Divisions between churches often seem to lead to renewal (sometimes for both sides of the split). This leads me to conclude the unity we seek is not necessarily the obvious structural unity, the model in many people's minds.

Let's examine the first sentence. It is not a surprise to find 'mission' present as an expression demanded by unity. Unity and mission has been a mantra, at least since the Church of England report, 'Mission Shaped Church'. Must unity be expressed through mission? It is hard to find conclusive evidence. Churches compete in mission and still manage to get their message across. The problem is, we have tried to stick mission and unity together in a superficial way - too often we miss out on a significant part of the story.

So, does 'life' provide the missing part of the story? It is hard to say because I don't have a clue what they mean by 'life'. I have argued in a sequence of posts starting here, that formation is the stepping stone we need. Formation is the way we live as Christians and so perhaps 'life' is meant to represent this otherwise missing dimension.

The third sentence also needs unpacking. Ecumenism has become associated with structures and networks. This is not always to its advantage. Perhaps it would be better to emphasise the need for relationships and the means to deepen them through conversation.

Posted at 08:00 AM in Formation, Mission, Theoretical Ecumenism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, 11 October 2011

Visions of Unity in Our Churches

Image via Wikipedia

This and the next seven posts will comment upon a recent paper released by the Conference of European Churches. The background can be found in a post on Methodist Ecumenical News. The paper is Visions of Unity in Our Churches - Points of Convergence.

The report includes eight points of convergence and I thought it might be interesting to consider them one by one. So, here we go:

Convergence 1

The Unity of the Church is from God, it is the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is not of our making but at the same time it demands our commitment to respond to God’s call to be one in word and deed.

It is likely John 17:20-23 is behind this Convergence. Perhaps it is the text most frequently referred to when making the case for ecumenism. The link will take you to one of my posts devoted to this text. How might we interpret this text? Is it about Jesus' disciples or the Oikoumene of the whole earth? Is unity already reality or something to work towards?

I think the word 'glory' is central to this passage. If we understand glory to mean our experience of God, then Christian unity is evidence of God's work in the world. Convergence 1 captures much of this, especially in the second sentence where they hold in tension the eternal and the 'not yet realised' dimensions of unity.

The first sentence is perhaps less successful. Unity is a gift but more than a gift, it is evidence of God's work in the world and as such it is naturally the outcome of our response to God's call to be one.

Is unity something already real, coming into fruition or do we need to take steps to create it? The former is often seen as a soft option, perhaps called reconciled diversity.

When we take such a relaxed view, we are left with churches unreconciled to the extent they cannot share communion. Why can they not share communion? It is fundamentally about the authority of church leaders. Unity is not visible when there is clear and public separation of the churches.

Oikoumene is not only about churches; it is the reconciliation of all things to God. The reconciliation of church structures seen in this context, is a relatively small step. Perhaps our disunity demonstrates God's priority for this wider Oikoumene? Does the power politics of church structures distract us from commitment to the reconciliation of all things to God?

It is tempting to see unity as eschatological, something to do with end times. And yet perhaps we should think of it as something of beginning times too. Perhaps the act of creation should be seen as an act of unity. For in the creation of diversity, perhaps there is a hint of the kind of unity we seek. It is a unity rooted in reconciliation and there can be no reconciliation without diversity.

Posted at 09:55 PM in Diversity, Theoretical Ecumenism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, 09 August 2011

On Being Loyal to a Tradition

Image via Wikipedia

Many posts on blogs around the world oppose ecumenism on the grounds that the writer's own tradition is the one true church.

Some writers claim it is not possible to be loyal to their tradition unless they believe it is the one true church. It is this belief I want to consider.

To be loyal to a particular tradition is a good thing. It is possible to be loyal to something that is not perfect. The problem we have is the only thing we know for certain is that we are in error. Unfortunately we do not know in which particulars we are in error.

We can claim to examine the evidence but we can be self-deluding, as we can always find evidence to back up our beliefs. Find someone who does not believe what you take to be self-evident and true, eg a believer in the flat earth or UFOs, and you will find they can interpret any data to support their views. So can I and so can anyone. We do not know we are doing it and if we did know we would not believe the things we believe now in the same way.

So, what is the alternative? I can say I am loyal to my own tradition and on that basis join in the debate with others. Our aim ceases to be to prove the truth in my own tradition and becomes encouragement and support for those who seek the truth in their own tradition. This will from time to time lead to challenging views held in another tradition from the perspective of my own. In doing this I am inviting deeper reflection rather than promoting my own tradition.

Fr Andrew in his 'Roads from Emmaus' blog, posted Ecumenism with a Gun, where he approaches this same issue in a very different way, which remains committed to ecumenical conversations:

I believe that Orthodox Christianity is the one, true way, that the Orthodox Church is the one, true Church, and that every single man, woman and child should be an Orthodox Christian. I hope that other religious people believe the same things about their religions. If they don’t, they are at least partial relativists, and if one is a relativist, I don’t see the point in being part of a religion. (Or they could simply be very mean—their faith is the one, true faith, but they don’t want to see other folks in it.)