One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, 'Which commandment is the first of all?' Jesus answered, 'The first is, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.". The second is this, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." There is no other commandment greater than these.' (Mark 12: 28 - 31)
This is part of a longer story and I have already looked at it in a previous post. I will not repeat here what I said then but I will make a few points about this part of the story.
The first commandment is the Schema and is almost a quote from the previous passage in this series. It is almost a quote because Jesus has added the words 'and with all your mind' to it. Why?
The second commandment is from Leviticus. Apparently, given that Leviticus comes before Deuteronomy in the Torah, it would be normal for a rabbi to quote them in the reverse order. Jesus puts love of God first.
This story is about love. We should love God because God is one and this is most important. Why?
God's love is something we can rely upon. Because the motives of people are confused, love of neighbour can be a thankless task. To love is to risk your own well-being for the benefit of others, who might not appreciate the gesture.
The oneness of God means God is reliable, unlike those we are called to love. So, although the oneness of God does not necessarily point to the unity of the church, it seems unity is only possible through a reconciled church and reconciliation is dependent on the oneness of God.
Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, The Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your might. Keep these words that I am commanding you today in your heart. Recite them to your children and talk about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise. (Deuteronomy 6:4-7)
In this series of short posts, I plan to consider in turn each of the readings in Churches Together in England's collection of Bible readings, One Light: One World. My aim is not to present a full exegesis but to ask what each text is saying about unity.
This is a core text for Christians and even more so for Jews. It is also highly formative for Islam. Given the immense amount of scholarship about this passage, what more can usefully be said?
God is one but does it follow from this that the church must be one? I do not see how church unity necessarily flows from the oneness of God.
I argued early in this blog that the mark of oikoumene is conversation. Conversations need at least two participants. So, the whole of creation is premised not upon unity but diversity. And indeed the Christian witness has always been to the diversity at the heart of divine unity in the Trinity.
The challenge is not to become one like God but to be reconciled despite our differences. Such reconciliation requires love of the one God but also immersion in the generative activity of God.
One of the strengths of Harmon's book, Ecumenism Means You, Too, is his emphasis on the importance of belonging to a tradition. In a recent post I showed how I see each of the mainstream traditions as embodying, in various ways, catholicity. All traditions are compromises between a variety of theological approaches and this can be thought of as the defining attribute of any Christian tradition. Adherence to a single defined set of beliefs stifles internal conversation and ultimately isolates the believers from the Body of Christ.
Harmon writes on page 61:
We can make progress towards unity when we make progress towards catholicity within the denominations, and we make progress towards unity when the denominations share their distinctive patterns of catholicity with one another. As individual Christians we must be shaped by a particular denominational tradition in order to help our own church toward unity and in order to help the rest of the church learn from our own church.
This is a good definition of receptive ecumenism, a topic touched upon by Harmon elsewhere in his book.
I have elsewhere argued there needs to be an intergenerational conversation about unity and that conversation is itself an exercise in ecumenical reception. To arrive at conclusions between church leaders with no awareness of what younger people are thinking, would be a recipe for stagnation. The point is, we have a generation that no longer looks to church leaders for leadership. This can be seen as a danger for the churches but it can also be seen as an opportunity.
It looks like Harmon is attempting to start intergenerational conversations along these lines in the States and it will be interesting to hear how he gets on. In the meantime, how about some similar conversations in Britain?
Harmon in his book Ecumenism Means You, Too refers to Jesus' prayer for his followers in John 17. Here Jesus prays they will be protected from 'the evil one'. Harmon writes on page 7:
The "evil one" is the one elsewhere in the New Testament called the "devil", diabolos in Greek, which literally means "one who divides". The work of the diabolical one is to bring division, to divide people from God, and to divide people from one another The evil one seeks especially to bring division to those who ought to have the unity shared by God the Father and God the Son.
I am planning a series about the devil in my other blog, So What?. So, I won't say too much here but there are a few observations I must make.
There is a real need for Christians to get a grip. The mythology around the devil seems largely Medieval rather than from the time of Jesus. Walter Wink's work on the powers for example, clearly explains the subtext of writings about the devil or evil one.
The term "evil one" is an interesting circumlocution. It is too easy to equate it with Satan, who appears for instance in Matthew's account of the temptations. But surely 'evil one' could as easily refer to anyone who causes division?
Harmon's equation of 'evil one' with the devil, leaving aside the subtleties of what Jesus might have intended, is a point well made.
I have made the point many times that the idea of conversation is core to ecumenical theology. Genuine conversation, free to generate new ideas is fundamental not only to ecumenism but also to oikoumene, the reconciliation of all things.
Conversation, or relationship, is core to life, to all that flourishes throughout the universe. Wink shows power usurps life by restricting free conversation. When people stop listening, relationships fail. When people are no longer aware they are not listening, divisions become entrenched. Power generates its own immortals who are omniscient, always knowing what is right and true.
The nature of a God who is forever new is alien to this worldview based upon certainty. The Spirit of God is found upon the knife-edge between order and chaos. To move off this knife edge in either direction is to move into isolation.
Hell (closed down by Jesus, by the way) is where no communication, no conversation, no relationship is possible. It is being totally alone. The churches show they are alive through their conversations and this can be seen however formal they are. Even the most dull ecumenical document is a sign that the churches are alive and able to engage with God's world
... ecumenism is not pluralism. Ecumenism is the quest for unity amongst Christians now divided by denomination. It is not the effort to find some generic essence of religion that might minimise conflicts between the religions. Interreligious dialogue that respects the real differences between the religions is necessary to clear up misunderstandings that Christians, Jews, Muslims and adherents of other religions may have of one another, and this too is an important task for the church's theologians. (Page 3)
Harmon argues, where 'younger Christians tend to attribute denominational divisions to human sinfulness' (Page 5) this is an encouraging sign. I would add, it was impossible a few decades ago and is a mark of the success of the ecumenism of the twentieth century. This is something I have referred to in earlier posts and is marked by the idea of Christians Together, as opposed to Churches Together.
Harmon goes on to suggest on page 6, 'Abandoning denominational commitment in the name of being "non-denominational" can actually undermine the quest for Christian unity in some unanticipated ways, and moving easily from a church of one denomination to a congregation of another can be a symptom of the consumer mentality that is endemic to American Christianity.'
Many younger people in my experience are proud of their ability to move between churches. I have expressed my doubts before. It can mean a Christian is unwilling to be formed by a single tradition and by refusing the detail of a single tradition, the possibility is that faith itself is superficial.
This is not in itself a reason for no movement between churches. Sometimes people need to change as their faith matures and this is fine, so long as the move is accompanied by a determination to grow roots in the new tradition. It is even helpful for some people to put down roots in two traditions, they can be interpreters between the two.
It is almost as if Christians Together and Churches Together inhabit different worlds. The problem is we don't recognise and encourage open debate about these two approaches and how they might be reconciled.
Reception is no longer a matter of persuading congregations to accept agreements between church leaders (if it ever was). Today, the task is a dialogue between generations moving, it seems in opposite directions.
It is difficult to find good books about ecumenism. Too many seek to report the Faith and Order debate in tedious detail or else extol the many treasures we have to offer one another. Too often the whole becomes a litany of denominations and what they have to offer each other.
I have avoided this approach and suggest we focus upon how we approach the ecumenical task rather than tedious dissection of issues of little consequence for many people.
I therefore welcome this little book, Ecumenism Means You, Too: Ordinary Christians and the Quest for Christian Unity by Steven R Harmon, which bucks the trend and offers a masterful summary of the case for ecumenism, does not ignore the Faith and Order debates but focuses on what is important to every Christian.
It is written for young people and, although from the context of America, it is remarkable how many of the issues identified are common to Britain. Indeed, many have already been visited several times on this blog.
Harmon is encouraged by the instinctive ecumenism of many younger people who no longer recognise denominational boundaries. But he questions the wisdom of this and quotes the Irish Rock Band U2, 'We're one, but we're not the same'.
He recognises the sense that the ecumenical tide is going out, that there is less interest in ecumenism amongst younger people despite the successes of the previous century.
The ecumenical leaders of the past few decades are retiring and passing away, and few younger leadersare ready to take up their mantle. The denominations that were once heavily invested in the quest for Christian unity have now turned their energies to their worsening internal divisions. Conflicts within denominations over biblical authority, gender, and sexuality have greatly complicated efforts to secure unity between the denominations.
I will in a few future posts touch upon some insights from this book but I recommend it in its entirety because it makes a straightforward case for younger people to pick up the baton.
I should add that despite being a short and clear read, this book does not hide its scholarship. This is no attempt to water down ecumenism. Indeed it is a brilliant example of ecumenical reception, the type of reception I have argued is needed between the generations.
In England, many are seeking a vision for a new ecumenism and this implies the need for subversion of the existing ecumenical structures. There is a need not just for new ideas but for a new paradigm and this is a task for all churches together - the authorities and the subversives holding each other to account and inspiring each other to change.
I have already written about the diversity of small churches in Britain. In this post I want to assess their potential for subversive ecumenism, undermining the authorities of the mainstream traditions.
There is a continuum of post- denominational Christians. Some younger people have stayed with the mainstream churches but their adherence to one particular tradition is weaker than previous generations. As parts of a consumer society, the traditional (and other) churches are products that can be used and discarded at will. Why not shop around until you find a church that suits?
This is seen positively as a form of post-denominational ecumenism (Christians Together). The old divisions no longer make sense, so there is no need to allow yourself to be formed by a specific tradition in a real time and place.
Where traditional churches have lost a sense of purpose, many new churches bring experience of the faith to groups of people otherwise untouched by the traditional churches. As such they are a necessary challenge to the traditions, calling them to recognise a larger world than their rules and regulations might allow.
What happens when the new churches grow older? Some people will leave, perhaps to join other churches or just cease to meet. Others might seek ordination in a traditional denomination or move on to set up their own churches.
But what about those who remain in churches that become institutionalised? Their problem is they have to avoid being institutionalised into a non-catholic authority. The spirit of division can turn a spirit filled church into concrete amazingly quickly. Interpretations by unaccountable leaders, intolerant of dissent, can soon petrify a small church.
A truly catholic church is necessarily diverse in two ways at least. It must be diverse in terms of theology, otherwise its leadership will become authoritarian and unaccountable. This can happen in liberal churches as much as evangelical or fundamentalist. A single interpretation stifles dissent and stifles the spirit.
The other diversity is in the social origins of its members. It is alarming so many churches are made up of entirely one age group, for example. How do we develop churches where people unlike each other learn to live with and love each other?
It is clear the traditional and new churches need each other. This is not so that the members of the new churches join the traditional. It is so that old and new together can find a new way to preserve the fountainheads and receive new insights from the spirit.
Ecumenism is almost solely the property of the traditional churches. Subversive ecumenism, reaching out across divisions, creating relationships beyond the doctrines that still divide comes from lay members, post-denominational worshipers or new churches. They need the traditional churches as partners in a greater task of re-formation of the churches together. Without the traditional churches, these small churches lack catholicity and can lose contact with the wider body of Christ.
In England there are five main traditions, namely Roman Catholic, Church of England (Anglican / Episcopalian), Methodist, United Reformed and Baptist. There are other major traditions in other parts of the world. Their best kept secret is, all are already ecumenical. All are coalitions, held together by authority of some type. This internal ecumenism is sometimes called catholicity, the ability to hold together people who might otherwise be in deep disagreement.
The interface between the authorities of the traditional churches and those who would subvert them is a place of creativity. I should stress subversive ecumenism has nothing to do with heresy. It is an attempt to undermine from below practices that have created the ecumenical impasse. It does not aim to destroy ecumenical work or to jeopardise future work. The aim is to shake up deadlocked talks by bringing new perspectives to bear.
What are these new perspectives? They are the view from the margins. In my paper for the Sheffield Jesus Seminar, I mentioned Kim's work on the Body of Christ. He suggests that the Body of Christ is incomplete when the marginalised are not heard. Where are the places where the church meets those hitherto excluded and so where creativity occurs? The first question must always be, who is still not being heard? Ecumenism without full participation lacks credibility.
Consultancy for Mission and Ministry This should take you to details of the Consultancy for Mission and Ministry course at the York Insititute. See my post about non-directive consuultancy around 9 September 2009.
One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, 'Which commandment is the first of all?' Jesus answered, 'The first is, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.". The second is this, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." There is no other commandment greater than these.' (Mark 12: 28 - 31)
Recent Comments