Exploring Ecumenism

Ecumenism in Three Dimensions

In several posts, most recently yesterday's, I have referred to ecumenism in three dimensions.  I thought it might help to examine what I mean by dimensions.

The problem with many formal talks is that they take a linear view of the world.  People with authority make decisions, which people in the local churches are supposed to follow.  This process is in one direction, from those that know to those who don't.  A dimension allows movement in two directions.  (Time is referred to in physics as a dimension and from our point of view it moves in only one direction, however physicists more accurately refer to this as a half dimension.)

On the surface, dimension 1, between traditions may be a full dimension insofar as formal talks allow movement in both directions.  In reality the mindset is too often, how can we get those others to accept our way of seeing things?  Receptive ecumenism attempts to question this by asking, what do we need from the others? 

The second dimension, between the centre (church hierarchies) and the periphery (local churches) is too often treated as a half dimension.  This is one reason why ecumenical reception is rarely seen to have taken place, that is decisions made through formal talks are rarely taken up locally.  One reason for this is that the conversations between traditions locally are ignored and therefore devalued.  This second dimension added to the first means that conversations at all levels of the church count.  There are some practicalities but they are for future posts.

Again the third dimension, of transformational reception, is often treated as a half dimension too - what do we have to communicate to the world?  Adding the third dimension means issues in the world are addressed by all traditions at all levels.  The big advantage, if all dimensions are full dimensions, is that the insights of several traditions and expressions of those traditions are focussed on the issue, or indeed a complex interplay of issues.

I am sure some of this already happens.  However, it is often not acknowledged and frequently not seen as the core of ecumenical work.

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.

Separation

The discipline of writing a single point most days, which may collectively add up at some future time to something else, is interesting.  Sometimes it is invigorating as I save a post to find a new one spring into my mind.  At other times it seems impossible to say everything and I find the latest post acts as a corrective to the one before.

Yesterday I began to stray into territory commonly known as ecclesiology (commonly amongst ecclesiologists at any rate).  I don't at this stage wish to go any further in that direction but I do want to apply, as ever, a few correctives.

1. Is it legitimate to view the Christian faith as a system?  If we understand it as a sociological phenomenum I think we can.  The growing field of congregation studies does exactly that, for example.
2. Why do I refer to it as the 'Christian faith' rather than the 'Church'?  I certainly don't want to rush to the defence of 'Christian faith' - it's simply the best term I have come up with so far.  The problem with 'Church' is that there is an ambiguity as some traditions refer to themselves as the church, and I wanted a term that unambiguously covers the whole of Christianity however that term might be understood.
3. So, why do I refer to traditions rather than churches?  Most traditions as far as I'm aware are happy to be referred to as churches.  Or part of the church, I suppose.  I think tradition has a time element, it reminds us that traditions evolve through time and are not static, although recognisably of their tradition.

Finally for this stretch of my argument I want to bring together two observations.  Oikoumene understood as the reconciliation of the whole of creation and our traditions.  To be committed to a tradition is to know it from the inside out as it were.  But it is also to experience a sense of separation from other traditions.  People react to this differently.  Some will take great pride in their tradition and assert its superiority to the others.  Others will embrace other traditions either by seeking unity or by experiencing what they have to offer.  Some feel real pain because there is no common communion across the traditions.

The point is though that the same sense of separation is experienced between Christians and the non-Christian world.  If we are serious about the reconciliation of all things in Christ - we cannot have boundaries that delineate the Christian world and separate it off from the rest of the world.  We are surrounded by conflicts relating to race, nationality or faith, by the destruction of the environment because wealth is systematically put before God and disabled by the inability of many to participate in significant decision making because of debt or poverty.  So, what if Christians attained full communion while the rest of the world is in this state?  And which of these should be our priorities?

Never fear, I have a lot more to say about systems and Presence.  But at this stage I need to open a new strand, rooted very much in my own Methodist tradition, Wesley's doctrine of sanctification - as you've (possibly) never seen it before.

What is the Ecumenical Problem?

I want to say more about the whole as it relates to the Christian faith.  It is not an ideal form of Christianity.  It is the whole behind all the parts that we encounter.  It is incomplete without the parts and unknowable in the sense that there is no single interpretation of the whole.

Yesterday I suggested 'networks of Christian traditions' as a description of the Christian faith.  This is not a satisfactory description but may be helpful to enable us to get a hold of what the whole might be.  The problem for those who wish to approach this from a conventional or Newtonian worldview, is that as each of us sees the whole through the lenses of our own tradition plus our personal experience, then everyone is going to see it differently.  Presence on page 51 puts it like this:

The problem-solving mind-set can be adequate for technical problems.  But it can be woefully inadequate for complex human systems, where problems often arise from unquestioned assumptions  and deeply habitual ways of acting.  Until people start to set their own handprint on such problems, fundamental change rarely occurs.

This strongly implies that it may be advantageous that everyone has a different view of the whole.  This does not mean that everyone is equally right or that their view remains static.  Indeed one of the aims of ecumenical conversations is to enable people to learn more of other traditions and hence of their faith as a whole.  Remember also that ecumenical conversations often result in a deeper understanding of ones own tradition.  Clearly there is much more to explore here.

In the meantime we need to take stock of what we do not know.  There are three things (at least!).

We do not know what the whole is ...

It is easy to say the whole is the Christian faith.  Maybe it is but even if it is, we are still left asking what is the Christian faith?  Each Christian (and maybe others) will bring their own insights from their experience, their tradition to bear on their view of the faith.  As ecumenists are we dealing with just this one faith or the whole of creation (oikoumene)?  And whatever it is, how does it hang together, how do we make sense of it?

We do not know what the parts are ...

The easy answer is 'the traditions' but they themselves can be split into many smaller groups.  Or is it the relationships between the traditions?  Or relationships with the wider world?  To choose the traditions as a sort of unit of the Christian faith invites the ecumenist to look inwards.  But how much looking outwards can we endure before the whole vision becomes unmanageable?

What is the ecumenical problem?

Some believe it is 'full visible unity' and argue, convincingly, that it is a favoured goal because it is a clear goal.  Others might argue it is reconciled diversity or even reconciliation with the whole of creation.  Others dissent from all of these.  These differences are not going to go away and ecumenism threatens to become increasingly frustrating whilst they are not acknowledged.  This means we need to find new ways of describing our goal(s) as ecumenists.

Leadership in Ecumenical Relationships

Presence on page 10 argues, 'Even as conditions in the world change dramatically, most businesses, governments, schools, and other larger organisations, driven by fear, continue to take the same kinds of institutional actions that they always have.'

The credit crunch is a recent example of this, where in Britain the stated intention of the government, supported by the BBC, is a return to normal.  Which particular normal do they mean?  The last few years where people have been encouraged to take on increasing amounts of debt they cannot afford, massive inflation in house prices and all of this supporting artificially high prices in the stock markets?  On the contrary the credit crunch is an extremely painful return to normal after a few years aberrant behaviour.  No reference is made to climate change or other damage to the environment or human relationships by the behaviour that has delivered us into this problem.

Why do institutions behave in this way?  I believe it is a crisis in leadership.  We lack good role models for leadership and as leaders perceive a loss of their own authority they panic and cease to offer the very leadership they are there to deliver.  The problem is an implicit understanding of leadership as an award for good behaviour rather than as a responsibility taken on the behalf of others.  Many leaders say they believe the latter but observation of their behaviour suggests the former is their real belief.

This has two unfortunate side effects.  First, it means decisions are made by uninformed, leaders who panic because they do not understand why their actions do not lead to their expected result.  Second, many people are left out of the decision making loop who, although on their own would be no more competent than their leaders, together through a pooling of insights might be able to inform leadership.

In general, churches seem to mirror what is happening in society rather than set examples of good leadership.  Too many leaders are fearful of loss of authority and do not make full use of the experience available to them through their congregations.  Within my own tradition, we can look back to a time when lay people had a significant stake in leadership.  Through well ordered societies, classes and bands Methodists not only supported each others' spiritual development but learned how to organise.  Consequently, their learning spread into many working class movements especially during the nineteenth century.  The best leaders based their decisions on their critical listening to what was happening in the local societies.  Perhaps, this continues to the present day although the waters are muddier than they could be.

There is a blessing available to any leader in any tradition who is prepared to listen to what lay people are saying. 

The ecumenical movement should be a movement of lay people.  Indeed my conclusion after listening to the problems encountered by many local ecumenical initiatives is that their success depends upon lay leadership.  So many ambitious ecumenical initiatives hit difficulties, when key ordained leaders leave, because they have not successfully engaged the support of lay people.  Consequently, when the next ordained leader arrives, perhaps with less interest or experience in ecumenism, the previous work is devalued or abandoned.

So, whilst lay people are not trusted on the ground, their contribution to ecumenical policy is also devalued.  Progress to full visible unity is measured by the degree of agreement between senior theologians and church leaders.  As a consequence it is difficult to develop the methodologies whereby people at all levels in the churches might contribute to the growth of ecumenical relationships.

A holographic model of ecumenism.

In my reading over Christmas I came across the following '... the natural world, in which the whole is entirely present in any of its parts -'.  This reminded me of a recent post where I discussed the integrity of Christian traditions.  In that post I did not say much about the relationship between the traditions other than to reject the (allegedly) Protestant view of them needing each other in order to understand the whole of Christianity. 

Many people will be aware of holography, where any part of an image contains the whole image.  Holography offers us an analogy which might be more helpful than that of the jigsaw (see the aforementioned post). 

Christianity in the last analysis cannot be fully known by any individual, there is mystery, something beyond human comprehension.  Each tradition may well be complete in itself, in the sense that it embodies all that is needed for salvation.  But they are also parts of a whole, which can be glimpsed through each tradition.  It is not that all the traditions together make up the whole because they are parts of it, rather each affords us a glimpse of the whole of which they are a part.  They can do this because they are whole and part together.  (Note Sacks' understanding of Unity and Diversity.)

It seems to me there is a dual error at play here.  One is to see the part as the whole.  This is the fundamentalist view that 'our' particular interpretation of Christianity is the only genuine one, that the whole of God's plan for the universe is present in one person's (it is often one person) particular insights.  The other is to fail to see the whole in the parts.  This manifests itself in the desire for full visible unity, at least as it is currently understood.

Over the next few days I will examine this holographic model in more detail.  To reject full visible unity in favour of a vague vision of Christianity seen through its parts is not good enough.  This can only work as a model for ecumenism where Christians are prepared to make it work.  They need the tools to do this and this means the rediscovery of the power of ecumenical conversations.

On the Nature of Covenant

In yesterday's post I referred to covenant as a type of mutual support.  Today I want to develop this further.  What I will say also links to an earlier post where I referred, towards the end, to the mutuality implicitly in the commandment to love your neighbour as you love yourself.

The word 'covenant' is often encountered in ecumenical practice although it is perhaps the Anglican Methodist Covenant that has recently increased interest in the idea.  But it is not, despite the annual Methodist Covenant Service, the sole preserve of these two traditions.  Local Ecumenical Partnerships, in Britain, where several local churches agree to work together without becoming a single congregation are sometimes referred to as 'covenanted partnerships'.  A good introduction to covenant in the Bible and in Christian History can be found in the first chapter of the first interim report of the Anglican Methodist Covenant's Joint Implementation Commission, 'In the Spirit of the Covenant'.

The bilateral talks between the Church of England and the Methodist Church were almost over when the decision was taken to call the agreement a covenant.  The first interim report opens up the idea to a degree and I want to open it up a little further.

My first observation is that it is easy to see the covenant as a step on the way to visible unity.  Whilst this may be a helpful idea it seems to me that it has a weakness because it implies that if visible unity is not achieved, then the covenant is a failure.  A covenant is a binding agreement, it means that despite set-backs neither party to the covenant can leave it.  It is a commitment to a long term relationship which might result in visible unity but could easily result in something different.

I like to visualise the covenant as a landscape, where there are things to explore, things to try and perhaps commitments to take up jointly.  Seen this way it is hard to see why it has to be bilateral but it does mean the 2 traditions can explore the meaning of covenant together in the company of other traditions.  As all learn together maybe a wider multilateral covenant will in time be possible.

My second point is that covenant implies a mutual relationship.  Mutuality is a difficult concept for modern western people .  The motivation for mutuality is neither selfishness nor altruism, but self-interest.  It is the understanding that when I love another, not only do they benefit but so do I.  This may seem to be calculating but it is not.  It is the ethics of the poor or disadvantaged.  I can survive only where I share with others like me.  We are interdependent.  We must trust each other because without trust we cannot share.  If I have food today and share it, I trust that on the day I have no food, someone else will share theirs with me. 

This type of ethic underlies all communities, where there is genuine sharing.  And of course where there is relative wealth it becomes less important.  Furthermore where there are major differences in wealth there cannot be this type of mutual support.

Some might see this type of arrangement between churches as a sign of weakness.  Of course it is, but at the same time it is a sign of strength.  To stand alone as a tradition might be a sign of strength but could equally be a spiritual malaise showing dependence upon material success rather than upon God through the love of other people.

A Covenant Approach to Ecumenism

Towards the end of chapter 3 of 'The Dignity of Difference' Sacks writes as follows:

What would faith be like?  It would be like being secure in one's home, yet moved by the beauty of foreign places, knowing that they are someone else's home, not mine, but still part of the glory of the world that is ours.  (Page 65)

I have picked small fragments from a chapter that hangs together fully only if it is read as a whole.  This final fragment (for now) summarises the emotional power of ecumenism for me.  I am familiar with my own British Methodist tradition, as familiar with its weaknesses as I am with its strengths.  To experience this with a second tradition, or more than one, is a great privilege and opens up new perspectives.  But my perspective remains Methodist, because this is the lens through which I observe other traditions.

For me this has come through the Methodist Anglican (or more accurately Church of England) Covenant.  Working closely with others from another tradition has helped me to see the possibilities of covenant from another angle.  Before I worked on the covenant in a formal capacity my own local church voted against it from a perspective of commitment to ecumenism.  I still retain many of the doubts I had then but I see things in a different way now.

I have learned something of the genius of the Church of England.  It is itself an ecumenical triumph; as it grew through warfare in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it became an alliance of a range of theological traditions who were prepared to overcome their commitment to their particular view sufficiently to value collaboration.  This coupled with this tradition's commitment to the nation's neighbourhood's means that in the past, despite myriad faults, this tradition has been the glue that has held English society together. 

Its tragedy is the constant struggle to hold together factions which are becoming less and less tolerant, or less prepared to allow certain views a place within the tradition.  This has weakened the church's potential for leadership; not the arrogance of some early attempts of leadership through takeover, but leadership through its capacity and resources.

I suspect many Anglicans (and Methodists) would disagree with this view.  My point is, as an outsider, I see the potential of this tradition, as well as its weaknesses, and my aim in working with it is to play a small part in encouraging it to play a part that is worthy of it.  My main aim is not to be a part of this tradition but to support it as it supports my Methodist tradition.  Covenant is this type of mutual support, each tradition respected and accepted for its contribution

I suspect all our traditions need to hear from their partners encouragement to stay with their charisms and to develop them for the benefit of all traditions.  Our unity in diversity would then grow out of each tradition contributing what it can to the common life of all together.

How do we make this a reality?  That is, in my view, the ecumenical task.  These posts are my attempt to explore how ecumenism might embrace this vision.

Ecumenism: the dissenters

In an earlier post I briefly told the story of ecumenism and the move from the old Council of Churches model to the new Churches Together model.  In a later post I suggested that the new ecumenical paradigm is already with us.  By this I meant there is significant dissent from traditional or mainstream ecumenism and suggested the main determinant of this dissent was age.

This time I want to attempt an initial overview of the diversity of this dissent in Britain.  There is no way this can be anything other than incomplete but perhaps I will revisit this list from time to time to clarify it further.

1. I suppose there has always been a traditional dissent from mainstream ecumenism.  The Free Church Group (FCG) includes members who for one reason or another are unable to join Churches Together in Britain and Ireland or the national instruments in England and Wales.  The FCG maintains a close working relationship with Churches Together in England and so I suppose it represents those who dissent from the mainstream but not so much as to sever all links with it.
2. The formal ecumenical instruments are parallelled to a degree by the Evangelical Alliance (EA).  This is an ecumenical organisation in its own right and some members of the mainstream instruments are also members of the EA.  I'm not sure what the breadth of theological perspectives are in EA with respect to ecumenism; it will cover a range from sympathy to suspicion to antipathy, I suspect.  Suffice it to say that financially, EA could lay claim to being the most successful ecumenical organisation in the country.
3. Evangelical, charismatic and pentecostal churches comprise many local congregations and have a range of theological positions.  Some will take extreme positions, believing they represent the narrow range of those churches that are truly Christian.  There are recent signs of a more open stance, especially through the Global Christian Forum.  These might be described as churches with a conservative theological position.
4. Some house churches take a position described as post-Christendom.  This includes a rejection of the ecclesiology not only of the mainstream churches but also of the Pentecostals.  They reject most of the paraphernalia of church and meet in homes like the first century church.
5. There are those like the Progressive Christian Network which although sympathetic with ecumenism in theory, are disillusioned and see modern ecumenism as an exercise in control.  These groups will take a radical or liberal theological stance.
6. There are a growing group of people who do not understand the traditional denominations or simply don't want to know.  Fresh expressions are one way these people can relate to the churches.  Sometimes fresh expressions are overseen by established churches and sometimes they are more like house churches with little or no explicit link to mainstream denominations.
7. Others simply shop around until they find a church they like.  They will attend for a few months or years and then move on, perhaps because their work takes them away.  These people genuinely do not see the denominational differences as relevant and consequently will be reluctant to become members and take part in running the local church.
8. There are also significant world church in Britain congregations which have a variety of relationships with mainstream churches but for one reason or another keep their distance.

This is my first attempt and I am immediately aware of several inadequacies.  I hope to return to some of these in more detail so that I can fill in the detail and clarify these types.

One last point, the purpose of this list is not to criticise the various stances but to clarify the nature of dissent from mainstream ecumenism.  I suspect a new ecumenical paradigm may already exist amongst or between these groups.  I also suspect this new paradigm will be difficult to articulate.