Yes, there is now a 'but' to be added to my claims and thinking and the reason for it surprises me and yet hopefully makes some sense to those who read these scribbles. Let me explain:
My first exposure to 'Churches Together' was a totally dismal and disappointing affair. We gathered in a building and sang songs that would offend none of those present rather than worshipped the God we serve. We had a bland talk and cagey prayers and then we came to the common ion bit of the proceedings which meant that the Roman Catholics led their flock into one room so that the 'true church' (a term the ancient priest used during the tea and biscuits afterwards!) could keep it's hands and company clean. The Anglicans stayed in the main room and others left to do their own thing in other rooms to do it the way they liked to have it done.
I was appalled because I thought we were in the place to show how Church was one and yet when the crunch came we were in fact five different groups and made sure we kept it like that! Meanwhile, me being a pentecostal at the time, I popped out and bought a Mars bar and Coke and sat in the sun reflecting upon it all.
Many years later, when I had been collared and in a land far away from the safety of London, my home, I found myself in a group where the stated aims were 'together in all things outside of that which can't be done together'. We work in partnership where we can and we break bread tougher as much as is possible and share services and witness to the love of Jesus, the Christ, and though differences remain, this is felt of as generally being good.
When is comes to differences there is always the baptismal divide to contemplate: paedobaptist vs believer's baptism and the challenges that come from the conflict that is 'one baptism' vs 'anabaptism'.
We get more of the same when we bring things sacramental into the equation; those things which neatly split the group into two and yet with the sacramental types find further opportunity for schism as we have Catholic vs Anglican and the Methodists (who are really just Anglicans without the wine but often added whine it seems) sitting neatly somewhere I can't quite define!
Recently I was privileged to take a look at a place where church was billed as truly ecumenical. There were shared buildings and everyone one there was filled with pride at the fact that many of the people within the group of churches were 'ecumenical'. Some, when talked to were keen to tell me how they were still 'distinctly' Anglican or Methodist sort whatever; but many were keen to tell me how they'd lost their denominational label and were now , "A bit of everything with no fixed beliefs anymore!' *
(that's a direct quote by the way, I'm not making this stuff up).
Now I was intrigued because, looking at the 'ecumenical' label and hearing people speak about their experiences and, in some cases, beliefs I though, "Wow, sounds great. So I dug deeper and asked how they dealt with the anabaptism differences from the position they'd previously occupied: The answer to which was that they'd just decided that both positions were right and so there was no conflict. This answer troubled me in that whilst I want unity and one Church, I saw a unity that is mere accommodation rather than coherent and consistent faith.
Moving on I asked about vocations and how it was possible to train someone as an Anglican when they weren't 'distinctly Anglican' or to train someone to be a Baptist when they held the view that paedobaptism was perfectly right and acceptable. The response was, quite simply, "Oh, we don't get vocations!' The thought that ran through my head was a saying people use in the community around me along the lines of, "No surprise there Sherlock!' The reality was that despite the 'all together - all of one mind' billing, this is as awful a reality as that I encountered in my first 'ecumenical' outing!
What I had hoped for as something that was united and serving the kingdom felt, rather uneasily, as something that served the people engaged in it and the fact that wherever I went the people spoke of decline was distressing and caused my heart to sink. It sank even further when I suggested to one of the leaders that what they were doing was spawning artificially bred Christians who would, if released into the wild, be unable to spawn (i.e. make new converts) or even reside comfortably in the real world outside their own created idyll. A colleague who knew of the group compared it to the children of the damned - which was a bit harsh I think (he's a Wyndham fan, so only to be expected) but I know what he meant.
Ecumenism is being one together whilst accepting that we are all different. Christian unity is not (I hope) some bland, grey amalgam, where we all believe exactly the same and, using that ghastly and ridiculous 'agreeing to differ' mantra, put off the things that make us whatever type of Christian we are.
For an Anglican to become a Baptist (and vv) is a massive step because there is theology to be resolved here. It is more than just deciding to attend a different type of service, it is to take up and affirm a whole new type of theological thinking. The journey to, and from, Methodism for an Anglican is (in many of the churches) much simpler for there is concord between the two denominations. Someone I know left the CofE for a pentecostal church and did so with no qualms or questions regarding the great theological divide between the two - the journey having been so easily made said much about the doubt raised regarding them by the selectors when they sought ordination!
So here I am, a firm believer in ecumenism and yet now, thanks to my experiences in an ecumenical paradise, an equally firm believer in celebrating and encouraging the differences between the different strands. I still am appalled at the way that Roman Catholics refuse to communicate others and am always going to be sad when someone eschews the bread and wine offered by others because of the 'true church' label. I will never feel comfortable with one church mocking another because of 'their vain repetitive, mumblings' or finding someone who having come to faith and been baptised in one church is rebaptised because they don't recognise the former rite! This is nothing to do with being Biblical but speaks more about an arrogance and misunderstanding of what the Bible is about in my book.
I struggle with things in the Church of England and am often in step with those who also struggle with it from outside - but at the end of the day, like the Curate's Egg - not all of it is bad!
I have signed up to the Anglican church because I feel the theology, liturgy and practice are pretty much spot on! This still means that some things are endured rather than supported and should the time come when there is more to disagree with than agree then I guess I will find a new home rather than be a focus for division and dissent - but, of course, I will always be a Christian and there will always be somewhere that feels right because of that.
So why do we create an impotent Church by our crying out of 'Peace, peace' when what we mean is something more self-serving than kingdom-building?
The truth is that we are weakening the Church by not accepting and embracing the differences between us? We don't need to go starting wars but we do need to understand our differences and the ways that these have emerged - dialogue is essential, unity is command, bland and self-indulgent compromise is debilitating. Embrace what we belief and dialogue with those who differ: Not sniping and deploying the rancour-filled ad hominem as is often the case now.
So here I am, struggling to see the next step - which thankfully means even more reading and study, so that's already a win isn't it?
Church - how are you doing yours with those around you?
No comments:
Post a Comment