Authentic Relationship

One of the most important elements of ecumenical and interreligious relationships is being authentic in presenting yourself to others. Being in dialogue and relationship with persons of other religious traditions means being open to others and being ‘real’ in who you are. Others cannot know you if you cover up those thoughts, beliefs, and practices that you think might be points of controversy.

One of the criticisms I have often heard, especially in exchanges with persons whose beliefs are other than Christian, is that Christians too often ‘try to be nice instead of authentic.’ One Orthodox Jewish rabbi said to me, ‘When I talk with a Christian about religious matters, I want to know what he or she thinks. I already know what I think. I’m not interested in being affirmed in what I already think. But, a lot of the time I get sweet smiles and desperate attempts to agree with everything I say — even when I know they can’t possibly see things the same way that I do on some issues.’

Dialogue and relationships between people of different beliefs and backgrounds must, inevitably, bring them to points of disagreement, lack of understanding, and even conflict. Ecumenical and interreligious relations are risky things. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that if you have come together in work or discussion, to be present with one another in the midst of your differences and similarities, you have already begun at a point of desire to make the relationship a success. The next step is the courage to be yourself and respect others in their differences and similarities as you would hope to be respected by them. Hiding from potential disagreement is preventing an authentic exchange and precluding the possibility for a real relationship to develop.

What sometimes emerges from ecumenical and interreligious interactions is summed up in a remark I’ve heard made many times: ‘They knew a lot about their tradition — and I discovered I didn’t know as much about mine as I thought I did. I was embarrassed. I didn’t know what my tradition said about some of the things we were talking about.’

But here is another blessing . . . that discovery (even the embarrassment that went with it) simply signaled one of the advantages of dialogue and relationships — it challenges us to better know ourselves, as well as to come to know others. In building relationships with people of other religious traditions, we are helped to grow in our knowledge of our own tradition and beliefs. In this way, we grow towards a deeper possibility for authenticity.

Thankful

In the United States, Thursday is the Thanksgiving holiday. It is a time for mindfulness of the blessings in our lives — individually and collectively. On this Thanksgiving, I am thankful for all the many people who contribute to the ecumenical and interreligious relationships The United Methodist Church has with other communities of faith. I am thankful for the volunteers who give their time to attend meetings far from home. I am thankful for the people who labour tirelessly alongside fellow Christians and members of other religious traditions, enacting God’s love and mercy among all peoples.

May we be blessed with patience — with each other and ourselves, so that we will not be dissuaded from our work together. May we likewise be restless to do more; and never complacent and willing to be passive in the face of lovelessness and injustice.

My prayer for you, and for all of us, is that we will be transformed more and more each day so that we may grow more perfect in God’s love and grace.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Ecumenism and the Laity

During this time of economic distress in the United States of America and in much of the rest of the world, going from one meeting of people who work for church institutions to another can feel like itinerating between the ‘chambers of litanies.’ In addition to shortfalls in revenues and slashed budgets, so-called ‘mainline’ churches are watching membership numbers decline rapidly. Added to the verbalizations of angst over what institutional changes may be needed to keep churches afloat, one hears the frequent lament, ‘Why aren’t more people interested in ecumenism and interreligious relationships?’

Before starting this job, I would have been very surprised to hear that question in the context of the churches I was familiar with — and certainly in the context of the seminary in which I taught. At the level of the local church in Boston and many other New England communities — and in southeast Michigan (where I came from before that) — I was used to seeing the laity working side-by-side in ministry to their communities. Ministries with the homeless — shelters, medical clinics, food pantries, and kitchens — were very often interdenominational (and not infrequently interreligious) enterprises. In these shared labours, communities of faith pooled resources and built relationships in and among themselves in order to be a support to neighborhoods, towns, and regions.

Many of these efforts do not get counted as ecumenical and interreligious relationships for a couple of reasons, I think: 1) often times the people involved would not think in those terms — they might have some other way of talking about their working together that is not pigeon-holed into jargon, and; 2) the work is mostly done by the laity. True, there are many ordained clergy involved in the work — but most of the hours invested are filled in by the non-clerical adherents to religious traditions.

A couple things can be said about the second point above. First, a question: why is it so common, these days, to not count the work of the laity when we assess what religious communities do or do not do? Second, there is good news! — a lot of ecumenical and interreligious work is being done at the grass roots (as it has been for a very long time).

One of the things that is clear to me in relation to this is that there is a disconnect between the ecumenism of ‘life and work’ that takes place in local communities and the institutional ecumenism that tends to focus on ‘faith and order’ issues. Both life & work and faith & order have long-standing important places in the ecumenical movement. But, there is a cleft between them on a practical level. I see this in another way when I travel in institutional ecumenical circles . . . where I am a part of a fairly small minority of participants who is not a clergy person. Indeed, when I began my work in the ecumenical and interreligious fields, I was sometimes given words of welcome by those who wanted to ‘affirm [my] ministry as a layperson.’ I smiled and affirmed their ministries as clergy persons. After all, I said, most of the work of the church is actually entrusted to the laity — it is the first office of Christian ministry.

We need to expand our vision of ministry beyond a fixation upon what is done by the clergy castes . . . so that we may recall that much of the church’s ministry begins with (and is largely carried by the labours of) the laity. Seen from this vantage-point, I think the ecumenical and interreligious work of the church looks much more vibrant than it is sometimes counted in the institutional jeremiads. There is good news . . . good news from which to draw courage and build.

Globalization – Ecumenism and the Nation State

What is the significance of ‘globalization’ for the future of Christian unity in our world?

This may seem an odd question to some; and a pressing question for others. I lean more in the direction of the latter. Let me tell you why . . . and allow me to suggest that this question is one that must be engaged if the ecumenical movement is to grow in a meaningful way in the years to come.

‘Globalization’ is a term that has been used to describe the trend towards a ‘global economy’ in which ‘free trade’ is more important in the framing of laws and taxes than are local concerns. The formation of free trade zones (key among these being the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in the 1990s and the further, late 20^th century, development of the European Economic Community into the European Union) have undermined one of the pillars of the Modern Era — the nation state.

While much praise has been heaped upon globalization as a provider of cheap and abundant goods, the myriad concerns this change is bringing about have mostly fallen by the wayside, like feeble mutterings as one is swept away by the waters of a tsunami. Among the changes is a disempowerment of democratic institutions and processes as their authority to intervene on behalf of the health, wellbeing, and prosperity of the people is labelled as inappropriate ‘interference’ in the ‘new economy.’ To be sure, the nation state is rightly criticized for some of the bloodiest of wars and some of the cruelest of oppressions in recent centuries. But, the nation state is also the setting within which democratic governments were fashioned and the frame around which voluntary societies were formed (voluntary societies include charitable groups, social institutions, and many churches, etc.). Lifting away spheres of authority and accountability that were once bounded (and supported) by national borders has had the effect of knocking down not only barriers to commerce but also the supports that sheltered and gave structure to entire societies. With Christianity having been fashioned, and refashioned, in much of the world, to conform to the realities of the nation state, it is now one of those families of institutions that finds itself attached to a paradigm that is rapidly melting away.

The story of the relationship of different communions to the nation state varies considerably. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, was constructed in the context of the waning centuries of the Roman Empire. It was, in effect, built upon a ‘global’ paradigm. When the Roman Empire collapsed, it functioned in Europe as a universalizing influence upon the sea of atomized realms and principalities that followed the political disintegration on the Continent. In many respects, it was the Roman Catholic Church that kept alive a notion of something bigger than the local concerns — arguably helping make possible the move towards regional amalgams into nation states (beginning around the time of the Reformations) and then, eventually, back towards a notion of shared identity that supersedes (or transcends) the nation states that grew up during the post-Reformations Era. The new reality is not the same as that in the late Roman Era, however, as neither the Roman Catholic Church, nor Christianity in general, enjoy a preferred status in European society as a whole. Thus, Europe united is not the same as Europe united under the ideal of the Universal Church.

The post-Reformations Established Churches (those churches that were accorded a ‘religious monopoly’ and official status as the government-sponsored church within a given country) — such as the Anglicans in Britain and Lutheran Churches in some Northern European countries, etc. — had their origins within, and were often synonymous with the nation state. Their institutional structures have often directly mirrored national boundaries; sometimes even subdivided to match regional divisions within the country as well.

For free church traditions, like that of The United Methodist Church, in which we have existed without Established Church status — and sometimes even defined ourselves over and against such a notion (as in New England in the USA up until the 1830s), moving out of a nation state reality into a post-nation state reality takes us out of our ‘native habitat’ for the first time. Even though United Methodist policy declares we are a ‘global church,’ in the practical sense, we have functioned as a church operating in — and largely conformed to — a diverse set of national realities. We have not kept an eye towards a ‘global vision’ of United Methodism . . . and, if we are to do so, we will be learning a new way of being.

While the relationship of individual communions to globalization is varied, the relationship of conciliar ecumenism is completely wedded to a nation state reality that is no longer the organizing principle of our world. In a valiant attempt to perfect the nation states and their relationships, international institutions such as the United Nations and the World Council of Churches were given shape in the post-World War II 1940s. Both of these institutions, while often said to share an ‘internationalist agenda,’ nevertheless were built on the basic assumption that a world super-structure of institutions founded to promote peace, harmony, and justice would do so through the agency of relationships with nation states. What then becomes of these institutions and their supporting structures when the nation state is becoming less relevant?

The layers of concerns associated with this question are too numerous to tackle in one blog post — or one book, for that matter. Nevertheless, our engagement of this important question is essential, if we are to give witness to the Gospel of Christ Jesus in our present day.

What is a Bilateral Dialogue?

One of the things I am often asked when I talk with people about ecumenical work is, ‘What is a bilateral dialogue and what is its purpose?’

The simplest and most obvious answer is that a bilateral dialogue is a formal conversation between members of two communions (churches). Similarly, a multi-lateral dialogue is one involving three or more communions.

According to one set of logic, the purpose of bilateral and multi-lateral dialogues is as adjuncts to conciliar ecumenism (that has, for a number of years now, been aimed at the ultimate goal of ‘full communion’ among all council members). Specific discussions are initiated between two conciliar partners in order to facilitate their progress in the broader conciliar discussions, moving them past sticking points that are unique to them — and holding up the progress of the larger conciliar enterprise.

That’s the theory. And, there is much virtue in this understanding of bilateral and multilateral ecumenism. It places the primary emphasis upon the big picture and the multitude of relationships among the Christian churches. Thus, Christian unity is seen as something undertaken as a commitment of the whole of the Body of Christ.

In practice, there are a variety of approaches to bilateral and multilateral relationships — although the ultimate goal in each of these is the same . . . attainment of full communion status between the various Christian communities of faith. Each bilateral also serves as an experiment that informs the wider ecumenical efforts; an experiment in which different approaches to discussions may be tried, different methods can be employed, etc. Indeed, bilaterals have been especially important grounds for discovery and development of ecumenism more generally since Vatican II (in the 1960s) when the Roman Catholic Church entered into discussion with various Protestant ecumenical partners. Since ecumenical efforts are works in progress, there is some lack of clarity about the status, purpose, and authority of bilateral and multilateral discussions in relation to the communions that have authorized them. As the ecumenical movement learns from experience, it may prove profitable to bring theory and practice more closely together in a way that unifies all of these relationships within an overarching philosophical frame.

Generally speaking, a bilateral dialogue is undertaken in a series of ‘rounds’ (usually lasting about four to five years each — although some have gone on much longer). A dialogue committee is constituted for each round with members appointed from each communion. It is common for each round to be framed by a ‘mandate’ or a ‘memorandum of understanding’ that sets out the goals and a rough outline of the expected process (e.g., how often and where meetings will take place, whether or not a ‘statement’ will be produced at the round’s end, and so forth).

Returning to the theoretical logic mentioned above, one of the basic principles of a bilateral is that the committee engages in discussions in order to speak to the communions that have given it the commission to meet — rather than acting on behalf of the communions in dialogue. According to this understanding, dialogue committees raise points of insight, learning, and concern. They can also suggest ways forward to move the communions closer to the goals of full communion. In line with this strain of logic is the sense that a small, select committee cannot truly ‘represent’ the communions involved. Rather, they are selected for expertise appropriate to the specific topics to be discussed in the round. The bigger picture is still the responsibility of the leaders of the communions involved.

For instance, two communions in dialogue may have discussions concerning their particular understanding of the offices of ministry. Each communion might choose to appoint scholars or other sorts of experts who could speak to this topic and explore the similarity and differences of understanding between the two dialogue partners. At the end of the round, the committee might draft a statement that summarizes what was learned and further challenges they may have discovered.

The ‘statement’ produced by a dialogue committee is not authoritative in itself. It is not necessarily representative of what either communion holds to be ‘official’ doctrine or policy. Rather, it is a resource for the communions as they fashion their policy and/or doctrine by means of their particular processes and procedures. The communions themselves will decide what value is to be gleaned from the product of each bilateral round.

Some of the most important things to be gained from dialogues are the establishment of important personal connections between members of the communions, and, a deepening sense of self that often comes when confronted with the task of having to articulate to another those things held dear by a religious community. The relationships formed help to infuse the ecumenical efforts with a heart-felt love for one’s ecumenical partners (recalling that Jesus calls upon us to love one another as we love ourselves). This changes the emphasis upon the work of Christian unity from the abstract and institutional to the personal and familial. It makes the hearts of participants yearn for progress and for the success of the work. Likewise, it moves members of a communion out of their world of ‘insider assumptions and givens’ into a relational space in which feelings, concepts, and ideas need to be explained to those to whom they may be unfamiliar. Often times in this process, members of a communion may discover things about themselves — and the things they take for granted — that they never knew before; or they may see things in a different light (giving them new insight). One of the great blessings of a dialogue is that you not only learn more about your dialogue partner — you also learn more about yourself.

Dialogues have been, and will continue to be, one of the most important tools in the efforts to actualize broad-based Christian unity. Among the challenges they pose, however, is the need to keep these dialogues in harmony with the bigger goals of the ecumenical endeavor. If this harmony is not maintained, bilateral dialogues could end up causing the exact opposite of their purpose — breaking down conciliar ecumenism into a series of dis-integrated two-party relationships bounded by commitments that hinder goals of broad full communion relationships among all members of the conciliar ecumenical community. Here we return to the suggestion above that part of the forward progress of ecumenism probably lies in the development of a guiding philosophy that will shape the use of bilateral relationships in the future.