This week I have being in seminars with two very inspiring Anglican Bishops; Graham Cray speaking about mission shaped church at the network church conference in Sheffield and then with Bishop Peter Selby discussing our relationship with land and our mortgage culture.
Graham Cray was following up the mission shaped church report and the fact that the Anglican church is, as Rowan Williams puts it ‘at a watershed moment’. A time of great opportunity and also a time of crisis; it seems that opportunity is often coupled with crisis.
There were a couple of areas that really stimulated my thinking especially concerning the diversity of the church. Here’s a fascinating quote by Andrew Walls, ‘The church must be diverse because humanity is diverse; it must be one because Christ is one. Christ is human, and open to humanity in all its diversity; the fullness of his humanity takes in all its diverse cultural forms. The Ephesian letter is a celebration of the union of irreconcilable entities, brought about by Christ’s death.’
At a time where it appears that there are ‘irreconcilable entities’ both within the church and outside of the church, the issue is addressed in the book of Ephesians. Whilst agreeing with the theological principle of unity I wander how it will happen. Is unity in diversity about allowing fragmentation within a whole? Is it about enforcing a certain theology? Or is it affirming the diversity under an umbrella organisation? Or is unity in diversity allowing total fragmentation but recognising that we are eschatologically united in Christ.
It appears that within Anglicanism that there is a movement towards recognising a diversity of expressions of church; the network economy. One expression of church must not set itself up above the others as the ‘right’ model of church, controlling the ecclesiology and theology. However there must also be some ‘marks’ of church that guarantee authenticity, preventing syncretism and the potential for cults developing. We need to ensure that all orthodox models of church are affirmed and recognised, whether emerging or established.
I am convinced that the only way we can do this is by being in relationship and hence am pleased that Sanctus1 is in relationship with the wider Anglican communion. This also guarantees our catholicity, it says that we are connected and value the depth of spiritual resources that are in the church catholic.
‘The Ephesian metaphors of the temple and of the body show each of the culture-specific segments as necessary to the body but as incomplete in itself. Only in Christ does completeness, fullness, dwell. None of us can reach Christ’s completeness on our own. We need each other’s vision to correct, enlarge and focus our own; only together are we complete in Christ.’ Walls
4 comments:
"The church must be diverse because humanity is diverse." Definitely challenging and not very good for those of us who like our comfort zones.
But much of the debate about unity tends to focus on:
- ways of being church, should it be liquid, traditional, etc etc
- splits over homosexuality / women priests / divorcees
- being a holy and catholic church within the Anglican communion.
True unity, however, is about the whole church. Surely an Anglican communion that is reconciled over differences is a long cry from a true "theological principle of unity" which will see Sanctus1 working with The Message and the Catholic cathedral and orthodox Christians and Vineyard and Messianic Jews and so on?
We need to work to towards unity, even if it is just in the Anglican communion, but I wonder if Christ would widen our focus a little. Or a lot.
Can I have my comfort zone back, please?
[I have reposted this due to bad editing on the original one that confused what I was trying to say. I must learn to pause before I press publish!]
I agree that it's not just about Anglicanism and hence my comments about catholicity. I also think that it is quite an exciting time with the Anglican-Methodist covenant happening and how that is being outworked in our local context.
There is a question about what unity means and it should not mean uniformity, therefore i would welcome dialogue with people of all christian traditions but that dialogue needs to be two way and respectful on both counts. Unity can mean agreeing to diagree and hence remaining in communion.
But how far do you take this idea of unity? Why do we assume that because someone else shares what is really a fairly abstract theological position (i.e. the ideas that Jesus "is the son of God" and "died for our sins" - both of which can mean all sorts of things) that they are basically the same?
Okay, we can respectfully agree to disagree, but:
a) I can do that with individuals of other faiths or none. In fact many individuals holding different religous doctrines may have an ethical world-view which is much closer to what I understand to be the teaching and example of Jesus than certain of my fellow Christians.
b) What happens when this respect isn't reciprocated, and my "brothers and sisters in Christ" claim - loudly and publicly - that their take on Christianity is the only valid one, and mine is a watered-down corruption?
Do we accord viewpoints more respect - or even more validity - just because those espousing them happen to describe themselves as Christian?
And what of Paul's warning to the Corinthians?
Post a Comment