The ecumenically good, bad & ugly Sunday, Feb 8 2009

…for the week of 1-7 February 2009

The Good

The good news is that the new “Anglican-Methodist International Commission for Unity in Mission” (AMICUM?) has met for the first time. Although Methodists have enjoyed an (enormously successful) international Joint Commission with Roman Catholics since 1967, as well as numerous bilateral relations with Anglicans at the national level, this is the first international dialogue with members of the Anglican Communion. Three cheers to George Freeman and the World Methodist Council for continuing to build ecumenical relations with churches outside the Methodist family.

The Bad

Although I greatly appreciate the news service—and quite often the editorial viewpoint—that the Wesley Report provides, Shane’s cynicism toward ecumenicity is symptomatic of a serious ailment within the church. Concerning the above International Commission (about which I learned from the Wesley Report), he writes:

Should we get Jimmy Carter to broker the Methodist-Anglican peace talks? That was a joke… we’re not at war as far as I know, but I was mildly amused when I saw the headline at UMNS “Commission to Aid Anglican-Methodist Relations“. Is there some big chasm I don’t know about? Are Anglicans and Methodists not on speaking terms somewhere? Is the world as we know it going to end if the two movements don’t “get together” in some magical, ecumenical way?

On one hand, I can understand Shane’s cynicism; the ecumenical movement is indeed at a standstill and has been for several years. But the reason is not because the ecumenical bureaucratic structures are failures. They were never meant to be messianic instruments of unity that many people unfortunately mistook them to be. The ecumenical movement is at a standstill because what it needs now is what ecumenical theologians call “reception.”

Take the Roman Catholic-World Methodist Council Joint Commission, for instance. Since Vatican II, they have met annually and produced a major constructive report every five years. These reports often contain significant proposals for reconciliation and ecclesial unity. Take the Roman Catholic doctrine of infallibility, for instance. The Joint Commission has actually done some significant theological work in understanding infallibility as a communal form of the more individualized Wesleyan doctrine of assurance. There is some really interesting work going on in these groups!

But they do not speak for the denominations. They are simply “working groups” that dialogue and prepare documents that must then be received by the churches themselves. No matter what theological breakthroughs are made regarding infallibility and assurance, they are of no effect if that collegiality doesn’t become part of the discourse of the actual churches themselves—at both the local and denominational levels.

However, Shane’s comments may reflect more than just cynicism toward ecumenical structures. He also questions the claim that there is “some big chasm” between Anglicans and Methodists, as if our separation was not a problem. Perhaps I’ll tackle this in another post in another couple of weeks, as it’s too large to deal with now. But suffice it to say that any chasm between Christians is too big. At the moment, the Anglican Communion is breaking apart over issues of sexuality. And what difference does this make to Methodists? None whatsoever! The Anglican Communion could disappear and it wouldn’t make a single difference to how Methodists operate. Such a model of the church is more akin to a military or cell group; the strength of such groups is that they can thrive even when other cells disappear. But contrast this with Paul’s corporeal model of the church in 1 Corinthians 12:26: “If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.”

The Ugly

The ugly is, once again, Richard Williamson. Although, as I posted last week, I’m quite upset by how the media—and Christians as well—are handling the news of his excommunication being revoked, I must also say that—as a brother in Christ—he must be called to accountability. Apparently Williamson is willing to look at the evidence again, that perhaps his research in the 1980s was faulty. I’m willing to grant Mr. (NOT “Bishop”!) Williamson that perhaps the media is misquoting him. But surely someone who holds to such a controversial view should keep their research current?! I feel like I’m overstepping my bounds when I talk about Charles Wesley’s musical aesthetic, about which I did some significant research in 2002, but haven’t updated it since then! I surely wouldn’t publish on it now until I read everything related to the subject that’s been published in the meantime!