I enjoyed myself on Sunday speaking at a nearby WPCU service. I was mildly amused to be asked 'are you robing tonight?' since I wasn't even be-collared (no-one having died or needing to be spliced) and slightly bemused by the ritual processing in and out of the Bible (suitably adorned in heavily decorated book marks) to indicate the start and end of the service. My sermon seemed to be well enough received, even being described as 'refreshing' and only one hymn was sung to a tune I'd never heard before.
Then, belatedly, my Baptist Times arrived yesterday (it is still on Royal Mail re-direction which seems a bit hit and miss) with two articles on ecumenism that seemed to express fatigue, disappointment and even perhaps a degree of cynicism. A lot of what was observed was valid, but I'm not sure that it needs to lead us into despair.
One writer commented that ecumenism has always been seen as an 'add on' for most people, even many ministers. I think that's a fair comment - united services tend to be less well attended than others and churches often plan events and outreach 'across' one another. But that is not a fault of the dream but of local praxis. In Dibley, we as a church made a conscious decision to close our own service in favour of any united worship, acknowledging but subverting people's reluctance to go out twice in one day; it was often noted that we always had the biggest turnout and was a source of mild irritation that our ecumenical colleagues didn't do likewise. Here in Glasgow our evening services are always joint with another church and are in the style of neither; compromises have to be made and attendances are never going to be massive - though I have seen a sudden increase since Christmas. In neither case is it lowest common denominator mush and in neither case is there a sense that we should abandon our distinctive and separate witness, just a recognition that ecumenism is a serious undertaking. Of course it depends on the ministers, and being a bit of a mongrel myself, albeit a committed Baptist-mongrel, ecumenism is in my blood. Do I believe in a single organic unity? No, I don't, at least not in the way I understand it, since I don't think there ever was one. Do I believe in one Church? Abso-bloomin-lutely, just not sure how it looks.
Another comment made in the Baptist Times is that LEPs tend to arise where, in my interpretation of the writer's words, two (or more) dying churches join to form one bigger, no less terminally ill, church. Ecumenism as survival is doomed to fail because it is born of desperation not desire. The best LEPs, the ones that thrive and blossom, seem to be those in places like Milton Keynes that began life as such. There will be exceptions, of course, but to join two small congregations motivated by saving money, reducing workloads and 'showing we really are one afterall' simply won't be good enough.
In my, albeit limited, experience, the best practice is that which acknowledges diversity and difference and seeks to affirm each congregation's unique contribution to the 'big' picture.
- There is a Leicestershire village where all the churches have identical signage, apart from their denominational label, thus they all say 'The Church in Bimbleville, Denomination.' It seems to work.
- In Dibley we did a number of joint outreach events, such as a children's club or a pensioner's tea, and at the end we would refer interested parties to the fellowships that could offer what they were looking for - the parish church for children's work, the Methodists for a women's group, ourselves for a lunch club. We avoided re-inventing wheels, accepted our niches and refused to compete with one another.
- In many places ecumenical study groups for Lent and Advent prove a real source of joy.
- Lots of initiatives and interests cross denominational boundaries from Christian Aid week to Fairtrade to B2C Sunday
I could waffle on, but it'd soon get boring!
My suspicion is that we get tired and cynical because our view of ecumenism is too narrow, possibly too much 'organic union', possibly too much 'add on extra.' If we can re-imagine it as unity-in-diversity, as one body in many parts that do not compete but collaborate we may stand a better chance. Truth is, there is nothing wrong with being a small church, a niche church or even a dying church but everything wrong with seeing ecumenism as the cure for our latest woes.
So, no to robes and yes to joint services; no to ill-considered mergers and yes to shared mission; no to cynicism and yes to hopefulness.
What do others think? Examples of good practice and encouraging experience would be good to hear.