tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3493614867789285158.post7248818601722700337..comments2023-05-06T15:14:45.118+01:00Comments on Methodist Ecumenical News: Points of Convergence on the Unity of the ChurchUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3493614867789285158.post-36769702455306976272011-07-25T21:36:55.218+01:002011-07-25T21:36:55.218+01:00I think the problem is strategic. Formal conversa...I think the problem is strategic. Formal conversations have achieved a great deal. I've argued for a long time they need to be re-framed - the idea of fvu is not helpful. Turgid papers are evidence of a lack of strategic analysis. Many people involved in formal talks will admit, at least in private, that their weakness is they are poor at reception. The belief seems to be that once an agreement has been reached it will gently percolate to the rest of the churches. I'm trying to address that through this blog but I'm only one person and mostly have raw material which has not been designed for reception.<br /><br />I don't really know what you mean by polycephaly (hydra?) and so I can't comment - can you provide me with a link?Chris Sissonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17426078801713097932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3493614867789285158.post-5839747614874011582011-07-25T17:26:00.461+01:002011-07-25T17:26:00.461+01:00So why this remote, top-down movement towards full...So why this remote, top-down movement towards full visible unity (you might as well call it organisational union and have done), rather than movement towards polycaphalic unity, which is rather more than churches together? All we ever see is the occasional turgid, often self-satisfied statement, and if they can't carry the people with them, it's probably going nowhere. At best, it will only involve a few denominations. Polycephaly, on the other hand, can combine both the sort of local network I'm involved in, and the structures, so everyone can play their part to the full.Robert Brenchleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17006227551531676492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3493614867789285158.post-77450678910519301032011-07-25T15:01:55.368+01:002011-07-25T15:01:55.368+01:00Yes, I'm sure you're right. The 8 points ...Yes, I'm sure you're right. The 8 points of convergence are evidence conversations are taking place and so there are grounds for sharing in mission and other activities. To claim they're progress towards visible unity is a matter of interpretation and I suspect to a degree, unrealistic expectations. Deepening relationships do not necessarily lead to structural unity. The churches have discovered big theological issues are relatively easy to resolve but as they are resolved, secondary matters become big obstacles to structural unity. <br /><br />Moves towards full visible unity are bound to be top down and a movement towards less structural unity (as envisaged in 1989) is going to be less so. What you experience is a result of confusion between full visible unity and churches together. There are still many who insist on treating them as if they are the same thing.Chris Sissonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17426078801713097932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3493614867789285158.post-67827373496188960502011-07-25T14:35:14.120+01:002011-07-25T14:35:14.120+01:00I'm not sure I am out of date. I mention visib...I'm not sure I am out of date. I mention visible unity because you quoted a document calling for it. Churches together is - up to a point - an approach I'm more comfortable with, though in my experience it tends to be top-down, minister oriented, and with very little influence on the local congreataions which, when all's said and done, are the church. At the same time I see endless hot air being expended on issues of who should be ordained, and in the case of some denominations, who is or isn't properly ordained. If a church won't accept a woman priest, for instance, or a woman bishop, that affects their relationship with other denominations. Since when has the church been about ministers and bishops anyway? The church is people, and structures and minsters/priests are there to serve it, not to take over. Somewhere, I think we need to drastically overhaul out ecclesiology before we'll have much chance of making progress!Robert Brenchleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17006227551531676492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3493614867789285158.post-26227209670004363242011-07-25T14:06:46.495+01:002011-07-25T14:06:46.495+01:00You're more than 20 years out of date! Except...You're more than 20 years out of date! Except that perhaps you're not.<br /><br />The Swanwick Declaration in 1989, which arose from the 'Not Strangers but Pilgrims' interchurch process, brought the period of full visible unity to a close. The commitment made in all four nations was to the 'Churches Together' approach which is the alternative approach you describe.<br /><br />But you are right to raise this because many people think we're still committed to full visible unity - which ended with the failure of the English Covenant in 1982. I think some of the confusion arises from the possibility of visible unity between the Methodist Church and a few close partners. Even if this were to happened it would fall far short of 'full visible unity'.Chris Sissonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17426078801713097932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3493614867789285158.post-29643889262176297892011-07-25T10:05:00.884+01:002011-07-25T10:05:00.884+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Robert Brenchleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17006227551531676492noreply@blogger.com