Inclusion and Membership

Meeting of the Global Christian Forum,  Nairobi 2007

This post is the sixth in a sequence examining some of the issues raised in a new report, 'A Review of Intermediate Ecumenical Life in England' to be published by Churches Together in England in a few weeks time.

Today, I will reflect upon inclusion and membership.  The following concludes Chapter 14:

The laudable desire to make intermediate ecumenical life accessible to all Christian bodies is not without its difficulties in terms of governance ans accountability, orthodoxy, orthopraxy, and acceptability to the existing partners on the ecumenical journey.  Discernment is needed to eradicate prejudice and cross-cultural misunderstanding and to move forwards with an expectation of mutual enrichment.  Relationships at different "levels" of ecumenical life are different and may point towards different decisions about membership being made at each level; but it is important to recognise that what happens at one level affects what happens at the other, albeit autonomous, levels.

 The report lists some of the sources of diversity of churches at the local level and this will bear reproduction here:

• The Caribbean and African based churches have grown stronger and more numerous, often with a propensity to follow the movement of the Spirit which results in fragmentation.
• Churches, new to this country, have arrived with new citizens from many other parts of the world;
• Independent, evangelical / charismatic churches, mainly white-led, have grown in number and influence.
• The increase in the strength of orthodox Churches and the increased confidence of churches of the disaffected.
• Churches which are spin-offs from the historic denominations and claiming to maintain the integrity of the tradition.

It is interesting to look at the authority structures of these churches.  Some, are independent, some form loose alliances with like-minded churches, some have a closer union between several congregations but are small, perhaps regional, some relate to churches which are significant in other parts of the world.  The point is many, whilst significant players locally, have no national presence.  This reinforces the impression  ecumenism is about formal conversations between traditional or inherited churches.

The Global Christian Forum has created a space for evangelical and charismatic churches with a national or international presence, to enter into conversations with members of the World Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church.  To this extent, it seems international and local ecumenism have something in common.  However, the mix of churches in any locality may well be unique to that locality.

What are the implications?  Inevitably, it means agreements between churches nationally have less impact on the local scene.  Some of the regulations governing property, finance and ministry may seem onerous compared with the experience of freedom some local churches experience.

I suspect national church authorities will need to enter into conversations with their local churches in order to facilitate sharing of information and experiences between local churches.  This is a new era of ecumenical dialogue and local churches will find they are moving closer to the centre of ecumenical work.  One challenge they will encounter will be the need to temper their local focus by being aware of what's happening in other localities, nationally and internationally.

Related articles

• Inclusion and Membership (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• A Review of Intermediate Ecumenical Life in England (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Supporting Local Ecumenical Life (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• The Sponsoring Body (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Mission Shaped and Ecumenical (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Strategic Planning: Mission Together (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Intermediate Bodies, Past and Present (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

CTE Enabling Group, September 2011

Image by Catholic Church (England and Wales) via Flickr

Vincent Nichols

Today Churches Together in England's Enabling Group meets for one of its twice yearly meetings.  Enabling Group's role is to reflect upon the progress of ecumenical relationships in England.  It is 'a key level of governance because it is where all the churches, which are members of the organisation, are able to be represented.  (It) also includes representatives of the Intermediate Bodies, representatives of the Bodies in Association and of the Forum.'  (See CTE's websites for definitions of these terms.)

Highlights on the agenda this time include:

1. The Church and the Olympics, a session with Dave Wilson, eho is the CEO of More Than Gold.
2. The Intermediate Body Review, a session led by Revd Bill Snelson, who wrote the review.
3. There will be a session with two of CTE's Presidents, the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols (Roman Catholic Church) and the Revd Michael Heaney (newly elected Moderator of the free churches group).
4. It also seems likely a report from a consultation in March 2010 will be discussed.  The consultation, Mission Shaped and Ecumenical,  was organised by CTE and consisted of Missioners and Ecumenists in Conversation.  I hope to cover this in more detail in the near future.

Strategic Planning: Mission Together

This post is the fifth in a sequence examining some of the issues raised in a new report, 'A Review of Intermediate Ecumenical Life in England' to be published by Churches Together in England in a few weeks time.

Today, I will reflect upon the relationship between unity and mission.  The following concludes Chapter 11:

Though they have served well in building and sustaining relationships between the mainstream Churches and their leaders, Intermediate Bodies have not been as good at responding to the calls for a "mission agenda", especially those aspects of mission related to new forms of proclamation and Christian presence.  Intermediate Bodies need to be generous and confident further developing networks and broadening relationships.  Thereby they may be more truly representative of Christianity in England today and strengthened in their role of oversight, and may help to ensure that the new expressions of being Church are espoused by the historic Churches.

This chapter contrasts the traditional ecumenical approach of ecumenism as a 'given definitive shape as unalterable' and those seek 'progressive growth and adaptation into the fullness of Christ'.  Certainly this difference of approach is real but I wonder if this analysis is inadequate.

When we contrast unity with mission, we miss a vital element of the purpose of churches, namely formation.  Within Methodism we are fond of referring to John Wesley as a great evangelist (the best since St Paul some believe) but he could equally be described as a great spiritual director.  He saw the importance of direction following conversion and indeed his often controversial emphasis on sanctification, contrasts significantly with some strains of evangelicalism.  The Methodist Societies were organised into various classes and bands, which were designed for mutual support.  There were few spiritual directors around and so Methodists had to learn how to support each other.  Wesley's genius was not just in bringing people to faith in Christ, he also structured a movement to enable Methodists to grow in faith.

At Methodist Conference 2011, the General Secretaries' report emphasised training in discipleship, and this has now been published as Contemporary Methodism.  In this paper Martyn Atkins makes a clear link between discipleship and mission.

I would want to argue the link between unity and mission becomes strained when formation is omitted from the equation.  The reality of alternative churches, long established alternatives to our current tradition, is a crucial experience in Christian formation.  It helps Christians grow in confidence as they discover their own tradition through relating to others and discover that uncertainty on doctrinal points need not ultimately be undermining of faith.

Related articles

• A Review of Intermediate Ecumenical Life in England (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Supporting Local Ecumenical Life (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• The Sponsoring Body (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Ecumenical Formation (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• Intermediate Bodies, Past and Present (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

The Sponsoring Body

Image by Wonderlane via FlickrThis post is the fourth in a sequence examining some of the issues raised in a new report, 'A Review of Intermediate Ecumenical Life in England' to be published by Churches Together in England in a few weeks time.

Today, I will reflect upon the role of LEPs.  The following are the conclusions at the end of Chapter 9:

Though in some instances lights set on a hill, LEPs have not been the beacons for a united Church in this generation.  Single Congregation LEPs (the most complex) number some 600 in England, out of a rough estimated total of 40 000 congregations.  Their significance within a denomination is marked: they represent a much higher proportion of United Reformed Church congregations than they do of Church of England congregations; d Single Congregation LEPs have not included the Orthodox Churches or the Roman Catholic church, or BME Churches.

Without detracting fro  their positive contribution to the life of the Church of England, the attention they receive from CTE and from IBs is disproportionate, especially against the backdrop of emerging forms of ecumenical life.  The time consumed by LEPs could be spent more creatively, and IBs might be more enthusiastically embraced by Church Leaders if this were so.  However, LEPs are not the only form of local church life that has difficulties, and they should not be criticised unduly.

I believe the problem with LEPs has nothing to do with the time they take or their complexity; it is left over from the times when LEPs were seen as indicators of the ecumenical goal of full visible unity.  At one time they were the only game in town and so the more LEPs, the closer we were to unity.

This view was abandoned  at the end of 1980s and after twenty years its time we caught up with that important change.  LEPs do have a role, a vital role; a role not helped by freighting them with ideological baggage.

LEPs are a tool for mission.  In certain circumstances, they are an appropriate way to organise local churches for mission.  The challenge is to identify the circumstances where they are appropriate and then to set them up with a minimum of fuss.

What has struck me over 8 years working with LEPs, is the number of people who want to spend a great deal of time writing or tinkering with LEP constitutions.  We've done a lot nationally to reduce their complexity and the time it takes to set LEPs up but there is still legacy of people who insist on doing things their way.

If there is a call to mission, amongst two or more local churches, LEPs may be an appropriate response.  This works if the focus is on mission.  As soon as churches get hung up on the minutiae of constitutions, we get into trouble.  We've had decades of experience; the model constitutions are based upon this experience.  They allow churches, through locally agreed guidelines, to organise their affairs with a high degree of flexibility so long as those involved are willing to allow them to do so.

But they are also one tool amongst many others.  There's no pressure to have a LEP, and if circumstances change and it isn't needed any more, then there is no shame in terminating this particular arrangement.  What is important is relationships.  Relationships have priority over structures every time. 

Ask, what do we want to do and what is the best way of doing it.  Talk to ecumenical officers and find the best approach and when circumstances change, be flexible enough to make the necessary changes.

Related articles

• The Parochial Church Council and LEPs (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Supporting Local Ecumenical Life (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• A Review of Intermediate Ecumenical Life in England (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Intermediate Bodies, Past and Present (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

Supporting Local Ecumenical Life

Image via WikipediaLast week I started to explore Churches Together in England's latest report A Review of Intermediate Ecumenical Life in England.

Chapter8 in the report examines the progress that has been made in the transition from the Council of Churches to the Churches Together model.  This chapter examines the amount of support intermediate bodies offer to Churches Together Groups, as well as the change of mindset hoped for in the late 1980s when the change was agreed between the churches.  The report reads:

Local Councils of Churches and those who devoted their time and energy to their development laid the foundations for the ecumenical life of England today, and helped to create the relationships - and the possibility of such relationships, which are now regarded so highly.  The transition to a Churches Together model, more rooted in the structures of each denomination, though perhaps less visionary, has been hard to achieve.  Intermediate Bodies (IBs) recognise the importance of local ecumenical life, expressed usually though not exclusively through Churches Together, and IBs want and need to invest more developmental time in the local.

Twenty years on from the inter-church process and the basic change of model from Councils of Churches to Churches Together has failed to take place in all but name.  Oh yes, everyone's taken on the Churches Together label but how much has really changed?

The old Protestant agenda of full visible unity persists and effectively excludes all the traditions which don't subscribe to it.  What in the 1960s was an inspiring vision was dead in the water by the early 1980s and it seems incredible that, after the significant success of 'Not Strangers but Pilgrims', we are still more than twenty years on, working under the old models.

Reality is going to catch up with the main Protestant churches very soon.  Their reluctance to address  issues about church unity has not gone unnoticed.  People under the age of 40 (or is it 50?) no longer feel obliged to continue as members of their traditions of origin.  They spoke during the inter-church purpose, were not taken seriously and so have left in droves in order to work collaboratively with any Christian who shares their values.  This new mindset seems to have been successfully communicated to their children.  This is why the mainstream Protestant churches are encountering decline.

I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing but I am saying it is what happened and no amount of analytical theology is going to make any difference because most people are no longer interested in what ecumenists have to say.  The opportunity to make a difference was in the 1980s and for whatever reason church leaders at the time and since have ignored the will of the people.

Related articles

• Intermediate Bodies, Past and Present (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• A Review of Intermediate Ecumenical Life in England (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

Intermediate Bodies, Past and Present

Image via Wikipedia

Christ the Cornerstone, Milton Keynes

Before I go on to discuss the four conclusions I highlighted yesterday from Churches Together in England's new report, 'A Review of Intermediate Ecumenical Life in England', I've found the chapter that reviews the history of intermediate ecumenism interesting.

The report lists the various origins of intermediate bodies.  I can't copy all the details here but even in summary it may help us remember the diversity of ecumenical life in England and the legacy of past innovations.

• City and County Councils of Churches.  There appear to have been only 8 of these of which the 6 latest started in the 1960s.  The earliest was in Manchester in 1917.
• Church Leaders Meetings.  It isn't clear whether the motivation of these was informal meetings for mutual support or pragmatic response to the needs of secular bodies.  Most likely it was both.
• County / Diocesan Sponsoring Bodies were always associated with the development of what are today called Local Ecumenical Partnerships.  This explains why intermediate bodies are sometimes referred to as sponsoring bodies as many of them took on this role.  But of course the role does not have to be played by the sponsoring body itself, it can be delegated to another organisation.
• New Town Developments, ie Telford, Swindon and Milton Keynes.  This explains why although the majority of intermediate bodies are county bodies we have these three exceptions.
• More recently intermediate bodies can be realigned, ie merge or divide.

At present there are 55 intermediate bodies in England.  These originated from the above sources as follows:

• 16 Councils of Churches (some Councils of Churches persisted for many years after the formation of Churches Together in .  In Sheffield for example, Sheffield Council of Churches continued for many years after the formation of Churches Together in South Yorkshire.  It doesn't appear as far as I can see from this report that any have survived to the present day.)
• 2 Church Leaders' meetings
• 10 Sponsoring Bodies
• 3 New Towns
• 10 mixed origins

They can also be classified according to geography, thus:

• 13 rural / county
• 3 entirely urban / city
• 16 mixed
• 3 new towns
• 3 within M25

Next weeks I shall comment on some of the findings of the report.

Related articles

• A Review of Intermediate Ecumenical Life in England (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• The Parochial Church Council and LEPs (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

A Review of Intermediate Ecumenical Life in England

Image via Wikipedia
Churches Together in England has published 'A Review of Intermediate Ecumenical Life in England', dated August 2011.  I covered the review a few times in this blog, starting here and then here.  The report does not appear to be available to the general public as yet and I will post details about how to get hold of a copy when it becomes available.

What I intend to do is highlight a few conclusions that caught my eye and then in future posts I will explore them further.  So, here are a few key points from the executive summary:

• In considering the support of local ecumenical life in its varied forms we note that the transition from Council of Churches to a Churches Together model has not happened in many instances.  Intermediate Bodies are recommended to assist the process of broadening the range activity of such groups and thus involving key decision-makers and leaders. 
• The Sponsoring Body function has tended to absorb the attention of Intermediate Bodies.  Local Ecumenical Partnerships though beacons of ecumenical life in some places, have not been the expected harbingers of a united Church.  They have taken up a great deal of time and energy of Intermediate Bodies and County Ecumenical Officers; we suggest here that the Sponsoring functions be reassessed and we call for clarity about which responsibilities rightly and essentially belong to the participating denominations and which to the Sponsoring Body.  
• We assess the apparent disconnection between unity and mission, remarking that whilst Intermediate Bodies have been effective in building relationships between mainstream churches and their Leaders, they have not been as good at responding to calls for a "mission agenda", which has been taken forward in some places by separate independent "parallel ecumenical movements".  
• We address the increasing diversity of English Christianity; and observe and commend Intermediate Bodies' desire to broaden their membership, noting that some Churches do not want to join Intermediate Bodies which they have regarded as dysfunctional.  

Related articles

• The Parochial Church Council and LEPs (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Ecumenical Report at Methodist Conference 2011 (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Ecumenical Conference Report on the Methodist Church in Scotland (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

The Purposes of the Intermediate Body

Image by Marco Crupi Visual Artist via Flickr

Some time ago I posted about Churches Together in England's review of Intermediate Bodies.  At this week's consultation for Ecumenical Officers, we received an update on the review and made some further contributions to it.  I'll report on its findings once the review is published but today I thought some readers might like to consider this exercise from the consultation, yesterday morning.

The ecumenical officers were asked to rank the following 10 purposes for Intermediate Bodies in order of importance.  Most important should be number 1 through to the least important at number 10.  We were asked to do this twice, once for Intermediate Bodies in general and once for our own Intermediate Body.  It is likely to get too confusing if you attempt both as a comment, so the challenge is to do your own ranking for the purpose of Intermediate Bodies in general.  Feel free to add any comments.  I'll pass any comments and rankings to CTE.

These are in alphabetical order and I've added a letter to help you do the ranking.

• A.  Acting as a channel of communication between the churches.
• B.  Acting as an agency for the churches in relating to local government (county, metropolitan) and other statutory bodies.
• C.  Acting as the instrument through which churches at intermediate level are accepted as ecumenical partners
• D.  Acting as the sponsoring body for Local Ecumenical Partnerships
• E.  Being a sign and symbol of our unity in Christ
• F.  Enabling accountability to one another
• G.  Facilitating Church Leaders' meetings
• H.  Providing a forum for strategic planning of church life and mission
• I.  Supporting local ecumenical endeavour and Churches Together groupings
• J.  Other - please specify

Related articles

• What is a Local Ecumenical Partnership? (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

What is a Local Ecumenical Partnership?

Image by Windsors Child via Flickr

OK, I know what you're thinking ...  not more technical stuff!  I'll go onto something else next week, I promise.  It might seem odd to ask the question 'What is a LEP?' after describing the documenting of them and how to amend their constitutions.

After hundreds of years of separate development, it should not be a surprise that the various traditions have incompatible structures.  This is not merely a question of their organisational structures but it is also to do with their ecclesiologies.  Ecclesiology is perhaps the main thing that divides the churches and it is about how they understand authority.  So, for the Church of England authority is exercised through the Bishops, sometimes called personal episcope.  The Methodist Church's authority is through Methodist Conference and so its episcope is communal.  Some (eg Baptists and Ref ormed)churches are congregational and so their episcope is exercised through their local church meetings.

You don't have to be a genius to see these different church structures are (a) incompatible, and (b) based on radically different understandings of authority.  LEPs enable churches with radically different understandings of episcope to work together. 

Every LEP is a covenant between the participating traditions but not every covenant is a LEP.  There are arrangements called local covenants.  These are informal agreements between churches in a local area.  They don't include the church authorities and some seem to work quite well.  The problem is they are not recognised by the church authorities and so are likely to be ignored; they are particularly vulnerable when the ministers change and local arrangements are not recognised.

So, it is worth considering a LEP when local churches want to commit to long term collaboration over mission, worship, formation or pastoral care. 

There is another advantage to becoming a LEP.  Not only do the participating church authorities approve the LEP, but also the local sponsoring body.  The sponsoring body is usually the same as the Intermediate or County body.  Why does it give approval?  Because the agreement to form a LEP, whilst it is between the partners, is made in the presence of the other traditions in the area.  It is not a private but a public arrangement that involves all the member churches of the sponsoring body.

LEPs are reviewed every 7 years (more or less) and that review is carried out by the sponsoring body and will involve people from traditions other than those who are participating.  This allows for a degree of accountability but perhaps it is better thought of as additional support.

Related articles

• Episcopal, Methodist and URC Discussions (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Group for Local Unity, March 2011 (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Local Ecumenical Partnerships in Scotland 2010 (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Technical Ecumenism (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Documenting Local Ecumenical Partnerships (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Amending LEP Constitutions (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

Amending LEP Constitutions

Image by farleyj via Flickr

Over the last couple of days, I have considered the technicalities of ecumenism in Britain.  Yesterday, I wrote about the various documents that contribute to a Local Ecumenical Partnership (LEP).  Hopefully, I showed how, with these documents, there is speed in obtaining approval combined with local flexibility.

When I started working with LEPs in 2003, every LEP was able to write its own constitution.  Some basic model constitutions were coming in about that time but their use was optional.  This meant every LEP had to be approved by the participating churches as well as the local sponsoring body.  This could take a very long time, particularly where the local churches decided to write a new constitution from scratch.

With the new Charities legislation, the approval of the Charity Commission was added to all the other approvals and it soon became apparent the old system was no longer tenable.  Indeed, most complaints were about the length of time it was taking to obtain approval.

Consequently, the churches agreed to manage the new model constitutions in a different manner.  All new single congregation LEPs must use the model and make only those amendments authorised by the churches.  This has considerably simplified and accelerated approvals and most people seem to be happy with the new system.

The Methodist Church for example is now able to approve constitutions at District level, rather than District and Connexion, so long as the new model is followed.  Indeed, the Connexion no longer has the capacity to approve minor changes to the model constitution.

Churches Together in England's Group for Local Unity (GLU) at its last meeting, identified three types of amendment and hopes to encourage churches to work with them to everyone's benefit.

1. The advice from the churches is the current model is good enough.  No doubt it could be improved but it covers everything LEPs could conceivably need over their lifespan and does so legally.  As I explained yesterday, local effort needs to focus on the Ecumenical Vision Statement and local guidelines.  To expend a lot of energy making amendments to the constitution and schedule is a waste of time.  Most of the efforts that have crossed my desk have been unnecessary and not well drafted.
2. Sometimes, a substantial change has been suggested and GLU is prepared to consider these.  Hopefully these will be increasingly rare, unless there are changes in legislation.  Where this happens, the amendments will be made to the model constitution, not to individual local constitutions.  A few such changes are in the pipeline and once they have been made there will be some guidelines for those LEPs wishing to upgrade.
3. Occasionally, the standard single congregation partnership model does not apply.  If no special bank accounts are involved, the old model constitutions might be used.  Sometimes, however, bank accounts are involved and it will be necessary to re-draft the existing model.  Sometimes this will be a one-off but the hope is that once it has been drafted, we can add a generic version to the website.  I don't expect there will be very many of these but it is possible in a few years time there will be 3 or 4 models covering every possible type of LEP.  However, those who are really keen to write constitutions, should not go straight ahead and start writing a new model.  If you think you have one of the rare types that have a bank account, no joint congregation and a radical idea, speak to the National Officers before you do anything.  The fact that you have spent many hours drafting a dream constitution will cut no ice with the National Officers if the existing model already meets your needs!

Related articles

• Documenting Local Ecumenical Partnerships (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Group for Local Unity, March 2011 (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Technical Ecumenism (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Local Ecumenical Partnerships in Scotland 2010 (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

Group for Local Unity, March 2011

Image via Wikipedia

The Group for Local Unity is a co-ordinating group of Churches Together in England. It maintains and develops the principles and good practice of ecumenism locally as an essential part of the task of the Member Churches of Churches Together in England. Its members are appointed by the Member Churches and report to them. It normally meets three times a year but various working groups also gather between meetings of the full Group.

Today is one of those meetings (the last meeting was in November 2010) and here are some items from today's agenda. As always a request for more information about specific items will encourage me to post more about it.  I hope some of the papers mentioned below will be published following the meeting.

1. There is a lot to be discussed about Single Congregation Local Ecumenical Partnerships (SCLEPs).  It is just over a year since GLU launched a new model constitution for SCLEPs, approved not only by the churches but also the Charity Commission.  This document was also an opportunity to simplify approval procedures.  Other things being equal, it is now much easier to set up a SCLEP.  It has had some time to bed down, and so some issues have come to light.  With the new charities legislation and the possibility of most if not all SCLEPs having to register as charities sooner or later, the model constitution has had some scrutiny from legal experts and their feedback is before GLU today.  One issue is, as the Parish Church Council (PCC) of the Church of England is set up by statute, it is important to understand the relationship between the PCC and the SCLEP Charity Trustees.  GLU will therefore consider a Memorandum of Understanding between the two bodies.  There is also the issue of conflict of interest between the Trustees and the PCC, especially where there is significant overlap of membership.  Various amendments to the model constitution will be considered.  
2. A paper from the Salvation Army, clarifyies their Territorial position on LEPs.  Here's an extract: "It may seem unlikely that a single congregation form of LEP would be viable for an Army congregation, in that the partner congregations would probably require some form of sacramental practice.  However a covenantal partnership LEP including The Salvation Army has been formed in the Forest of Dean and provides an excellent model of how the Army can engage in this kind of partnership and yet retain a strong identity and enhance its effectiveness in mission."
3. There will be a report about the ongoing review of Intermediate Bodies, and some of the emerging issues.  There are eight so far, including 'lighter structures' and constitutions, relationship with LEPs, Churches Together Groups, Para-Church Groups and National Initiatives, Church Planting and Fresh Expressions.
4. LEP Reviews are one of the candidates for a 'lighter touch'.  The policy is to review LEPs once every 7 years and some of the Intermediate Bodies have been struggling to keep up.  GLU will consider a paper about how reviews may be re-envisioned with new guidelines for good practice.

Related articles

• CTE Theology and Unity Co-ordinating Group (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• The Churches' Co-ordinating Group on Spirituality (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

CTE Enabling Group, March 2011

Image via Wikipedia

This week Churches Together in England's (CTE) Enabling Group is meeting in Aylesford, Kent.  The last meeting took place in September and some notes were reported in October.  As I wrote in September, "Enabling Group's role is to reflect upon the progress of ecumenical relationships in England.  It is 'a key level of governance because it is where all the churches, which are members of the organisation, are able to be represented.  (It) also includes representatives of the Intermediate Bodies, representatives of the Bodies in Association and of the Forum.'  (See CTE's websites for definitions of these terms.)"

Here are some highlights from the agenda:

• An update on the review of Intermediate Bodies.  There is likely to be more information about the review and so I will prepare an update in the near future.
• An introduction to CT Connect.
• Spirituality Group consultation.  There will also be a report from CTE's Theology and Unity Groups. 
• The nature of the ecumenical space which CTE offers.  It will be interesting to find out what this means!
• The legacy of the Papal visit.  There are several posts on this blog relating to the Papal visit. Search for 'Papal visit' in the right hand column to find the rest.

Related articles

• Review of Intermediate Bodies (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

Review of Intermediate Bodies

Image by Coventry City Council via Flickr

Churches Together in England (CTE) is about to initiate a review of Intermediate Bodies.  Here is an extract from "Between the local and the national: a health check for churches working together in the counties and large cities of England" published by CTE in 2001:

A unique feature of church life in England, hardly paralleled elsewhere in the world, has been the development of a network of intermediate bodies - mostly corresponding to counties or large cities - where the churches have developed a pattern of co-operation and shared life which also gives oversight to local ecumenism in its different forms.

These intermediate bodies are an example off the development of shared episcope, the oversight of the whole people of God, reflecting the wider movement towards joint decision-making and mutual accountability.

Ten years on, it is time to review the intermediate bodies again.

An online questionnaire will be available to County Ecumenical Officers, various members of intermediate bodies, denominational officers, diocesan officers and any others able to answer questions on behalf of Local Ecumenical Partnerships or Churches Together Groups.  This will need to be completed by the end of February.

Most of these people should receive details through the usual channels but if anyone would like to complete the questionnaire and believes they are unlikely to receive a copy, contact me and I will pass on your details.  Once I have a contact for the review, I'll add the details as a comment to this post.

Related articles

• National Ecumenical Officers (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Where Might we get to Ecumenically? (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

Churches Together In England Enabling Group, September 2010

Westminster Hall in 1808 (from Wikipedia Commons)

Today Churches Together in England's Enabling Group meets for one of its twice yearly meetings.  Enabling Group's role is to reflect upon the progress of ecumenical relationships in England.  It is 'a key level of governance because it is where all the churches, which are members of the organisation, are able to be represented.  (It) also includes representatives of the Intermediate Bodies, representatives of the Bodies in Association and of the Forum.'  (See CTE's websites for definitions of these terms.)  Some time will be set aside for the review of governance, which has been taking place during the last year.

The meeting will take place in London.  Originally, Enabling Group was to meet in Leeds but the Pope's visit led to a change of plan.  So, the meeting will be interrupted so that its members can attend the service in Westminster Abbey.  The Pope will be delivering an address in Westminster Hall at the House of Commons, which will be relayed to the service in Westminster Abbey.  This will take a big chunk of time out of the Enabling Group meeting, as the service will take in excess of two hours.

The rest of the Enabling Group meeting will comprise of CTE Annual General Meeting and election of Directors.  Enabling Group will hear reports from the Directors and General Secretary.  The group will also consider two applications for membership of CTE.

Some of the issues likely to come up include:

1. A document is to be published soon about a conversation initiated earlier this year between ecumenists and exponents of 'Fresh Expressions'.
2. Observations about changes happening in Intermediate Bodies and the implications of local changes happening 'under the radar' for Intermediate Bodies in general. 
3. The Right to Warmth Campaign

So, this meeting will be somewhat truncated.  I'll report on any significant decisions later.  Leave a comment if there is anything you would particularly like to read about.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Methodist President will meet Pope Benedict XVI (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Ecumenical Websites: CTE (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Church Leaders Welcome the Pope's Visit (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)