“Churches in the ecumenical movement have… explored divisive questions through multilateral and bilateral dialogues. And yet churches have not always acknowledged their mutual responsibility to one another, and have not always recognized the need to give account to one another of their faith, life, and witness, as well as to articulate the factors that keep them apart. Bearing in mind the experience of the life we already share and the achievements of multilateral and bilateral dialogues, it is now time to take concrete steps together” (Called to be the one Church, World Council of Churches 2006, V/12).
Toowoomba Ecumenical Retreat BBQ.
Photo by Eric Donges
At the seventh annual retreat of Toowoomba Churches Together and Downs Churches Together, held on the weekend of 5-7 February in Highfields, there was a sense that it was time to move on. The stories of earlier divisions had all been told, some repeatedly, at previous retreats. Most participants were familiar with ecumenical worship and many with joint service in the community. It was evident they knew and trusted each other. They came from as far away as Roma, though most participants were from Toowoomba and surrounding areas. They represented the Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran and Uniting Churches.
Where to from here?
Where do we go from here? That was the leading question. Four theologians, one from each of the four churches represented, tackled the major stumbling blocks on the path to full, visible Christian unity: the question of episcope (oversight) and eucharistic hospitality.
Rev. Dr. David Pascoe, Assistant Head of the School of Theology at the Australian Catholic University, echoed the feelings of many participants when he used the phrase “ecumenical impatience”: we long to overcome the remaining barriers, to share the eucharist (communion) in full acknowledgement of each other’s traditions. David underlined the importance of humility, citing the example of Jesus as described for us by St Paul in Philippians 2: he “emptied himself… “
How do we recognize the Church in each other? Thus phrased, the question stands for a positive approach. We no longer focus on what divides us as churches but look for indications that our sister churches are, as we are, the Body of Christ.
Apostolic nature of the Church
All of the four churches agreed that the apostolic nature of each church is constitutive to it – that is, each of the churches derives its legitimacy and rationale for existence from the conviction that it stands on the foundations laid by Jesus and the first leaders of the church whom Jesus commissioned – the Apostles, the ones who were sent. It is the definition of what this means that causes divisions. And because the definition of apostolicity determines the very identity of the churches, these divisions are extremely difficult to overcome. The question of how we recognize the Church in each other is a question of how we accept each other’s legitimacy. So how do we overcome such fundamental differences in order not to compromise the Body of Christ?
David Pascoe explained succinctly where the major difference lies in relation to the Roman Catholic Church’s understanding of apostolicity. For the Catholic Church the apostolic foundation is “visible” in the papacy and in the continuation of episcopal leadership (through the line of bishops) throughout history. This is the “visible and necessary” sign of apostolicity.
Respectful dialogue
Given that the Roman Catholic Church’s conviction concerning apostolicity has long been a stumbling block in its dialogue with other churches, it was a sign of how far the participants of the Toowoomba gathering had come with each other that they were able to listen respectfully and remain in dialogue on the weekend despite the clear naming of their different positions.
Rev. Bruce Johnson, Moderator of the Uniting Church, Queensland Synod, asked David Pascoe whether he thought we could ever reach agreement on ordained ministry, this issue also being a hurdle in the quest for unity. We have come a long way in understanding what each other means by ordained ministry, David replied, but we still have a long way to go to reach mutual recognition.
Why the issue of ordained ministry is difficult became apparent in Bruce Johnson’s contribution. The Uniting Church sees the role of oversight (episcope) as resting with the Presbytery in each region. Quoting the Basis of Union Bruce explained that it is the “congregation” which is “the embodiment in one place of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, worshipping, witnessing and serving as a fellowship of the Spirit in Christ” (Paragraph 15, Basis of Union). In saying that the Presbytery Minister is “like a bishop”, Bruce was referring to the role of “pastor to the pastors” which the Presbytery Minister fulfills. The Uniting Church is a conciliar church. Oversight does not rest only with a single figure in each place. Oversight is shared between the clergy and laity, with ordained clergy nevertheless set aside as having responded to the call to a particular service, which in the Uniting Church could be that of Minister of the Word, or Deacon.
Eucharistic hospitality, the other frequently cited hurdle in achieving unity, is extended in the Uniting Church to all “baptized believers”. On this basis everyone is welcome to the Lord’s Table who feels welcome “within the discipline” of his or her own “tradition”.
The surprising contribution of history
Rev. Ray Clifton, priest in the Anglican parish of St Matthew’s, Drayton, addressed the historical factors that have contributed to our traditions and the differences between them. Recalling the Celtic roots of Anglicanism he pointed out that the first missionaries to northern Britain had found there a loose confederation of communities with collective decision-making structures. It was an enlightening and intriguing realization for those gathered in Toowoomba that the Anglican preference for dispersed authority and federal structures might in part at least be traceable to those very early beginnings. Throughout the rest of the weekend participants kept returning to the question of how the history of the four churches, particularly in Australia, had shaped them and their world-view.
Ray Clifton spoke of the Anglican Church holding “the apostolic faith” through an emphasis on continuity expressed in the office of bishops, the regard for Scripture as the ultimate authority and the statements of the early councils of the Church. Continuity in doctrine is ensured by a shared adherence to the Book of Common Prayer of 1662. He pointed out that Anglican theology is a strongly “sacramental theology”, believing that God “engages the Creation” through Christ. The Anglican Church’s understanding of the sacraments flows out of this theology.
Ray Clifton touched on the dilemma that faced the Anglican Communion with its dispersed authority structures: whose voice do we heed? Nevertheless it became clear that in holding fast to an understanding of apostolic succession expressed in the continuing office of bishops the Anglican Church has ensured continuity in diversity. In so saying, Ray pointed out the degree of agreement with the Lutheran Church on the question of authority, as evident in the Anglican-Lutheran dialogue in Australia, which in 2001 produced a report entitled “Common Ground”, printed in Stages on the Way II.
Not glossing over differences
Occasionally all of us who are engaged in ecumenical activity need to stop and consider where we come from, Ray Clifton reminded his listeners. Otherwise, he warned, it is all too easy to gloss over differences, especially at the local level. We must not make assumptions about how comfortable our friends from other traditions are.
Throughout the discussions we were reminded that the ordination of women in some churches but not in others, and the appointment of women bishops in the Anglican Church, still formed a stumbling block in dialogue. It was a credit to the presenters and other participants in Toowoomba that this issue could be spoken about freely without any hint of disrespect or polemics.
Rev. Russell Briese, Lutheran pastor, university chaplain and member of the Faith and Unity Commission of Queensland Churches Together, began his presentation with a quote to the effect that there is often as much diversity within sub-groups of society as there is between the sub-groups. This obviously struck a chord with his listeners, who referred to this thought repeatedly in ensuing discussions.
Bishops in the Lutheran Church?
Apostolic succession in the Lutheran Church, Russell Briese explained, is based on continuity of doctrine. Nonetheless, he added, it would not be impossible for the Lutheran Church of Australia to adopt an episcopal form of leadership and even fulfill the criteria for apostolic succession as defined by the Anglican Church, with a bishop from a Lutheran church e.g. in Scandinavia (which never relinquished apostolic succession through episcope)ordaining bishops initially in Australia. Some Lutherans advocate such a step for the sake of unity.
Russell Briese pointed out a seeming anomaly in the practice of the Australian Lutheran Church surrounding Eucharistic hospitality. The Confessio Augustana (Augsburg Confession – AC – the key statement of Lutheran doctrine), Article 7, states that “to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4, 5. 6.” Unity, according to AC, does not rely on a particular interpretation of the sacraments. When the Lutheran Church is unable to show Eucharistic hospitality to members of the Uniting Church without the latter acknowledging the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine, is this inconsistent with basic Lutheran tenets concerning unity? At the same time Russell drew attention to the Lutheran practice of welcoming baptized members of other traditions to communion, in local settings, for pastoral reasons.
In conclusion, Russell Briese suggested that the Lutheran Church in Australia should re-examinate the issue of authority in the Lutheran Church and be open to the idea of bringing Lutheran clergy into apostolic succession. He also recommended that the Lutheran Church lose its “fear” of formal eucharistic sharing, forging agreements with other churches, starting with the Anglican and Uniting Churches.
These are just some of the highlights from the presentations. QCT hopes to be able to bring you at least some of these presentations in their entirety soon. Please watch our Resources page.
Discovering each other
It was exciting to see presenters in dialogue with each other, expressing surprise at discovering facts that they had not known about the other three traditions. The Lutheran and Uniting Church representatives, for example, discovered that they share the practice of training and authorizing particular lay people to minister and preside over the sacraments in specific local contexts for a specified period of time, where there is no clergy available.
Toowoomba Ecumenical Retreat Plenary.
Photo by Eric Donges
Moving forward
As well as discussing these presentations in plenary, participants gathered for a while in their denominational groups to define what they wanted to see in moving forward towards greater unity. The following points emerged.
The Lutheran participants spoke about the need to bridge the communication gap between those involved in ecumenical conversations and the average parish or congregation, in which such conversation seldom takes place. Secondly, it was felt that there needed to be a greater understanding of the history of each of the churches.
Anglican participants spoke of the need to “close the gap between official [ecumenical] dialogue and possibilities for action.” In a striking parallel to the Lutheran contribution, they urged for better education in theology and history. Once needs are identified, they said, action should follow.
Those from the Uniting Church emphasized that clergy needed to be taught the importance of Orders of Service and their significance, especially on matters of baptism and communion/the Eucharist. They pointed out the need to encourage those who were involved in ecumenical councils and local ecumenical dialogues and to urge others to become involved as well.
Participants from the Roman Catholic Church prioritized “doing things ecumenically”, with continuity at different levels and in different dimensions. They also pointed out that it is vital to educate churchgoers in ecumenism.
A true retreat
The Toowoomba Churches Together annual ecumenical retreat is known for its combination of times of true retreat (silent times, with prayers as possible guides) and ecumenical nourishment. This time the combination was excellent. The annual retreat is also a chance for people otherwise separated by distance to meet and share their stories, strengthening friendships. Friendships are an indispensable part of ecumenism.
Indispensable too is shared worship. On Sunday morning, before the final session, everyone gathered in the lovely chapel of the James Byrne Centre, with its views out over the valley, to sing and pray together. Rev. Bruce Johnson delivered the homily.
“The numbers of people outside the church is growing and our numbers are declining. If we wait until we have resolved these internal issues [of church unity] before we stand together and help our world hear the warnings of God and the call of God to a new way of living, we will have failed in our prophetic role of pointing out the foolishness of our way of life and the better plan that God lays before us all,” said Bruce Johnson, referring to the prophet Isaiah’s rejection in his own country (Isaiah 6:1-8). Bruce used the example of climate change to point out that churches should be standing together as a prophetic voice in the world. Like Isaiah, “we too are being called to discover fresh expressions of our shared life at a critical time for our world” – a world in which people strive more and more for affluence and personal happiness. “We don’t seek unity that we might be bigger and stronger, but that our unity might make Christ known.”
The homily left us with the challenge to “do the hard work of looking for the way that God would re-unite us” while acknowledging that “the path to this unity may be found as we stand together in mission and in the evangelical task of speaking the truth to our society and world.”
It was a fitting reminder as participants left the retreat to return to their everyday contexts.
