The Church and Bexit

As we engage in the process of Brexit, we are assured by the proponents of this move that there are wonderful opportunities out there and it will all be worthwhile in the end. I am not so sure. There was much wrong with Europe and much that needed reform, but I cannot see that Brexit is the answer. I think of my own ministry and a lifetime of involvement in the ecumenical movement. I have experienced many examples of dynamic and vibrant expressions of mission and ministry, which were enabled by different churches coming together and working as one. A common passion for a mission project can bring people together in a way in which other differences of tradition and practice take their rightful secondary place. Indeed, in such a project, difference can become treasure to be shared, as a variety of perspectives become rich ingredients in the mix of the project. Such ecumenism is life-giving and generates energy. I have experienced such exciting moments of ecumenical practice and it strongly enhances mission. Yet I have also experienced the opposite of this. Ecumenical endeavours that have lost that sense of purpose can so easily become, not life-giving, but energy-draining. When the ecumenical purpose ceases to be caught up in the exhilaration of working for a shared goal, and all energy is sucked into maintaining the structure of the project and the relationships between the participants, then the ecumenical ideal has been lost. The whole endeavour has lost the cutting edge of mission and it has become a time-consuming exercise in managing structures.

It seems to me that the problem with EU is that it has lost its unifying and life-giving ideal and has become instead a body which sucks in energy simply to maintain its structures. The lack of a shared ideal and common purpose can be seen in the difference between those who primarily want a political union and those who see the EU as a free-trade area with countries maintaining their own sovereignty. So, for many, it has lost its vibrant ideal for the future and is seen as a burden. It is not apparent to me that those who exercise the governance of our country have the charismatic leadership skills needed to unify our nation and draw us into a new shared narrative which will take us into a better future. Being tough at the EU negotiating table is not the same as having the visionary leadership needed to take us into a future in which our whole nation can prosper. Neither is the call for unity within our nation enough to overcome the deep divisions within our society. My experience of ecumenism leads me to say that only a shared endeavour, which fires up the imagination of all the participants, will have any hope of success.

The same might be said about the future of the Anglican Communion. As long as we are divided about such third-order issues as sexual ethics, and as long as such issues consume so much of our passion and energy, we will be a weak church, which will never quite succeed in its task of proclaiming afresh the Kingdom of God for our present generation. In my ecumenical career I have found a delight in working as partners with those who could not recognise the ministry of women, or indeed who either did not recognise my ministry as an Anglican or, on the other hand, the need for any ordination. Yet a shared passion to engage with the wider community with the message of God’s saving love was what bound us together. What a force for the Kingdom we would be if, despite some deep differences between us, we responded to the love of God, and celebrated our shared vocation to mission, by gathering around one Eucharistic table! It is our shared response to a body, broken for a fallen world, that should shape us and unite us in a passion set alight by the fire of the Spirit. Instead, we seem to delight in clinging to our differences, defending them and setting them up as tokens of true faith, while a world that cries out for the very bread of heaven goes largely unfed.