B. Perceived Obstacles to Covenant ‘Implementation’

1.   Boundaries and Structures
2.   Unhelpful Attitudes and Behaviour
3.   Other Issues


B.1.a        Boundaries and Structures

Groups discussing local needs had relatively little to say about boundaries and structures. It was the dominant theme, however, when they were asked to identify obstacles to working together and implementing the Covenant.

Comment: This could imply therefore that such an overwhelming obstacle to joint working, when set against other local needs - including mission, would be likely to lead people just to get on with what they can do in mission within their denominational framework - and to treat the quest for unity as a nice idea but no longer a practical priority.  There is plenty of other evidence in support of this argument - and it needs a realistic response (if there is one!), not just another guilt-inducing sermon!

The groups managed to name just about every problem that can arise with mismatched boundaries and ways of doing things - incompatible systems, inequality of size, having too many people to relate to - or none at all! Groups identified that the structures that are in place do not help change. Instead they absorb energy. Many groups spoke of 'bureaucracy'.

Two groups named the lack of inter-changeability of clergy. One group claimed that our structures inhibit vision. Another argued that we are not sufficiently radical: "We fiddle with church life rather than take radical steps." One group asked, "Where do mission communities fit in?"

One group noticed a particular difficulty for Methodists when adjacent dioceses have conflicting policies.

Another group complained (legitimately but with some factual inaccuracy) that the structures did not adequately take account of local relationships with smaller denominations or independent congregations.

The problems were observed between deanery and circuit, diocese and district as well as regionally and nationally.

One group wanted to cut the Gordian knot by asking, "Who's worried about denominational labels anyway?"

B.1.b           Resources (or lack of!)

The biggest structural obstacle to greater covenant living was widely identified as buildings. Two groups highlighted people's attachment to their church building. The rest focused on their unsuitability, and the time, money and energy they absorb.

Two groups named lack of clergy as an obstacle, including the delays caused when a parish is in vacancy. Others referred more generally to a lack of people to take on 'even more new things' - as though the Covenant was a bolt-on extra!

Two groups named a lack of time, but one noted that this was 'an excuse, not a reason'. The problem is lack of willingness and of any sense that covenant living with other Churches is a priority.

Two other groups were concerned that money was in the wrong place, or could not be released for joint initiatives - and others again referred to bureaucracy and the complex and incompatible methods of working in our two Churches.

Yet another two groups, however, stood these arguments the other way up: An obstacle is our 'failure to use existing resources' - said one group, specifically identifying the internet. Our problem, said the other group, is that we 'view resources as burdens rather than tools'.

B.1.c           Leadership

The reluctance and lack of imagination of church leaders is named by many groups as an obstacle to creative ecumenical mission.

The obstacles include "Leaders who avoid making the right noises to set an ecumenical climate," and "Leaders who fail to recognise, acknowledge and harness the breadth and depth of ecumenical involvement of church members every day."

Concern was expressed about those at "diocesan top level who only see LEP 'difficulties' not positives" and what one group described as "lack of good, aware leadership that understands the covenant process."

One group bemoaned "insular thinking" and another observed, "We need visionary leadership from the edge rather than from the 'centre', locally and more widely."

The differences in styles of leadership within our two Churches drew comments from a number of groups. The very different outworking of 'authority' in our two Churches is clearly recognised as a problem that can lead to conflict.

The most common problem noted by the groups, however, is when new leaders are appointed in local situations who fail to catch the vision of existing ecumenical work. As one group put it, "Good intention often doesn't get translated into reality." "Continuity of church leaders," said another group "is a test to the covenant."

Several groups were concerned about a 'them and us' between clergy and lay people - perhaps generated by the mismatched appointments just highlighted. One group was prepared to name 'power' as an underlying obstacle to any covenant living.

A lack of freedom in local situations was felt keenly by one group where what is allowed "seems to depend on who the bishop is." Another group asserted, "Congregations need to sustain and develop ecumenical work with partners and not rely just on church leaders or clergy."

In addition to lack of inter-changeability, and clergy who 'do their own thing', other ministry issues concerned some groups. These include procedures for selection and appointment of ministers, and gender issues. One group was also concerned about the use that churches make of their local preachers and readers.

B.1.d           Over-complex ecumenism

Even without reference to formal structures and boundaries, many groups felt ecumenism was excessively complicated. "Individually we may be doing a lot that’s worthwhile - get together and we get bogged down in detail."

One group's crie de coeur was "Is there any hope for one body making decisions rather than many?" What can be done, asked another group, "to enable LEPs to work as a liberating missionary church, unhindered by institutional expectations?" And a third asked, "What ecumenical 'oversight' can there be of decision making within Church bodies?"

Another group shaped the same problem like this: "LEP means you are committed to carrying with you the baggage of your own denomination. How do we ensure that ecumenical initiatives remain connected but are not tied down by structure?"

Some groups detected a psychological problem: "We find diversity difficult in reality." "Complexity is a problem."

But some felt that things were unnecessarily complicated, with "too many organisational areas to be coped with" and "fear of too much time spent in meetings".

One group, however, acknowledged that circumstances themselves were inevitably 'complex' - in the technical sense identified in the slide presentation.

And one element of this, paradoxically, is the fact that the Covenant is just between two Churches. One group asked "Is having a bilateral covenant excluding and in itself problematic?"

back to top

B.2        Unhelpful Attitudes and Behaviour

The obstacles identified under this heading show some parallels with the list of  attitudes that need changing as identified under 'Perceived Needs of the Local Church' (A.1.a), but the range of issues raised is much greater. These are obstacles not just to ecumenism, but to mission and healthy Christian community life. If covenant living presents a challenge because it confronts all these obstacles, maybe this strengthens the argument that it is at the heart of Christian discipleship - and not something which is only about the relationship between Anglicans and Methodists or between out two Churches as institutions.

B.2.a           Self-preoccupation

The fundamental obstacle to covenant living in terms of attitude and behaviour appears to be self-preoccupation. This comes in many guises.

For some it is because congregations or even whole denominations are complacent - "an implicit sense of self-sufficiency" - "no sense of 'need'; people feel they are big enough and strong enough to 'go it alone'. People do not realise that unity is a gospel imperative." One group described it as "tunnel vision". Another highlighted wealth and security as in themselves obstacles. One group commented, "We haven't failed enough yet to enable us to rely on God and step outside historic and other structures."

For others it is because congregations are demoralised or defensive. Groups spoke of "Fear of decline", or of a concern for "sovereignty". One group noted that facing the big issues "can seem too daunting."

More generally, groups spoke of "lack of focus" - both within congregations and in ecumenical meetings - "lack of urgency", "lack of confidence" and "an unwillingness to move outside our comfort zones."

One group identified the need "to break out of our Sunday 'straightjacket'". Another asked, "How much do our congregations understand by mission?" A third commented, "A parish focus can inhibit mission" – although it is by no means clear how this should be interpreted. A fourth challenged the 'ecumenical imperative' by asking "Is mission suffering because we are focusing on partnership?"

As if in response to this last question, another group asked "What do we mean by mission - when our efforts are geared to survival and not to mission? Welcome to church, not to Christ".

Other factors leading to "inward-looking churches" were named as "passionate attachments to buildings", "lack of open minded welcome", a greater sense of "competition" in the context of decline, and the fact that "our identity is linked to our congregation." One group spoke of a sense of "desperation".

Groups spoke of "lack of respect for other Christians", of "insufficient sense of fun and humour", of "not expecting good news - the need to tell stories of what God has done." One group referred to "when we squash the enthusiastic faith of the new Christian."

One result of "keeping the doors closed" is that churches are "out of touch". At this point the discussion was clearly as much about mission as about unity. One group spoke of "the lack of language to communicate with society." Communication between churches was also seen to be inadequate with "information from meetings not being reported back" and a lack of “co-ordination”. One group summed it up as "too little consultation or communication." And another group blamed it on "insular thinking - church leaders failing to grasp the covenant."

Where blame is apportioned for this self-preoccupation, it is generally directed at "clergy", although one group was very clear how much they are overstretched - speaking of "energy draining away as both denominations' ordained staff take on more churches and responsibilities."

Two final comments throw light on all this from two different angles: "We don't share deeply; only superficially." and "LEPs are slow to respond with their own needs."  Perhaps they also don't say enough about their strengths and vision as well.

B.2.b           Inertia

After self-preoccupation, the next obstacle most discussed by the workshop groups was inertia.

Several groups linked this to sheer ignorance amongst church members, many of whom may have had little or no experience of church life outside the church where they themselves have worshipped for a lifetime.

The ignorance, it was suggested, could include "poor understanding of Christian basics," "poor understanding of community," "Lack of awareness," Lack of understanding of "how other partners work," "Lack of confidence" in doing things with others in what for many still seems unknown territory.

Ignorance is then linked by several groups to "Fear of change", "Lack of ecumenical sensitivity," "Lack of urgency," "Indifference," "Lack of trust," "Unwillingness to move outside our comfort zones."

In this way the inertia perhaps reflects something more deep-seated than either despondency on the one hand or complacency on the other.

It seems to reflect that kind of spiritual 'burn-out' that in mediaeval times was known as 'accidie,' - which leaves people clinging to what they have inherited, unable to make sacrifices:  "People want a service in their own church," "the Sunday straitjacket," "Fear of losing identity" or, as several groups asserted, "apathy".

Four groups suggested other factors in this paralysis - which would surely affect every aspect of church life, not just relationships with other Christians. Two refer to "structures," and "bureaucracy", while a third observes: "Individually we may be doing lots that is worth while - get together and we get bogged down in detail." The fourth highlights the "isolationist mentality" that is common in many rural communities.

B.2.c           Hurt

Many groups identified emotional obstacles that may loosely be gathered under the heading of 'hurt' - although the specific hurt caused to many Methodists by the failure of the Unity scheme in the early 1970s was only obliquely referred to by a couple of groups.

One group projected the hurt into the future speaking of "fear of exclusion if union goes too fast. Some people may feel hurt if they think their needs are not being addressed or even thought of."

More pervasive was "lack of trust," "Failure to listen to each other," "Perceived barriers that may not be real," - even, seemingly, a refusal to talk: One group asked, "How do we get deaneries and circuits talking to each other?"

A lot of the insecurity underlying the lack of trust was seen by many groups to be focused in the personal relationships of clergy and ministers and in the fact that joint initiatives based on good personal relationships are often hard to sustain when a minister leaves

Groups variously spoke of "power relationships," and "Spiritual arrogance - claiming 'we are right'," as well as commenting "Collaboration is difficult."

One group wisely commented that "little things irk greatly" citing "Lack of true interchangeability at Eucharists."

B.2.d           Division and Dissent

Other attitudes identified as obstacles by the groups include internal dissent and inconsistency within our Churches.

One group of Methodists demanded: "Problem - which Church of England is my partner?" apparently seeing a divergence between national and diocesan policy. Another group referred to "the autonomy of Anglican dioceses which have varying attitudes to the Covenant."

Dissent, however, can be more localised. One group saw difficulties "trying to reconcile groups within each congregation to find ways of going forward."

Internal divisions were variously linked to "identity - even within a denomination," different attitudes between clergy and lay people, and "clergy resistance."

Two groups went on to speak of indiscipline: "ignoring directives" and "a lack of commitment to broad principles."

This may be a factor underlying two other comments: "We don't share deeply, only superficially." "We can engage at a practical level but less so theologically."

One group saw a pre-occupation with faith and order issues as itself an obstacle - "we focus on distinctions and differences instead of commonalities."

The question left hanging by one group was "How do we identify and acknowledge openly non-negotiable differences?"

B.2.e           Tiredness

Eleven groups identified tiredness or a lack of energy as a significant obstacle.

More specifically they spoke of overload, "What can we give up so that we can work on this?" and "the sheer number of organisational areas to be coped with."

People are "too busy because of a huge institutional model" and "energy is drained towards denominational difficulties."

One group linked this to fear: "Fear of too much time in meetings - admin!"

B.2.f            Other problematic attitudes

A few groups highlighted the problem when churches act unilaterally: "Sometimes ecumenical work takes the form of one church (e.g. Anglican) inviting the other (e.g. Methodist) to join in particular events or projects. For the invited church, there is no sense of 'ownership' and therefore they don't respond." "We tend to make decisions and then hint that we should have done that ecumenically." We really ought to be "getting involved at the planning stage - not as an afterthought." "Lack of ecumenical oversight of decision making within church bodies," "A 'come to us' attitude."

The practical background to this, however, is lack of parity between churches - "lack of parity in structures," "inability to involve appropriate people to enable joint activities." "Imbalance of ministers - interregnums," "Difference in size/numbers of congregations in a locality. LEPs work best when congregations of comparable size."

Wistfully one group asked for "a more real hope that denominations may trust/empower other denominations to act for them."

One group spoke of "Misunderstanding about each other's membership rules.” Another saw problems in "thinking that unity is uniformity/sameness. Instead one should embrace the 'chaos' to allow the Holy Spirit to work among us."

“Self-contained churches” were identified as an obstacle, where there is “an over-focus on ‘success’ indicators (growth),” where “fear of decline leads to some to be preoccupied with own issues and others to be cynical about moves towards unity,” where there is “tunnel vision – often satisfied with the current state (whether in weakness or strength.”

Maybe, as one group suggested, we are taking ourselves too seriously, with “insufficient sense of fun and humour.”

back to top

B.3           Other issues

B.3.a           Traditions

History and tradition are widely recognised as obstacles to developing the covenant relationship both because we do not sufficiently understand them and because we carry them as baggage.

Groups bemoan "sincerely held but inflexible traditions," "Attachment to buildings on grounds of heritage, architecture," "Need to break out of our Sunday straitjacket."

We carry our history and mythology with us. "People come with denominational and experiential baggage which is hard to identify and offload." "Both Churches represent a kind of Judaean captivity - both denominations stuck with religious trivia which we find hard to let go. Does our baggage have any relevance to a new situation?"

The baggage slows us down. Groups spoke of "lack of urgency," "people in entrenched positions," "different church styles - diocese/connexion do operate very differently."

The influence of this can be "covert" said one group. "It needs to be named and recognised."

It means that people who have been "nurtured in a denomination based mould" are "unwilling to let go of their patterns/traditions/activities to move on together."

However, ignorance of our tradition is part of what turns it into 'baggage'. One group pleads: "Understand your own tradition, accepting that we have differences so that we can be part of God's new thing."

B.3.b           Cultures

For some groups, cultural difference was more than just the baggage of tradition. Few, however, were able to describe what they saw. One group spoke of "Church 'Personality Type'," and another spoke of "discoterminosity - physical, semantic and spiritual boundaries don't match." But, as they went on to point out, "This can be a creative or an obstructive force!"

Cultural barriers can exist in the context (e.g. "mining community/railways") and have "nothing to do with religious allegiance."

The cultural difference may be observed in "differences in ecclesiological/theological style," "differences in worship," and different habits ("e.g. meeting times").

It is part of what enables people to have an identity, and may be all the more powerful in "localities lacking identity".

B.3.c           Covenant “Too difficult a concept”

Five groups found the whole concept of covenant unhelpful and too difficult. One group complained that "covenant is a difficult word, not generally understood. Covenant is 'jargon' - would partnership be better? Covenant is a partnership, but partnership isn't a covenant. Are we starting with a solution and then looking for the problem it best addresses?" The same group also had problems with 'complexity'.

Another group asked "Is mission suffering because we are focussing on partnership?"

Other problems highlighted were: "Using too much jargon and highlighting churchmanship before people get to know each other," "We find diversity difficult in reality," "Too much time spent on writing the covenant - instead of getting on with it."

One group's parting shot was "Is having a bilateral covenant excluding and problematic?"

B.3.d           Other priorities

Seven groups went further by suggesting that the Covenant was irrelevant and they had other priorities. This links to the earlier comment about partnership diverting attention from mission.

One group simply asserted, "Working together is not a high priority." Another asked "Why put all this effort into matters ecumenical? A divided church is not the same as a diverse church." A third group stated, "Ecumenism is not seen as a priority by the church or as only one priority amongst many."

Two groups highlighted "the pressure to build inter-faith relationships."

And one group appears to have argued that the Covenant is too limited. The issues they are juggling with have widened. They are now "human issues".

Comment: The irony is that the theological argument that was being used in the main presentation at the workshop in order to underpin the whole relevance of covenant living was precisely that it has more than an ecclesial application. A covenant lifestyle is a model of discipleship that takes seriously all the wider human issues. If it were not so, we would indeed all be wasting our time!

B.3.e           Society rejecting Church

Seven groups highlighted the apathetic or even hostile context which, they appear to argue, makes the Covenant an irrelevant and largely incomprehensible piece of inter-church gymnastics.

"People who come to church don't see themselves as of a particular denomination." claimed one group. "Denominationalism is irrelevant to many." said another. "Church denominational structures are not clear outside."

We are in a society "when church is low priority" and we "lack a language to communicate with society."

In short "the problem of complexity" is a challenge which has to be taken seriously.

B.3.f            Three other obstacles complete the list

B.3.f.(i) Inadequate strategies

The first may be less of an obstacle to the covenant but a warning about its misapplication. The obstacle in other words is "poor strategy".

We are on the wrong track if we are "Synthesising baggage from different traditions rather than offering the mutuality of heritage."

Similarly there is a danger of "doing things in the wrong order, i.e. not getting to know each other before talking about things like doctrine."

Ecumenical progress was described by one group as "unnatural." Another group warned of "trying the 'right thing' that is brilliant in its own context in the 'wrong' place."

And one group observed, presumably in relation to the implementation of the Covenant to date, "a lack of joined up thinking."

B.3.f.(ii) Consumerism

The “choice culture” and “consumerism” were quite properly identified by two groups as inimical to a covenant commitment.

B.3.f.(iii) Lack of stories

Two groups also highlighted a “lack of information about what’s going on in ecumenism” and asked “Where are the good news stories that would encourage others?”

Comment: If there are any good news stories that would counter the widespread picture of gloom and spiritual burn-out reported under both the headings of “Perceived Local Needs” and “Obstacles to the Covenant,” we should expect to find them in what the groups had to say about “Addressing the obstacles”.

back to top