A New Framework for Local Ecumenism CONSULTATION ON REPORT BY CTE WORKING GROUP

Aims of the Report  To seek greater clarity about the purposes, structures, and language of local ecumenism.  To develop an enabling framework for a wider range of churches to work together at local level.  The framework will include a summary of basic principles and definitions, a tool kit of enabling processes, and small number of worked examples.

Covenant and Partnership  Partnership –  task orientated  mission led  Covenanting –  response to call of Holy Spirit  joint calling, communion and commitment under God  intention of permanence  Denominational authorities formally involved in Covenanting  Partnerships may be more locally agreed

Covenant  The concept of local covenanting is too important to apply only to one type of partnership.  Local covenanting invariably embraces partnership, but not all partnerships will necessarily be established through local covenanting.

Partnership  Particular partnerships between churches do not necessarily have to include agreements on every aspect of church life.  Partnerships do not have to include all churches, either actually or potentially.  Partnerships between churches may be entered into for a limited period of time, and may focus on a specific area of joint work.

Together as one worshipping community  Does the language of partnership apply to o Two or more local churches brought together into one community o A church planted ecumenically by people from two or more churches o A church growing out of an ecumenical fresh expression  Is partnership challenged by non- denominationalism

Minimising complexity of Governance in LEPs  Provide model constitutions which have limited scope for variation  Current approach with Model Governing Document  Explore the use of the Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO) model  Remove one tier of governance  Denominational bodies working in partnership  Ecumenical body replaces need for denominational bodies

Oversight  The responsibility for approval and oversight of partnerships lies with the authorities of the participating churches themselves  Registration of partnerships is helpful – a role for Intermediate Bodies  Facilitating communication to enable shared oversight may be offered by the Intermediate body  The nature of reviews of partnerships should not be prescriptive – depends on stage of development of the partnership  Helpful for a partnership to run its own check of agreements to make sure everything is in place and to identify any need for amending them.

Definition A Local Ecumenical Partnership exists where there is a formal written agreement affecting the ministry, congregational life, buildings and/or mission projects of more than one denomination; and a recognition of that agreement by the sponsoring body and by the appropriate denominational authorities. Revision of this definition is necessary But how radical should this revision be?

Terminology  Does the term Local Ecumenical Partnership need refreshing?  Reserved only for Single Congregation LEPs  A new generic term for a wider range of partnerships for unity and mission at local level –  what is the problem word:  local, ecumenical or partnership  has the label ‘LEP’ become associated with a particular structure

From Categories to Characteristics  Six categories have been helpful in their time, but limit the potential and actual variety of forms of partnership that exist  The variety of partnerships can be expressed in terms of their characteristics  How are  sharing ministry - sharing worship - sharing in celebration of sacraments - sharing congregational life - sharing mission initiatives - sharing resources and buildings expressed?

The sub text in the first paragraph  Ecumenism has got a bad name  Ecumensim has come to mean ‘churches negotiating their differences’ – thus emphasizing their disunity  Should we give speaking about ‘ecumenism’ a rest and instead speak of –  What we have in common  Making our unity visible in action, holiness and witness  Sharing our gifts  Celebrating diversity

Consultation  How are the member churches of your Intermediate Body responding?  Baptist  Church of England  Lutheran Council  Methodist Church  Roman Catholic Church  United Reformed Church  Pentecostal Churches  New Churches