‘ Uniting parishes’ are found in many places. This recognises that differences between the denominations are not that great; only structural differences or differing traditions still keep them apart. Intercommunion becomes a means of achieving unity, rather than a mark of unity achieved.

Neil Darragh observes, however, that these days intercommunion is seen by many churches less and less as a normal thing. They prefer to remain apart and retain their identity, but will come together occasionally. They are not necessarily aiming at eventual unity. This is a new stage in ecumenism where the aim is intercomunion rather than unity.

Catholics also practise this with some of the Eastern churches: they may intercommunicate without intending to become unified. Individuals may ‘shop around’, so to speak, but the churches themselves continue to remain distinct.

A Presbyterian voice
The Rev. Denzil Brown was for many years Minister of First Church in Dunedin and a leading figure in the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa. Tui Motu asked him for his opinion and experience in these matters. For him and for those in the Presbyterian communion who think like him, Eucharist – the Lord’s Supper – is the norm of Christian worship. Eucharist embodies the ‘oneness’ which Christ desired. This does not imply a forced uniformity; nor does it allow for exclusion from one another.

Christian disunity, he maintains, is nothing less than a scandal. Pope John XXIII provided a welcome ecumenical initiative, reinforced in the Second Vatican Council. By working together, by listening to each other, by praying together, by becoming friends, there has been a thawing of relations between Christian churches. Denzil believes that even if common worship does not happen, the possibility of shared communion should be a real aim. Eucharist and Mission are essentials for us as Christians. It is by seeing the unity of Christians that the world can be brought to believe in Jesus Christ.

“ If,” he says, “the different traditions (in the one church of God, but which we scandalously accept as separate ‘churches’) were to see that we are all in the presence of that which is greater – in the presence of God – then we might be more willing to allow the sacrament of unity to become that which in God’s purpose it is intended to be”.

Denzil Brown, however, laments the widening divisions in his own communion – between the extreme wings of literalist evangelism and reductionist liberalism. Presbyterians are not alone in this. All the churches are experiencing such tensions. Perhaps these need to be healed first as a preliminary to a renewed ecumenism.

Healing and Eucharist.
Political divisions which erupt into civil strife are rarely religious only. They are more likely to be social or historical in origin. Religious differences tend to make a tense situation worse. Religion can divide – but it can also help to heal.

Eucharist can become a means of healing. When celebrating Eucharist, people are saying something about themselves and how they relate to each other. If there is division, Eucharist can certainly express that division. But it can also be a way of trying to break it down. This is illustrated by the joint Eucharist which recently occurred in Drogheda (see Glynn Cardy opposite).

It frequently happens at an individual level where a couple chooses to receive communion together, even though one of them belongs to another denomination. Or on occasions when interdenominational groups are gathered for some common religious purpose. Or where, say, a Presbyterian attends a Catholic retreat. People practise intercommunion, even though it may not be according to the rules. They are using the symbol to say ‘while there is still division, we are trying to overcome it’.

But Neil Darragh insists that so-called ‘open communion’ should never be forced on people. They may not want it or feel ready for it.

Discrimination: historical injustices.
The church itself is sometimes accused of discrimination. For example, the position of women in ministry or discrimination against homosexuals, refusing communion to divorced and remarried people: all these are justice issues. Exclusion in such cases may be unjust, and the criteria for exclusion need to be re-examined. One problem is that liturgy may serve to entrench such injustices. People tend to make their own decisions on these issues, and perhaps that will lead to a solution.

Even with regard to traditional religious splits, people are beginning to vote with their feet. Perhaps ecumenism will progress more rapidly through individual action than through formal negotiation. People on the borders of Eucharist are taking the steps themselves. On Good Friday Christians of all denominations will often process the Cross together. This is good witness. Perhaps it would be better if Catholics were to drop their Good Friday communion service, since it may keep them away from a shared service.

Local celebration
The ideal, says Neil Darragh, is that the Christian church in a particular area should cater for all the varieties of Christians in that area. The people do not all have to attend at the same time. But organisers should strive to meet the local needs in all their cultural diversity. Perhaps some groups will periodically have Eucharist in their own language.

In New Zealand, divisions between faiths are largely a matter of where people originally came from when they emigrated. It is hoped that the hurts which caused the split have been left behind. But ecumenism is now past the point where it seeks uniformity, because most Christians desire to remain faithful to the particular tradition they were brought up in. What is now being sought is communion along with difference.

If there have been deep divisions, then more than just ritual healing is needed. The injustices need to be put right. Such reconciliation takes time. The key is to recognise that, while the official church stance may seem to preclude a coming together, in fact Eucharist has always involved negotiation around the borders.

A ‘sacramental’ union
People interrelate in order to achieve common outcomes. They achieve better mutual understanding, but also come to determine what they are prepared to stand firmly about together. What are we prepared to commit themselves to? Who will be our leaders? How will leadership happen? These are the questions people ask when they negotiate.

When people from different religious traditions come together to celebrate a common liturgy they are about to do something which hopefully will have a profound and lasting effect. It belongs to the category of ‘sacrament’ in the sense that it is an effective sign. Afterwards they are going to be different people. It is not just a discussion or a show they are putting on.

Likewise, forgiveness is a process which changes both parties, provided that what needs to be healed is healed. ‘Reconciliation’ can happen too quickly. Rev. David Crooke, a Dunedin Anglican priest, agrees that movements towards closer co-operation, or even corporate reunion, move slowly because true healing takes time. The hurts may not have been healed: the psychological conditions may not have been properly met. It is the will to achieve healing that really counts in the long run.

– M.H.