Community, communion and edgelessness
Communion - or koinonia - is an ecclesiological theme which dominates contemporary talk about church, whether from the academy, in ecumenical
Identifying church 153 dialogue, or in pronouncements from church bodies.18 It is a term which, as one scholar puts it, “has all but swept the board”19 in ecumenical ecclesiol-ogy and ecclesiology more widely. There are good reasons for this: the language is rooted in scripture, and has also been understood in terms of the fundamental Christian doctrine of God as Trinity. The language of communion fits well with both ecclesiological and cultural concerns with unity-in-diversity, and accommodates late modern preoccupations with community and relationship.20 Communion/koinonia is a widely accepted way of answering the fundamental question of this chapter: what is church?21
One of the difficulties with this language, which I have drawn attention to elsewhere,22 is the tendency to elide too easily the language of communion/ koinonia with ‘community’. They are, of course, related, but not (necessarily) identical. In particular, the theological notion of communion as applied to church might reasonably be required to include expression of what has been called the ‘vertical’ element of communion23 - that is, communion in Christ. Readings of communion which are too uncritically understood as community not only risk failing to incorporate that essential ecclesiological ingredient of the divine-human dynamic but also - perhaps paradoxically at first sight - give rise to more bounded, self-defined ecclesial groupings; human communities are inevitably places of belonging, and so of nonbelonging, however inclusive their intentions. The question is, given these realities, what forms can ecclesial communion in Christ concretely take in our world, which are not simply replicating human community?
Learning from the Practices helps us understand the practical realities of such questioning. First of all, the instinct toward gathering communities is pervasive and strong, with many of the initiatives described seeing the embodiment of community as the most effective expression of mission. For St. Mary’s Battersea, hospitality and social life was a key component of their outreach and development as a parish (Cl, Interview 6; C2 Interview 7); for Messy Church, too, responding to isolation and the need to belong was key (D4). In contexts where alienation and loneliness are common experiences, and where the desire of identity in a diverse and plural setting is keenly felt, the opening up of community is profoundly attractive, and there is a proper Christian call to enable the formation of “close friendships ... out of this group of lonely misfits” (C4, Interview 2).
However, the experiences of these Practices also draw attention to a certain dissatisfaction with building communities as such, mirroring something of the academic and church questioning of the relating of community and communion. For Messy Church, this dissatisfaction was expressed through their concerns that all they were doing was building a “Jesus-less” community (D2), which failed to live up to their own sense of church as grown out of discipleship, following Jesus. A similar apparent “Jesus-less-ness” was identified for St. Mary’s Battersea (C3), as they came to see that their emphasis on inclusivity and hospitality enabled an experience of ‘community’ in which, however, formation toward moving from being guest tohost was lacking. For both Practices, a deeply practical reality of the tension between community and communion-in-Christ was experienced and in troubling ways.
What can be learnt for our practice-engaged ecclesiology, however, lies in the ways in which these practitioners responded to these experiences. The Messy Church team, in particular, through its extended theological reflection, began to work with a more ‘stretched’ understanding of church, beyond not only its gathered social reality, but beyond, too, the explicit belief assumptions of the team. The aim of bringing people to know Christ remained; but such was the encounter with ‘something of the Spirit’ even among the ‘non-believers’ who made up most of Messy Church - that the leadership felt they had to find ways of speaking of the integral connection between the ‘Sunday’ and ‘Messy’ church communities. Here, beginning to see terms such as ‘church lite’ (D2, Interview 6, 2nd) and the ‘shallow end of church’ as positive indicators of ecclesial grace beyond the structural boundaries of church was experienced as liberating (D2, final paragraph). Theologically, this experience was re-discovered and rooted by the group biblically through reflection on Acts 17. This scriptural testimony to a natural theology which might underpin evangelism enabled movement beyond a sense of tightly bound church community, which the Christian had to get people to join toward something unbounded, as the (as yet) Unknown God was recognised as at work in the lives of an apparently Jesus-less community. The edgelessness of church, when seen in this way as continuously stretched into the Spirit’s presence in the world, gives a fresh and liberating perspective to the work of mission. The Messy Church leaders’ move to this position reframes the language of ‘community’ in ways more in keeping with ‘communion in Christ’ as the expansiveness of divine love shatters our own human and limited sense of community and relationship.
There is something to be learnt from the ARCS Practices which challenges any ecclesiological tendency to valorise the gathered, stable community. For, whilst depending on some such community existing, these practices nonetheless witness to a more fluid, less concrete experience of Christian community which finds its basis less in togetherness as such, and more in the shared experience of missionary action on the one hand and spiritual support on the other. For the Housing Justice volunteer, the call to service of the homeless guest might even disrupt the commitment to the gathered community, as he chooses the community/communion of the kitchen serving the homeless over the communion of the Mass (E3, Richard). The Housing Justice community of loving action spilled over into the wider community, as actions of kindness from others became focused on their work - the local pub, the parishioners and those with no church connection (E2; E3, Linda). Senses of bounded community became blurred or lost as the expansivity of such loving response took over (E3, Chris).
None of this is to say that some kind of gathered community was unnecessary to these Practices. All of them, though in different ways, depended on such stable groups for their functioning. It is more that the witness of these practices suggests that such gathered communities are not so much ends in themselves, but rather communities of service toward the edges, witnessing to the edgelessness of God’s love in and for the whole world. What then becomes important is not the gathered community as such, but rather the extent to which it is orientated to this service. The simple responses of thanks from parishioners to Housing Justice volunteers - “This is what the church should be doing” (E2, Matilda) - their donation of amazing “puddings” (E2, Johnny, 2nd) hint at the gathered community finding its meaning in going beyond itself, beyond any sense of hard-edged identity.
Indeed, the LJV’s experience also suggested that Christian community, rooted in practices of scripture reflection and prayer, might be quite different from that expected in more traditional, stable, parish-type communities and still be effective for mission. Reflecting on the fragmented nature of his own ‘fading’ LJV reflection group, Joseph makes a telling comment:
there doesn’t have to be a tomorrow for there to be some community today. So I guess there is some sense of community, of sharing with others, of thinking with them, praying with them and just being with them without there necessarily being stability.
(A3, Joseph)
The experience here suggests that practices - of love and of prayer -themselves constitute Christian community as communion in Christ and his mission, every bit as much, and often even more, than any stable, gathered - and so bounded - community in itself.
