Why Has Ecumenism Stalled?

Ecumenism has a history of over a century. During this time, there have been a number of church mergers carried out, ecumenical organizations founded, dialogues begun, and even relations between estranged churches established. Yet for the last couple decades, the movement has had less to boast of. A few landmark agreements have been signed, but few churches have united, and there is little cause to expect more in the near future. Certain key issues remain in dispute between churches, despite long-standing dialogues. Interest in ecumenism among non-specialists seems to be low. What went wrong?

I think we can trace this stalling to the origins of the movement. Ecumenism was not the emphasis of any given church or community; rather, it was a project of various individuals, both well-known and obscure. While it is true that there were plenty more people involved in ecumenism in its early years beyond the key figures, in each case these were individuals who took on ecumenism as a special emphasis of their ministries. Even when such individuals occupied key roles in their respective churches, they were unable to move ecumenism from a special ministry to a something greater.

However, by its very nature, ecumenism is not merely one more project alongside others. While we Christians have often seen ecumenism as something else the churches should do, alongside such things as evangelism, charity, worship, and so many other projects, a successful ecumenism cannot remain as such. Successful ecumenism will transform the very churches doing the task, spreading its effects beyond the "ecumenism people" to creating a reunited church which changes the very context of all members of the churches involved, even if they have had nothing to do with ecumenical work.

Therefore, to cordon off ecumenism into its own committee, commission, ministry, or pontifical council, and to run the rest of a church as if that organization didn't exist, in the end undermines ecumenical endeavors. How can a church discuss ordained ministry with its dialogue partners, for example, if it changes its own ordained ministry rules during the discussion and without consulting the results of the dialogue, let alone other churches? Such changes tell the dialogue partners that since the results of dialogues won't be used in making changes, they aren't particularly serious about the discussions. This argument does not mean that churches cannot change on their own, or even change positions on various issues; they can. But if a church wants other churches to take their positions on various issues seriously it has to show that it takes their discussion of them seriously.

However, churches which treat ecumenism as simply one more thing the church does alongside other things basically turn their ecumenism people into their version of a foreign ministry or state department. One does not normally ask the foreign ministry for input on issues relating to education or roads, let alone organizational matters. But this fact is grounded in the fact that a country's educational system or road network (or governmental bureaucracy) are not usually matters for discussion between nations. However, issues like ordination of women, the episcopacy, or the limits of Eucharistic participation are simultaneously matters of internal church arrangements and ecumenical dialogues. By discussing such matters with other churches one concedes that they are matters of some interest beyond one's own church. Thus some input from beyond church boundary lines should be welcome, even if in the end not decisive.

Hospital Chaplancy

I'm not at home right now, but wanted to get a post in. Tonight I'm giving a shout out and recognition to hospital chaplains. These men and women have ecumenical (and indeed interreligious) ministries. They care for patients of all religious backgrounds, and often work with ministers (clergy and lay) of different traditions and even in institutions of different backgrounds to theirs. At least to patients their ministries are examples of working in harmony and without undue emphasis on denominational lines.

Thoughts on Reunion Proposals Pt. 2: Who's In?

This post is the second in a series on reunion proposals in general.

What are the basic techniques which might be employed on various issues to produce a reunion proposal? I can think of three:

1. Compromise. All parties involved find some formula which, though not the formula of any party, is acceptable in some way to all. Compromise is something of a split the difference strategy. Something like this strategy was attempted after the Council of Nicaea. The party which accepted the council wanted to describe the relation of the Son with the Father as homoousios, that is, of the same substance. The Arian party wanted to describe the relationship as being of a different substance. The formula of homoiousios, that is, of similar substance, was put forward in the hopes that both parties would accept it. (They did not, of course, and the Nicene Creed to this day includes "homoousios", usually translated as "one in being".)
2. Tolerance. All parties involved decide that the differences on a given issue, though real enough, do not matter enough, and they can agree that the others' positions on these issues are acceptable and not heretical. This sort of strategy has been tried in various controversies within a given church. For example, the Congregatio de Auxillius was called to settle disputes on grace between Dominicans and Jesuits. After hearing the debates, the conclusion was reached that both sides' positions were acceptable and could be defended.
3. Persuasion. A single party argues its position on a dispute so persuasively that the other parties agree to accept its position in place of their own. This strategy has been tried numerous times; it is not clear, however, that it has worked, except in those cases where some outside geopolitical factor has added its weight to the arguments.

Some Christian groups would not accept compromise or tolerance of differences, and refuse to accept the possibility of being themselves persuaded of someone else's position. The only sort of ecumenism acceptable to them, therefore, is one in which all others are persuaded that their positions are correct. This sort of position is a kind of ecumenism of return. (There are others, too.)

These Christian groups are not able to truly participate in ecumenism. Therefore, as a practical matter, ecumenical efforts may as well ignore them -- they aren't going to be involved in a reunion, and exchanges of positions do not need ecumenism as a motive, nor ecumenical structures to support them. This conclusion has certain consequences. If there are churches who will be on the outside of ecumenical efforts, then a Church reunited by such efforts will not include all churches.

This state of affairs may happen anyway, however. There is not a clear boundary between which groups can truly be called Christian, and which should best be considered other religions. Do we include such groups as the Latter Day Saints, Christian Scientists, Unitarians, or Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians? What about various smaller groups far outside more mainstream Christian forms (Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Anglicanism, and mainline and evangelical Protestantism)? Can we draw a border which excludes some of these groups without prejudging any issues in dispute among Christians? Is a historical tie enough, or does there need to be a commitment to certain core truths? But if the latter, how does one objectively draw up such a list without prejudging issues of dispute between these penumbral groups and mainstream Christianity? Any boundary drawn, regardless of how well motivated, is a human construct and therefore fallible. It thus risks leaving some Christian groups on the outside as well as some non-Christian groups on the inside.

Thus an all-encompassing ecumenism is unlikely to happen: some groups may be left out on accident; while other groups will be left out because they cannot participate due to their own attitudes towards opinions differing from their own.

If a truly all-encompassing ecumenism isn't going to happen, is it necessary to aim for total reunion of those it can encompass? While such a reunion should remain the ultimate goal, as a practical matter a smaller reunion may be more feasible. In a sense, the various church mergers of the twentieth century employed this strategy, but here I am considering it on a wider scale. I see five main forms of Christianity: Orthodoxy (both Eastern and Oriental), Catholicism, Anglicanism, mainline Protestantism, and evangelical Protestantism. I can conceive of a kind of "Little Reunion" wherein not all five forms reunite. (This "little reunion" is, of course, larger than a reunion within a given form, or even confessional tradition. It is "little" when compared with a "great reunion" of all five forms.) Such a "little reunion" would have the advantage of reducing both the number of issues which need addressed and the amount of difference needing to be dealt with. An Anglican-Catholic-Orthodox reunion, for example, would not disagree on the value of fixed, written liturgies as a requirement for worship, something less valued among the two Protestant forms. (This is merely an example, and I do not mean to imply that these three are necessarily the best choice for such a little reunion, nor am I trying to minimize the real differences involved.)

Questions or replies? Feel free to comment below. Comments are moderated, so keep it civil and no spam.

Thoughts on Reunion Proposals Pt 1

This post is the first in a series of reflections on reunion proposals in general. These posts are not intended to evaluate any particular proposal, to make a proposal of their own, or to argue for particular decisions on various points of difference among Christian bodies.

It is, of course, ridiculously easy to make some sort of facile reunion proposal. Even ignoring those which amount to ecumenisms of return (that is, of the form "everybody accepts one church's positions on everything), it would be quite simple for someone to propose a kind of compromise whereby each church involved is asked to accept some positions of other partners while contributing some of their own to the final agreement. These proposals can vary based on which churches are involved and which positions are conceded to which one.

But these facile proposals founder on the question of why such churches should accept the others' positions. Why should Baptists accept bishops? Why should Methodists accept papal supremacy? These proposals can offer no greater reason than "in the name of unity," while the positions are chosen at random, by some sense of "importance" to the churches whose positions prevail, or by personal taste of the proposer.

But if the reunited Church is to truly accept a given doctrine, moral position, or even organizational peculiarity, it needs to be for reasons which actually persuade its members to take the stance. For instance, if non-Catholic Christians are to accept papal supremacy, it must be explained in a way which they find persuasive and which allows them to appropriate it on their own terms. Such an acceptance need not necessarily mean that they interpret it identically to Catholic thought on the matter, so long as Catholics can see in the doctrine they accept something sufficiently equivalent to their own interpretation.

Therefore, in reunion discussions, the various points of difference need to be addressed such that the various positions are discussed on their own merits. Commissions examining these issues should therefore look at the reasons behind the positions, and not merely find some sort of formula which the various parties to the discussion  agree on. Furthermore, if the discussions are going to lead to actual, meaningful reunion, these arguments need to move far beyond the commissions. Ideally, they would come before all members of the involved churches in order to seek the consent of the faithful, though in the case of various points of polity (say, what will happen to pension obligations of the pre-merger churches) they may need only disseminate to the various people whose task it will be to oversee or carry out these agreements, and those who are directly impacted by them, as others will naturally lack the interest in these points (and may lack the specialized knowledge necessary to understand them).

I invite your response in comments below. Standard blogger.com comment policies apply. No spam and keep things civil!

Hello, and Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to this brand new blog about things ecumenical. I hope you will find my posts interesting. Please feel free to let me know what you think.