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!