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.