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.