It appears then that conversations take place in two dimensions; between and within traditions. But this cannot be the full picture. William Rusch in Ecumenical Reception writes on page 116:
It should be noted that to date there is virtually no evidence of even partial or preliminary ecumenical reception of ethical or gender issues that are now showing the potential of being church-dividing within and among churches. Until some clarity is obtained on these subjects, further steps towards ecumenical reception will be hampered.
If the aim of ecumenical reception is full visible unity, it has to be asked what would be the consequence of achieving such a goal? Our local churches wrestle with a range of ethical issues, sometimes as a result of a decision they have made, sometimes because they're forced to and sometimes without understanding what they are facing. Sometimes local churches do this together. Usually, we call this mission and sometimes it is asserted that unity is essential for mission.
So, two churches of different traditions are wrestling together with a local issue. How would closer agreement about the conduct of holy communion help them to do this? Let me be clear, I'm not saying communion is irrelevant to the mission of these churches. I am saying we need to understand how our ecumenical conversations are relevant to local mission.
The churches in Cleveland were able to collaborate over long term unemployment through RESPOND! I have no recollection of ever discussing the traditional concerns of ecumenical conversations. The churches journeyed very deeply into practical theology, especially through Dark Holy Ground but I don't think the formal differences ever made any difference. It is a long time ago and my memory may be faulty but I think many churches jointly engaged in mission today would also fail to see the link.
Indeed formal ecumenical conversations might even inhibit collaboration if Rusch is right and the churches cannot agree about gender and ethical issues. The cries asking why we always have to wait for the slowest before we can do anything would be deafening.
Of course, most local churches collaborate over mission and ignore the ecumenical conversations as at best irrelevant and at worst divisive. Perhaps mission is a third dimension where formal conversations are prepared to enter into dialogue with the issues that engage local churches. As we contemplate climate change, debt and racism (to name three out of many intractable issues of our time) what do our ecumenical conversations have to contribute?
Comments