British ecumenism is dominated by a model of ecumenism called 'full visible unity'. I suppose if there is an old ecumenical paradigm this is it. How does it work? Simple. If two traditions become one tradition, that is visible unity. An example would be the United Reformed Church, where the Presbyterian, Congregationalist and Church of Christ traditions have become a single church. When all the churches join together this would be 'full visible unity'. It is important to understand something of the energy around this paradigm and I will return to this in a future post.
Various attempts have been made to identify a new paradigm. One of these is known as 'reconciled diversity'. This stops short of visible unity and argues reconciled traditions will learn to collaborate. The problem with this approach of course is that it is potentially an escape clause for those who do not agree with the 'full visible unity' paradigm. Somehow, this model has never built up a sufficient head of steam to be a contender for ruling ecumenical paradigm. I don't know why this is. I'm told there were papers written a few years ago that ruled out this approach. I don't know who wrote them or what they said.
There is a popular vision of 'unity in diversity' which attempts to reconcile full visible unity with diversity in some way although I've never seen this set down in any formal way. I must confess I find it hard to visualise what it might mean in practise and so I suspect do most other people.
To move this debate forward we need to examine unity and diversity and ask questions like, 'what do they mean?' in theory and in practise. I'm not seeking a new paradigm as such, merely to try to throw some light on the subject.
Initially I plan to comment on some aspects of 'The Dignity of Difference: How to avoid the clash of civilisations' by Jonathan Sacks. This book is written from a Jewish perspective, close enough to make sense to Christians but distant enough to allow for some perspective. In writing this blog I am attempting to take a step back from the usual content of ecumenical conversations and to ask what we are trying to achieve and whether or how we can be more effective.
On page 20 Sacks writes:
... the proposition at the heart of monotheism is not what it has often been taken to be: one God, therefore one path to salvation. To the contrary, it is that unity is worshipped in diversity. The glory of the created world is its astonishing multiplicity: the thousands of different languages spoken by (hu)mankind, the proliferation of cultures, the sheer variety of the imaginative expressions of the human spirit, in most of which, if we listen carefully, we will hear the voice of wisdom telling us something we need to know. That is what I mean by the dignity of difference. (The emphases are Sacks'.)
In his prologue, Sacks tells us something ecumenists learn very quickly, Through conversations with other traditions we learn about their tradition and more about our own. This is something we should celebrate. We should be mourning the loss of languages and cultures to globalisation rather than trying to reduce their numbers ourselves.
Comments