In several posts, most recently yesterday's, I have referred to ecumenism in three dimensions. I thought it might help to examine what I mean by dimensions.
The problem with many formal talks is that they take a linear view of the world. People with authority make decisions, which people in the local churches are supposed to follow. This process is in one direction, from those that know to those who don't. A dimension allows movement in two directions. (Time is referred to in physics as a dimension and from our point of view it moves in only one direction, however physicists more accurately refer to this as a half dimension.)
On the surface, dimension 1, between traditions may be a full dimension insofar as formal talks allow movement in both directions. In reality the mindset is too often, how can we get those others to accept our way of seeing things? Receptive ecumenism attempts to question this by asking, what do we need from the others?
The second dimension, between the centre (church hierarchies) and the periphery (local churches) is too often treated as a half dimension. This is one reason why ecumenical reception is rarely seen to have taken place, that is decisions made through formal talks are rarely taken up locally. One reason for this is that the conversations between traditions locally are ignored and therefore devalued. This second dimension added to the first means that conversations at all levels of the church count. There are some practicalities but they are for future posts.
Again the third dimension, of transformational reception, is often treated as a half dimension too - what do we have to communicate to the world? Adding the third dimension means issues in the world are addressed by all traditions at all levels. The big advantage, if all dimensions are full dimensions, is that the insights of several traditions and expressions of those traditions are focussed on the issue, or indeed a complex interplay of issues.
I am sure some of this already happens. However, it is often not acknowledged and frequently not seen as the core of ecumenical work.
Comments