Positive and Negative Reflections upon Receptive Ecumenism

I will return to the Receptive Ecumenism Conference in future as the conference papers become available.  In this post I shall summarise my current position.  The conference was only a week ago and there is an immense amount to assimilate.  To structure my comments I will refer to previous posts about two and three dimensional ecumenical reception.

Receptive ecumenism between traditions

In many ways this is the dimension where receptive ecumenism makes the most helpful contribution.  Its contribution is to offer a new distinctive objective to ecumenical conversations.  Formal talks tend to seek ways in which we can persuade other traditions to become more like our own tradition.  This approach recognises that all traditions are deficient in some ways and that other traditions may be able to offer new approaches to tackling these deficiencies.  The deeper hope is that if this is pursued with sufficient vigour the traditions will move closer together.  I see this as being both in terms of cognitive closeness, in that certain beliefs might converge but perhaps more significantly in terms of affective closeness.  The latter would be where each tradition learns to value the contribution of others and will seek to preserve other traditions for their contribution to the larger Christian project.

Whilst I welcome all of this I am not able to shake off a degree of suspicion that ecumenical reception is a strategy to maintain the faith and order debate.  So long as it is seen as a means to deliver ecumenical reception of faith and order agreements I think it will be viewed with suspicion in some places.  The problem is that the normative model of formal church decision making processes has not been examined critically.  This can be seen more clearly as we move onto the second dimension.

Receptive ecumenism within traditions

I would not in any way wish to convey the impression that the local church was ignored but whilst formal conversations between church leaders are the main game in town, it is inevitable that the local church is marginalised in thinking.  The Centre for Catholic Studies is conducting a three year collaborative research project to assist with understanding receptive ecumenism amongst local churches.  This is an empirical study and as such it is to be welcomed but I have some methodological reservations.

The project reads as a comparative study of local churches in various traditions in the north east.  It seems an odd omission that the study does not include an examination of ecumenical relationships between these local churches.  A couple of us raised this point at the conference and the response was that the team conducting the project is ecumenical.  There was not much time spent on the topic and it may well be that this will be addressed now it has been raised, as some of the local people present promised to raise this directly with the project.

It is an interesting response though because it may betray underlying top-down assumptions.  The problem is to get the results of formal talks adopted locally and we do that by examining local churches, identifying their problems and then seeking amongst the traditions for solutions.  By omitting talks between local churches from the study, those talks are devalued.

Whilst this opens up a number of assumptions which need examination it perhaps also illustrates that church leaders and academics do not know how to manage the practicalities of multiple local talks.  This does not mean they don't happen or that they don't count.  What it means is that local churches will never behave as they are expected to because the reality of their relationships is not visible from a national or formal perspective.

Receptive ecumenism between the traditions and the rest of the world.

The conference was very full and deliberately did not include mission as a major theme in its programme.  This was referred to from time to time but the place of mission with respect to receptive ecumenism remains something of a mystery.  I think the reason for this is that very little theology was offered that enabled the role of mission in ecumenical relationships to be made visible. 

Given that many churches prioritise mission and evangelism this is somewhat unfortunate.  Do we really want to continue with the impression that ecumenism and mission are somehow independent or even in competition?  There is an urgency to straightening out these relationships because the world is moving on and will not wait upon Christians' conversations.  The implications of climate change for example place ecumenical conversations into context.

The conference mentioned justification several times and seemed to see this doctrine (however expressed) as  a means of addressing mission.  Unfortunately, it is a doctrine that relates directly to inner church matters and to evangelism rather than mission as a whole.  As the conference progressed it seemed to me that sanctification might be a better doctrine to use when addressing these issues.  This is something I will explore further in future posts.

Comments

[Andrew]

1st!

I am very dwindling of the subject of yes-no for ecumenism,can someone please put forward the negatives and positives to come to a conclusion

[Chris Sissons]

Thank you Andrew. I'm 240 or so posts in and I don't think I've ever posted anything on the positives and negatives of ecumenism! I will give it some thought and promise to write a post on this topic over the next couple of days.

In the meantime, (1) if you look at 'Categories' in the left hand side bar, and click on 'Theoretical Ecumenism' you might find something helpful there. (2) If you can add another comment with a few sentences about your concerns or the information you are seeking I will integrate answers into my post.

[Chris Sissons]

Hello Andrew, I have added a post which I hope addresses your question. Click on 'Main' and look for the 27 August 2009 post. Please let me know if you have any more questions (or if I've missed the point entirely!).