In this my last reflection for now on Kim's book, Christ's Body in Corinth, I want to ask what the implications are for ecumenism and particularly transformational reception, that is the conversation churches together have with the wider world.
Clearly, Paul's concerns in 1 Corinthians is for those who were marginalised by the powerful in the Corinthian church. What this highlights is how the model based upon unity tends to cause conflict between factions. These factions are actively seeking some absolute truth. Diversity is Paul's solution to this conflict. How does this work?
In effect Paul is saying diversity enables groups to learn more of their own perspective by being subjected to challenges from others who are different. Each perspective contributes something to other perspectives' self-understanding. This is the essence of receptive ecumenism.
Kim writes on page 98, 'The existence of diversity and complexity in our lives requires the recognition of diversity in our approaches, because one method or one approach cannot comprehend the complexities of life and the multiple dimensions of the written text.' In other words, the complexities of the world outside the church demand a complex and diverse church in response to it. As churches work for transformation, they need the diverse insights of a diverse church.
Kim continues on page 99:
Because of complexities or differences in our life ..., we need an ongoing dialogue with others, which means that diversity is not simply fixed or a given. Diversity means more than mere differences of culture or people. Phenomenal differences themselves, whatever they are, do not automatically constitute diversity. Such differences, whether they are positive or negative must come into a critical dialogue with each other, with openness and a humbling spirit. ... Through engagement with one another, relational, communal love overwrites the abstract, dominant knowledge of some who do not care about the existence of others. ... In this sense, diversity does not simply allow all differences, as they are, as if they had ontological value or presence. By distinguishing between diversity and differences in this way, we can develop and maintain a sense of balance between being critical and self-critical while celebrating differences and diversity.
Is it possible to re-imagine ecumenism as focused upon the maintenance of diversity in a critical, supportive environment? The implications would be that churches would be seeking to neither maintain their own boundaries nor to be absorbed with others into a common boundary. The aim would be to create a space where churches can work together in order to be true to their particular charisms; to maintain mutual inter-dependency where each church contributes its differences.
Comments