Image via Wikipedia
In this post, I'm building upon my response to the book by Yung-Suk Kim, Christ's Body in Corinth, I have recently reviewed elsewhere. I wrote a series of posts (starts here) in response to the book, a while ago.
The idea of full visible unity has always been the primary vision of those involved in ecumenical work. The main alternative is sometimes called 'reconciled diversity' and it seems generally accepted this approach falls short of full visible unity. If the academic work has been done to fully assess reconciled diversity, I've never seen it or heard of it. The debate however appears to be closed.
The significance of Kim's book is, he makes the case for reconciliation rather than unity. It is interesting that he sets them up in opposition to one another. For Kim, unity and reconciliation are incompatible.
Why? Because unity is between leaders and is negotiated. It ignores legitimate diversity in an attempt to centralise authority.
Reconciliation is necessary where differences cannot be resolved and, according to Kim, we are left with the solidarity of the marginalised.
So, the challenge to ecumenists is not to find a solution that enables a single organisational approach to church. The task is to learn to love one another despite our differences.
I have written a great deal about the importance of relationships, of conversations as an end in themselves. Unity implies stasis, it implies it is possible to find a form of words to which all shall sign up and so unite the churches.
Reconciliation between marginalised people is inherently unstable. It implies the oneness of Christians will never be resolved because it is the act of loving despite differences that is important.
Comments