Image via Wikipedia
It's all very well suggesting the way out of the ecumenical winter is to by-pass formal conversations. But is it possible to be more specific?
A commonplace objection to ecumenism is, unity means uniformity. The aim of ecumenism is to kill diversity. Here's a typical statement from a blog post by Harriet Baber, There's no point in interfaith:
Ecumenism as practised during the latter half of the 20th century and into the new millennium was not only wasteful: it was positively pernicious. In order to "draw closer in sacred things" it promoted liturgical uniformity. And this meant less choice for laypeople.
Let me make three points:
- Superficially, it is true this has been the ecumenical endeavour, at least for certain Protestant churches.
- Very few ecumenists understand this type of unity to be the goal of ecumenism
- Many non-ecumenists would agree with this statement.
The problem is a failure of memory and imagination. We do not appreciate how deep divisions are or how valuable they are.
There is a failure of memory. Full visible unity has been successful but with the failure of the 1982 English Covenant, it was over as a goal. This was recognised in the Swanwick Agreement of 1989 but the Faith and Order debate has continued as if nothing has changed.
The narrow confines of Faith and Order work may seem comfortable and safe but does it remember the roots of our divisions or the nature of the progress that has already been made? As churches move closer, they find progress is slower. They are repelled as they realise their distinctions are of value.
And so we also need an imaginative practice, moving outside of formal conversations, which pictures a global church, united and diverse. In winter as the land covers in snow, it loses its distinctive features. The ecumenical spring will sharpen the landscape and many new flowers will bloom. For the winter we need clothing to help us, more than survive, revive out imagination.
Comments