Justin over at ressourcement got me thinking about the ecumenical movement. I posted a comment over there about how I think our ecumenical conversations should focus more on the ground level—a unity from below rather than one that focuses all our attention on the bishops, the hierarchy. Why not think about the ecumenical threads we can weave between fragmented congregations on the neighborhood or parish level? This would be an ecumenical movement on the model of the base ecclesial communities in Latin America. It’s about groups of Christians getting together to worship or pray or study the Bible in their neighborhoods and uniting in serving the neighborhood and beyond—who knows how the Spirit may lead the two or more gathered. I get tired of the way the conversation about church unity bypasses the everyday reality of plain people in order to focus on what is thought to be really important: Protestant bishops sharing eucharist with Catholic bishops.
Anyhow, along the lines of ecumenical conversation, I remebered something John H. Yoder wrote. He talked about how his (Yoder served on the Faith and Order Colloquium of the National Council of Churches—and I thought Mennonites were supposed to be sectarian!) and our engagement in talking to different sorts of Christians requires patience and humility. His is a call for realism, for a patient realism that acknowledges the otherness of the conversation partner.
“Ecumenical patience is the result of our accepting willingly and not just grudgingly the fact that we are conversing with people who have been educated otherwise than ourselves, in ways that we think theologically wrong, yet which are for them for the present the framework of their integrity and accountability. In most cases where my own convictions, or some distinctive confessional Christian position which I might hold (which are not the same), must be argued, the other people whom I differ with not only have been taught their position, which already rejects mine, solidly and accept it sincerely; they are also in most cases in the majority numerically and historically. What I have said so far should be true for everyone.” (Wisdom of the Cross , 28).
3 responses so far ↓
1 Fred K. // Oct 21, 2005 at 6:31 am
Friendship. Education. Conversation. Amen.
I was on a retreat with Jean Vanier, founder of l’Arche (where abled and disabled live together in community): it’s also an ecumenical group. Although some attendees wanted to practice intercommunion, Vanier said, “no, we must suffer the consequences of our lack of Chistian unity.” So, we prayed together, played together, ate together. Part of friendship is recognizing the differences that exist and not trying to gloss them over.
2 isaac // Oct 21, 2005 at 8:12 am
That sounds right to me. We fear differences so we try to paper them over without struggling to see how important those differences truly are. But, like your Vanier story shows, there are other ways we can share a common life. It’s not just the Eucharist that can unite us. Praying, playing, and sharing table fellowship are signs of our unity in Christ. Those bonds of common life witness to the unity made possible in Christ. I don’t what the Eucharist to occlude that witness. Great story, Fred.
3 Fred K. // Oct 21, 2005 at 8:34 am
Traditional Catholic devotion has emphasized “spiritual communion” (Aquinas discusses it in the Summa Theologiae).
More recent theology has emphasized the dimension of communio, a loving unity, among Christians. Is our common life, our communio, imperfect? Yes, sin and division separate us. But we hope that one day we will be drawn together perfectly in Christ’s love.
Leave a Comment