Can these bones live?

Christian Century, Sept 6, 2003 by Michael Kinnamon

IT IS DIFFICULT to assess the health of the current ecumenical movement. On the one hand, recent years have witnessed astonishing theological convergences--for example, the agreement on justification between the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation. On the other hand, there has been an undeniable loss of energy and passion in the movement as a whole, perhaps in part because such theological work has not yet made a significant enough difference in the way Christians live with one another.

This is the concern of what is known as the Princeton Proposal for Christian Unity, now published in book form. The proposal is the product of three years of discussion by 16 scholars, invited and sponsored by the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology. This "unofficial" ecumenical group included such wellknown ecumenists as Geoffrey Wainwright (Methodist), George Lindbeck (Lutheran) and Robert Wright (Anglican).

An introductory comment identifies two problems that have left the movement "stalled in place": 1) Many churches that have historically been involved in ecumenism are now preoccupied with internal divisions and are thus less able and willing "to receive" the results of ecumenical dialogue, 2) The World and National councils of churches, once primary instruments of the movement, are now captive to a social/political agenda that subordinates the focus on visible church unity and is, itself, often divisive.

The resulting proposal is straightforward. The churches must rededicate themselves to the vision of tangible, substantive unity set forth at the WCC's New Delhi Assembly in 1961: a "fully committed fellowship"--marked by a common confession of the apostolic faith, eucharistic sharing, common prayer and mission, a reconciled ministry, and an ability to make decisions together--of "all in each place" who are baptized into Christ and confess him as Lord and Savior. The proposal offers specific steps for strengthening commitment to visible unity, steps that deserve serious study: but the proposal is not so much a blueprint for action as a call to gospel obedience. According to the Princeton group, "retreat from this vision is sin, which is visited upon the churches in their own internal weakness and unfaithfulness."

The authors lift up several once-familiar themes that, in my judgment and theirs, have been forgotten or rejected in much recent ecumenical conversation:

Christians are already bound to one another thanks to what God has done in Jesus Christ. The ecumenical indicative (we are one) is the necessary presupposition of the ecumenical imperative (such unity must be made visible to the world).

The unity of the church, therefore, is not simply a matter of human togetherness or institutional self-preservation. Rather, disunity is "a counter testimony to the gospel," a visible denial of God's gift of reconciliation.

While the church's unity is inseparable from its mission, it is also an end in itself. One body in Christ is what Christians are.

Tolerant cooperation is not an adequate expression of unity since "friendly division is still division."

Ecumenical dialogue is not compromise but a common attempt to confess the faith handed down from the apostles. Apart from the whole body, Christians inevitably emphasize their own partial perspectives.

If taken seriously, the proposal could go a long way toward healing a split within the ecumenical movement between those who favor the model of "organic" or structured unity--a model that led, for example, to the formation of the United Church of Christ--and those who favor the model of "reconciled diversity" in which denominational identities and structures are relativized but preserved. Many of the Princeton group are Lutherans, a tradition that has championed reconciled diversity; but their proposal stresses that authentic unity demands repentance and "the courage to forego genuine riches of a tradition for the sake of a more comprehensive unity in the truth of the gospel."

The report from a recent international conference of (organically) united churches suggests that any model of unity, if it is to deserve such a label, "must be tangible enough to make a witness to the world, intense enough that those in it recognize their responsibility for one another, costly enough that churches are changed as a result of being in it, and intentional enough that the body of Christ is renewed through the sharing of gifts." The authors of the Princeton Proposal, if I read them correctly, would strongly agree. Separated churches, they argue, distinguish themselves from others by claiming their own special strengths and insights. In this way, they emphasize something other than Christ and empty the cross of its power (Eph. 1:17). In some parts of the world, these divisions reinforce insidious forms of nationalism. In the U.S., they enter into collusion with divisions of race and class and show the churches' accommodation to the ethos of consumerism.

I applaud all of this; indeed, it is part of what I try to teach in courses on ecumenism. But when I shared the Princeton Proposal with two of my best, most ecumenically committed former students, they both dismissed it as "old-style ecumenism," out of touch with important developments in the movement. I heard a similar response from two ecumenical officers of mainline denominations.