Versohnte Verschiedenheit: Aufsatze zur okumenischen Theologie I. - Review - book review

Ecumenical Review, The, July, 2000 by Dagmar Heller

Harding Meyer, Versohnte Verschiedenheit: Aufsatze zur okumenischen Theologie I [Reconciled Diversity: Essays in Ecumenical Theology I,] Frankfurt, Lembeck, and Paderborn, Bonifatius, 1998, 253pp.

What kind of unity have Christians been seeking since the beginning of the modern ecumenical movement? The title of this book already indicates how its author conceives of unity. Unity does not mean uniformity. The important thing is that existing differences should not be perceived as dividing the churches or, where necessary, should be modified in a way that makes them no longer divisive.

Harding Meyer approaches his subject from a variety of perspectives. The book brings together a series of his essays and lectures from the years 1971-1996, almost all of them already published elsewhere (some in other languages), and abridged or edited for this volume. Its four thematic sections deal with the method of ecumenical dialogue ("I. The Endeavour for Unity"); the fundamental question of unity and its possible forms ("II. Unity and Concepts of Unity"); the specific question of the role of the confessions in efforts for unity (III. "Confessions and the Unity of the Church"); and the question of "Confession and Commitment" (IV).

The first chapter recognizes that there are many different motives for the ecumenical quest, and that these belong together and are best organized by content (cf. "Motivation and goal of ecumenical endeavour").

The principal method used in pursuing the goals of the ecumenical movement is dialogue, which here raises specific problems ("Dialogue in the sphere of tension of the ecumenical movement"). It is a matter of respecting, and being receptive to, the convictions of others while remaining faithful to one's own, for the "one gospel, the one faith and the one church can appear in many forms ... and yet still remain the one gospel, the one faith and the one church of Jesus Christ" (42). The question of truth is not neglected, but the differences in its expression are carefully examined and the legitimate divergences made clear.

Here Meyer has various bilateral dialogues in mind, especially those working towards, or already having produced, a "differentiated consensus" ("The ecumenical dialogues: situation -- problems -- perspectives" and "The structure of ecumenical consensus"). Dialogues are a stage on the way from disagreement to consensus. In this process it is essential to develop the understanding of "consensus" not in a maximalist sense, which would be inappropriate to the nature of the Christian fellowship, but a consensus that leaves room for diversities. The idea of "differentiated consensus" allows the different doctrinal statements to stand while trying to show that, in their doctrinal intention and their theological concern, they can be reconciled with those of the respective dialogue partner.

This raises the question of reception ("From dialogue to fellowship. Ecumenical reception and the `receivability' of the results of dialogue"). Here the problem to be resolved is how to bridge the tension between that which has been newly worked out, and that which is familiar, in a dialogue text. This means "recognizing and affirming the factual connection between `new' and `old' or the `substantial or factual agreement between the two'."(85) And in order to demonstrate this agreement, the dialogue must also consider non-doctrinal factors ("The treatment of non-doctrinal factors in ecumenical dialogue").

All these considerations point, according to Harding Meyer, to the concept of "unity in reconciled diversity". Starting with the WCC "Basis" adopted by its assembly in New Delhi in 1961, Meyer traces the development towards this model, which he sees as correcting or expanding the model of "conciliar fellowship".

A fundamental concept in the view of unity as "reconciled diversity" is that of "recognition" ("Recognition - an ecumenical key-concept"). Specifically this means recognizing and affirming the otherness of the other, without absorbing or appropriating it for oneself and thus cancelling out the difference. (Reference is made -- but only in passing and without going into detail -- to the problem that "recognition" can also be misunderstood and misused to mean merely the preservation of the church and confessional status quo.) By way of example; Meyer understands the "church fellowship" realized in the Leuenberg Agreement of 1973 to be "a structured form of `unity in diversity'".

Using the notion of "confessionality" he shows how, on the basis of the model of unity in reconciled diversity, confession and the ecumenical community are to be seen together ("Confessionality and ecumenical fellowship"). "Confessionality" is that which makes each church different from others -- its distinctive character and identity as expressed in its particular ways of understanding the faith, forms of worship, church order and so on. (Interestingly, in this sense interconfessional groups also develop their own "confessionality"). Yet these very "confessionalities" compel the ecumenical fellowship, which expresses the unity of the church amidst the differences among the churches. This is also developed in the essay on "Christian World Communions", and in an article on "Transconfessional Movements" and their ecumenical significance.