• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
Introduction: Ecumenical theology 
Ecumenical theology, as I understand it, differs from both enclavetheology and academic theology. Although there are overlapsamong these types, let me begin by differentiating them.
Three types of theology 
By “enclave theology,” I mean a theology based narrowly in a singletradition that seeks not to learn from other traditions and to enrichthem, but instead to topple and defeat them, or at least to withstandthem. Enclave theology is polemical theology even when it assumesan irenic fac¸ade. Its limited agenda makes it difficult for it to takeother traditions seriously and deal with them with fairly. Whetheropenly or secretly, it is not really interested in dialogue but in rec-titude and hegemony. It harbors the attitude that the ecumenicalmovement will succeed only as other traditions abandon theirfundamental convictions, where they are incompatible with those of the enclave, in order to embrace the enclave’s doctrinal purity.Because of its temptation to misrepresent or devalue traditions withwhich it disagrees, such theology is finally divisive and futile. Withlittle chance of success beyond those already convinced, it mainly reinforces the ecumenical status quo. Enclave theology makes itself look good, at least in its own eyes, by making others look bad. It isin danger of what Paul rejected as “party spirit” or “works of theflesh,” namely, enmity, strife, and factionalism (Gal.
5
:
20
). In theecumenical churches no tradition or communion is immune fromthis kind of dogmatism.
1
© Cambridge University Presswww.cambridge.orgCambridge University Press978-0-521-89486-9 - The Eucharist and Ecumenism: Let us Keep the FeastGeorge HunsingerExcerptMore information
 
Ecumenical theology takes another approach. It presupposesthat every tradition in the church has something valuable tocontribute even if we cannot yet discern what it is. The ecu-menical movement will succeed not when all other traditionscapitulate to the one true church – whether centered in Geneva,Constantinople, Canterbury, Wittenberg or Rome – to say nothing of other symbolic locales like Lima, Cape Town, New Delhi, Canberra or Beijing. On the contrary, it will succeed only by a deeper conversion of all traditions to Christ. Ecumenicaltheology, though properly grounded in a single tradition, looksfor what is best in traditions not its own. It seeks not to defeatthem but to respect and learn from them. It earns the right tospeak only by listening, and it listens much more than it speaks.When in the midst of intractable disagreements, it searches forunforeseen convergences. Its hope for ecumenical progress meansthat no tradition will get everything that it wants, each will getmuch that it wants, none will be required to capitulate toanother, and none will be expected to make unacceptable com-promises. Each will contribute to the richness of the whole, andall will be expected to stretch to accept some things that at firstdid not seem possible. Ecumenical theology, while unable toavoid speaking pointedly at times, seeks a charitable spirit which“bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures allthings” (
1
Cor.
13
:
7
).Ecumenical theology must also differentiate itself from modernacademic liberal theology. From an ecumenical point of view,perhaps the most striking aspect of this academic theology is itslack of allegiance to established confessional norms. Ecumenicalcouncils like Nicaea and Chalcedon are written off as “definitivefailures,” full of contradictions and absurdities.
1
Holy Scripture isinterpreted from every conceivable point of view – historicist,
1
This is the view of Paul Tillich, for example, in
Systematic Theology 
, vol.
II
(Chicago:University of Chicago Press,
1957
), p.
142
. See also pp.
91
,
94
,
143
–
45
.
the eucharist and ecumenism
2
© Cambridge University Presswww.cambridge.orgCambridge University Press978-0-521-89486-9 - The Eucharist and Ecumenism: Let us Keep the FeastGeorge HunsingerExcerptMore information
 
sociological, psychological, rationalist, metaphysical, etc. – exceptfor the apostolic and the prophetic. Taking those latter viewpointsseriously would entail at least a
de iure 
respect for their witness tosomething unanticipated, ineffable, and exclusively unique. Itwould mean respecting (if not necessarily embracing) the scandalof particularity – which, if true, would necessarily bring every modern secular method to its categorical limit. But that scandal –and with it the election of Israel and the bodily resurrection of Christ – is typically dismissed out of hand.No real discussion is needed as long as modernist norms reignsupreme. Unconditional allegiance to them is promulgated asethical integrity. Theological discourse is said to be invalid if itdoes not conform to “common experience,” or if it does notexemplify certain favored “metaphysical categories.” Exclusiveclaims for the gospel are rejected as mythological, arbitrary andarrogant. Modern historical consciousness is said to requireabandoning the claim to Christ’s uniqueness. The biblical view of reality, like all human views, is seen as just one more culturally conditioned artifact, and religion becomes principally a matter of inwardness. Pluralism, relativism, and naturalism become the coinof the realm. When Christianity is reduced, through the lookingglass of modern criticism, to being an ancient patriarchal religionof obscure Mediterranean provenance, it is little wonder thatacademic religionists should see themselves as “alienatedtheologians,”
2
and that historians should describe modern liberaltheology as having increasingly lost touch with the churches.
3
2
See Van A. Harvey, “The Alienated Theologian,”
McCormack Quarterly 
23
(May 
1970
), pp.
234
–
65
. This conflicted figure is described as an academic professor of religion who is “concerned with the articulation of the faith of the Christiancommunity but who is himself as much a doubter as a believer” (p.
235
). Cited by Peter C. Hodgson in his “Editor’s Introduction” to D.F. Strauss,
The Life of Jesus Critically Examined 
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1972
), p. xv.
3
“Liberal theologians, having been pushed to the left by liberationist and postmodernmovements, found themselves speaking a language that had little currency in
introduction: ecumenical theology
3
© Cambridge University Presswww.cambridge.orgCambridge University Press978-0-521-89486-9 - The Eucharist and Ecumenism: Let us Keep the FeastGeorge HunsingerExcerptMore information
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...