RESOURCING THE CHURCH FOR ECUMENICAL MINISTRy A ...

Local and Universal
We don’t talk about it as much, but there is certainly
a new appreciation for the local in ecumenical
discussions—or, to put it another way, a new emphasis
on contextual experience as opposed to that
which is universal. In fact, ecumenical texts that
claim to articulate a universal theological consensus
are increasingly suspect. It would be impossible
today for a document like Baptism, Eucharist, and
Ministry (finalized in 1982) to become so widely
influential.
As you might expect by now, I think that the local
and universal must be held in tension in any
adequate understanding of church—and this is
reinforced by most ecumenical documents dealing
with ecclesiology. Each gathered community of
believers in which the gospel is preached and the
sacraments celebrated, in which Christ dwells by
faith, is truly the church—not just a branch office.
But it is not the whole of it, because the church
universal is a communion (not a loose aggregate,
but a communion) of these local communities. The
church is local, but local autonomy is a denial of the
church’s essential catholicity.
The church is local, but local autonomy is a
denial of the church’s essential catholicity.
This interdependence of local and universal is
proving difficult to hold, however, in our postmodern
era. The debate over human rights is a good
case in point. When the Universal Declaration on
Human Rights was formulated (with considerable
church input) in the 1940s, the importance and
appropriateness of universal principles were taken
for granted. Today, by contrast, various of the
Declaration’s claims—for example, about the rights
of women—are contested by many as cultural
imperialism, insensitive to contextual realities.
Surely there is a danger in foisting off the values of
Western culture on others as if they were universally
valid; but isn’t there also a danger of succumbing to
a relativism that won’t protect the neighbor? Dick
Cheney to the contrary, I am convinced, as a person
of faith, that it is wrong everywhere and always to
torture any child of God.
This, again, is very tricky: how to affirm the diversity
of cultures and religions, to be open to genuine
7
otherness, while also affirming the universal
principles that seem central to our faith and on
which human community is grounded. The most
difficult discussion I witnessed during my years as
dean of Lexington Theological Seminary came
when a local delegate to the Cairo Population
Conference denounced female circumcision (what
many of us call genital mutilation) as a violation of
human rights, only to be denounced in turn by
African students for her cultural imperialism, her
insensitivity to local African contexts.
It is easier to relate to open-minded Jews or
Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus than it is to
relate to many of the narrow-minded jerks
who insist on calling themselves Christian!
I want to add that the church has developed a variety
of connectional structures for expressing the
interdependence of local and universal. In modern
societies, especially those influenced by democratic
principles, these structures are known as denominations.
Denominations can, of course, hinder
catholicity by claiming to be the church and resisting
the work of ecumenical bodies, like councils of
churches. But the breakdown of denominations can
also weaken the connection between local and
universal church. Disciples, with our early history of
congregational autonomy, face a particular challenge
in this regard.
Concluding Words
In the last section of my remarks, I want to shift gears
slightly and suggest two things that I hope will happen
at this consultation. The first has to do with what I
perceive to be a loss of theological depth and conviction
in many churches—and, therefore, in the
ecumenical movement—over the past half century.
One dreadful indication of this is the report of a
widely-trumpeted gathering of church leaders,
convened by the World Council of Churches earlier
this decade, to reflect on the “reconfiguration” of the
ecumenical movement. The five-page report uses the
word “God” once and never refers to Jesus. This
means, of course, that it is entirely human centered,
talking about what we have done or should do, but
never about what God has done, is doing, and will do
for the world’s salvation.
Kinnamon • A Century of Witness, a Journey of Wholeness