Let’s call this week’s column “Interfaith Dialogue—Part II.” Actually, my thoughts this week concern not so much interfaith conversations but ecumenical dialogue between Christian Groups. This past week marked the 100th anniversary of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity (You did remember that, didn’t you?). I was a participant in two services marking this event, one in Phoenix and another in Tucson. Tucson beat out Phoenix when it came to participation by about five to one, and I was proud that St. Philip’s hosted the event there this year. I was particularly gladdened that the various chaplains at the U of A had brought students with them, who made up about 50 of the 400 or so who attended (compared to only a small group of 80 at St. Francis Xavier, Phoenix). It is important, and sometimes actually fun, for different expressions of Christianity to get together. Getting to sample some of the best music from other faith traditions is worth the price of admission alone. But sadly, even with the best advertising and planning, there seems to be very little interest in these gatherings. How many hundreds of thousands of Christians are there in Phoenix and Tucson? Does just a handful feel it is worth their time to worship together?

Actually, I believe that ecumenical cooperation is at an all time high. It's the leadership of the various denominations who are behind the times. We are now just getting around to formally marking what is already taking place on the grass-roots level. Having a bunch of bishops and senior clergy sitting on a stage together is a bit like celebrating Armistice Day-too little, too late! The train has long left the station when it comes to Christians working together and even sharing resources and buildings. Think of the cooperative work of hospice or Habitat for Humanity, or the thousands of volunteers who labored for weeks together in the Katrina aftermath. Christians cross party lines to support various social projects and even political candidates.

Here in Arizona, we share church buildings with two Lutheran congregations (Church of our Savior, Lakeside, and St. John's, Williams), and may be doing likewise with Methodists soon. None of this was the work of religious executives, but local Christians uniting together to face common concerns in their communities. I have even had a local Mormon leader offer me space in his church for a new church plant!

This new attitude reflects a religious environment in America where denominational differences have ceased to matter. People pick a church community, not because it is Episcopal, Presbyterian, or an independent church, but because that church meets their spiritual needs. Public opinion is still intensely interested in Jesus Christ and his message, but they are no longer much interested the wrappings (or the vestments!) that message comes in.

So even though "ecumenism" as it was defined 100 years ago is largely passé, the spirit of ecumenical unity in Christ is alive and well. As for yearly celebrations, let's keep having them, but also know that although our institutions may still be separate, in many ways our prayers for unity have already been answered.

+Kirk 

A Final Thought

Here is an interesting quote from Anglicans Online about the role of tradition in the Church. It is a little dense, but worth reading carefully, for no other reason that it quotes one of my favorite writers, G.K. Chesterton:

"We have watched with interest and not a little confusion as Anglican parishes, dioceses and perhaps provinces in some parts of the world have appeared to adopt a plebiscite-based model of church affiliation in recent years. We would like to see all people able to worship freely according to their conscience. We also understand that church history shows us an important model of government and decision-making in the conciliar process during which bishops cast votes for or against critical doctrinal definitions. None of this adds up to a strong case that plebiscites are the normal decision-making process for breaking or establishing relationships of ecclesial communion, and this is because we live in a tradition that accepts and is guided by Tradition. In G.K. Chesterton's memorable words, 'Tradition means giving a vote to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. [...] Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.' We search in vain for examples of plebiscites in church history; as far as we know there are none to be found, but we hope you will let us know about them if you know better.

"Chesterton's famous quote cuts in many directions, but it reminds us that the churches in which we worship, and the dioceses and provinces in which they are situated, are things we have received in trust and hope to pass on in trust. Aside from the absence of an impartial monitor for the plebiscite-like votes that have taken place of late, we also lack the crucial participation of that 'most obscure of all classes' and an honest commitment to honour legitimate outcomes. Even taking all these things into account, we hold onto hope that there may be some way of resolving what seem from our limited perspective like intractable problems and disagreements. The knowledge that plebiscites are likely not a route to such a solution does not mean that there can be no solution."