Ecumenism, As I Understand It

as of 07/06/25, 09:19:12 AM

1st rough draft

The definition of ecumenism, according to Oxford Languages is “the principle or aim of promoting unity among the world's Christian Churches”.

This is not my definition of ecumenism, although it is close. The only change I would make is this: it has the aim of promoting harmony among all of God's children, of all religions and belief systems. By this definition it is applicable to every single human being alive, because by my estimation, God made them all: Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, and aborigines from every continent. By this definition, it goes without saying that all Christians ought to get along, and acknowledge what they all believe in common.

It even applies to, my gut tendencies aside, Donald Trump and his followers.

Which begs the question: what about what we DO NOT believe in common? I would say the question ought to be how do we get along despite our differences? That is where it gets sticky, because in order to all get along, we must all want to get along, and not everyone does.

In this respect I would amend my definition of ecumenism to read “the principle or aim of promoting unity among all of God's children, of all religions and belief systems, insofar as it is possible." It will not always be possible. Even God realized this when he banished Adam and Eve from Eden, and Cain to “the land of Nod, east of Eden” Genesis 4: 15-16. Today we might call “Nod” a penitentiary. My points in this revision are:

1. We seek common ground, even though differences will remain: I am Christian (what I have in common to a large degree with other Christian communions), while an Episcopalian, or Roman Catholic, or Baptist, or whatever denomination applies. It also applies to religions as well. All religions have a surprising amount in common. We may all have different names for God and different salvation narratives, but we DO have them!

2. Those who do not want to  seek or to see, common ground may go their way.

But what of those who feel compelled to force us to believe as they do, or punish us (or others) for not believing as they do? Well, that is difficult, and it all too often must be dealt with.

I feel that in the case of aggression against an individual, as in Jesus' case, martyrdom can be one answer. I cannot, however, expect that of others; I can only choose it for myself.

In the case of aggression against others, there are various ways of dealing with that: struggle, detention, force, nonviolent resistance. Or war, as a tool of ultimate last resort, in the case of larger communities and nations. (All too often it is invoked in the instance of utter exasperation --, not the tool of ultimate last resort.)

This all addresses dealing with violence and oppression. But in terms of conflicts among believe systems, which have all to often been known to have devolved into cases of violence, the ecumenical approach is simply to seek common ground and if it is not found, simply walk away Matthew 10:13-14. We are not compelled to all believe the same thing or worship the same way John 14: 1-2. I feel this applies to all religions and philosophies, as well as Christian denominations.

Too many ecumenical efforts fail because one faction wants the other faction(s) to buckle to their viewpoint. We must seek what we share in common, and only what we share in common! I am not compelled to worship as anyone else worships. I am compelled to love God, and God where I find Him in other people. Worship together when and where we can, simply, and peaceably, part ways where and when we cannot, but still with love for one another.

Ecumenism ought not be about corporate or conceptual unity, but rather communal understanding – not in the theological sense of that word but in the empathetic sense of it.

I also want to emphasize that there can be ecumenical relationships even between Christians and atheists. I do not think that I have ever encountered any atheist who did not believe in God, they usually just think of God in foreign terms. Most atheists embrace compassion, forgiveness, and usually even that raison d'être that I so often refer to – and if they have a reason for being, then it had to come from somewhere, imparted to them by whatever force gave then “being”.

Even if Carl Sagan, a well-known and very open atheist, did not believe in a god of any sort, he exhibited all the ethical and compassionate traits of a good Christian, as do most atheists, but often not the hypocrisy that is all too evident in the Christian community. Frequently, that rejection of hypocrisy is manifest in them as cynicism. It does no good to point that out, but it can be good for us to understand that it is often the possible and very likely source of it. 

There is a strong tendency for non-Christians to believe our hypocrisies stems from our concept of God. And they might be right, but if so, it is because we are wrong. They simply have a different belief system and theology in the form of "philosophy/” (Note that “Theology” is a subset of "Philosophy”). In many ways, Carl Sagan may well have been a better "christian" than are most “Christians”.

It is important to remember that even though most people think of the bible as referring only to Jews & Christians, the Jews & Christians were made to be a “light to the nations” (that is all people, Jews and gentiles alike) Isaiah 42: 5-6.