Thick Ecumenism--A Better Model Than Mere Christianity

What kind of confessional model should shape the Christianity in question at a Christian college? My students often appeal to a broadly defined general Christian belief, something not unlike C.S. Lewis' notion of "mere Christianity." Yet I would contend that there are reasons why this general belief system is not enough. Consider the idea of "thick ecumenism."

Thick ecumenism begins with something like a thin consensus of common confession, a "mere Christianity," but it cannot stay there because the central doctrines of the faith intersect and branch out in their numerous implications for all of life. Instead, ecumenism promotes a conversation among the Christian traditions, searching for points of commonality and difference, but not as a simple exercise in comparative theology, liturgy, or spirituality. In other words, we are teaching and confessing our faith within certain traditions of the Christian faith. I teach at a Baptist school; my friend teaches at a Presbyterian one. We certainly share much in common, but there are differences, and these differences are interwoven with our basic beliefs. What I believe about church and dissent interacts with my understanding of salvation and God and sin, as does his beliefs. Yet we dialogue in hope. The hope is that our conversation will mutually illumine all involved and that this illumination will offer a continued course correction in doctrinal development and polity.

Kevin J. Vanhoozer in his work The Drama of Doctrine employs the dramatic image of table fellowship in which the varying interpretative traditions and practices come with their noisy conversation to sup together, not just for a rowdy table-pounding boasting match, nor for a polite "no offense intended" high tea, but for a true family meal. Vanhoozer points out that this family diversity has its very legitimacy in the "Pentecostal plurality" of scripture's own canonical diversity. We sup together that we might become stronger together. We are about more than sampling each other's dishes in smorgasbord gluttony; we are learning to "taste" better by cultivating together a culinary delight in all that is true and beautiful (272-278)

While such a gourmet practice in the academy certainly gives pride of place to Christian tradition, it also contains an inclusive search out beyond that tradition. Thick ecumenism must teach the larger global conversation, one in which in its Christian strands also move out to encompass the ideological contexts where the faith struggles to exist as martyr and as witness. However, we should keep in mind that this pedagogical multiplicity is also not a simple confirmation of diversity for diversity's sake, a multi-cultural and global sampling that really privileges Western notions of individual identity as the trump card of libertarian values, what Stanley Fish has derisively labeled "boutique multiculturalism." Neither is it a blind relativism that refuses to evaluate the actions and ethics of the other.

Instead, ecumenism longs to fulfill the promise of Pentecost, that by speaking in many tongues the gospel reverses the curse of Babel. Thick ecumenism suggests not only a method by which to explore diversity but also a larger purpose that can guide pedagogical decision-making, admittedly one with a lot of hard work in listening and learning.