Abstract
We are beginning to see signs of what will hopefully prove to be a turning point for dialogue between and within different traditions, communities, and cultures. At long last, new shoots of transformative change are beginning to appear among our diverse communities. But for a long time, things appeared less encouraging, and amid the tragic divisions and tensions that still blight our world today, we must not lose sight of the challenges that still lie ahead.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
G. R. Evans, Method in Ecumenical Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 5.
Michael Kinnamon, “A Report from the Front Lines of a Renewal Movement Under Siege,” Criterion (Winter/Spring 2014), 16–24. Evans and Kinnamon strike a note of constructive realism rather than despair, and both end with constructive and hopeful conclusions. Yet both are equally adamant that much needs to change if ecumenism is to move forward, just as times and churches change too. See also, Kinnamon’s earlier text, The Vision of the Ecumenical Movement and How It Has Been Impoverished by Its Friends (St Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2003).
See, for example, Peter C. Phan, “Introduction,” in Christianity and the Wider Ecumenism, ed. Peter C. Phan (New York: Paragon House, 1990), ix.
Founded in 2005, with roots going back to 2002, some background on the Ecclesiological Investigations Network can be found in Gerard Mannion, “The Open Church Re-Envisioned: Ecclesiological Investi gations—A New International Research Network,” in Receiving “The Nature and Mission of the Church”, ed. Paul M. Collins and Michael Fahey, SJ (London: T&T Clark, 2008), vii–xviii, with some updates provided in “Ecclesiological Investigations: Series Introduction and Invitation” in the revised series introduction to paperback edition of Gerard Mannion, ed., Church and Religious Other (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), ix–xiv. The Network’s website is http://www.eiresearch.net .
An interesting essay that explores what the future of ecumenism might look like is Margaret O’Gara’s “Ecumenical Dialogue: The Next Generation” in her posthumously published collection 5No Turning Back: The Future of Ecumenism, ed. Michael Vertin (Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 2014), 206–31.
Michael L. Fitzgerald, “The Catholic Church and Interreligious Dia logue,” in Interfaith Dialogue: A Catholic View, ed. Michael L. Fitzgerald and John Borelli (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2006), 28; he here cites DP, no. 42.
Susan Allen Nan, Daniel Druckman, and Jana El Horr, “Unofficial International Conflict Resolution: Is There a Track 1½? Are There Best Practices?,” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 27, no. 1 (Autumn 2009): 65–82 at 65–66. I am most grateful to Professor Necla Tschirgi for advising me on some of the pertinent literature in this field.
See the additional summary definition offered by Tobias Böhmelt in “The Effectiveness of Tracks of Diplomacy Strategies in Third-Party Interventions,” Journal of Peace Research 47, no. 2 (March 2010): 167–78 at 167.
Roger Haight, Christian Community in History, vol. 3, Ecclesial Existence (New York: Continuum, 2008).
Ricoeur developed this notion in his hermeneutical writings as applied to religion and sacred texts in various ways (not always specifically expressed in such terms). Ricoeur meant when one has passed into a stage of “critical distance” from one’s own tradition or religious set of beliefs, teachings, and practices. Dogmatic or simplistic understandings of one’s religion are thereby transcended, and the relationship with them is transformed in a positive sense. See, for example, Paul Ricoeur, “The Critique of Religion,” in The Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur, ed. Charles Reagan and David Stewart (Boston: Beacon, 1978), 213–22.
David Tracy, “Beyond Foundationalism and Relativism: Hermeneutics and the New Ecumenism,” in On Naming the Present: Reflections on God, Hermeneutics, and Church (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1994), 138.
The section title in chap. 1 of Leonardo Boff, Francis of Assisi (Maryk-noll, NY: Orbis Books, 2006), 16 (originally São Francisco de Assis: Ternura e Vigor [Petropolis: Vozes/Cefepal, 1981]; original English translation edition St. Francis: A Model for Human Liberation, translated by John W. Diercksmeier [New York: Crossroad, 1982]; reference is on page 17 in 1982 version).
Peter C. Phan, “The Wisdom of Holy Fools: A Way to the Love of Truth in Postmodernity,” in Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004), 9.
Ibid., 21; here Phan drew on Karl Rahner, Hearer of the Word, trans., Joseph Donceel (New York: Continuum, 1994), 81.
Hans Küng, Disputed Truth: Memoirs [II], trans. John Bowden (New York: Continuum, 2008), 35.
See DP, no. 46, titled “Tensions and Conflicts.” See also Gerard Mannion, Ecclesiology and Postmodernity (Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 2007), 142–46, discussing the contributions here, in particular, of Gregory Baum. Recall, also, Evans on ecumenical struggle and risk.
Bradford Hinze, Practices of Dialogue in the Roman Catholic Church (New York: Continuum, 2006).
See, for example, Herbert C. Kelman, “The Role of the Scholar-Practitioner in International Conflict Resolution,” International Studies Perspectives 1, no. 3 (December, 2000): 273–88.
Thus far, the signs of the very first Pope Francis are proving to be of great encouragement to many around the world who seek to advance dialogue. In choosing such a name, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio knew full well the heavy responsibilities that would weigh on his shoulders in order to live up to that name and vision. The emphasis on what people share in common is there in Pope Francis’s approach to dialogue too, with many statements and his writings both prior to his election and since underlining similarities with Pope John XXIII on this and many further issues. Among others, Leonardo Boff has offered many pertinent observations on the similarities between the Umbrian saint and the Argentinian new bishop of Rome that bodes very well for dialogue on so many fronts. See Leonardo Boff, Francis of Rome and Francis of Assisi: A New Springtime for the Church (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2014).
Editor information
Copyright information
© 2016 Gerard Mannion
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mannion, G. (2016). Thinking Outside the Ecumenical Box. In: Mannion, G. (eds) Where We Dwell in Common. Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137503152_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137503152_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-58056-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-50315-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)