Column Though poles apart, peaceful coexistence and dialogue
possible
By ROSEMARY RADFORD
RUETHER
Christians have been divided into
hostile factions since the first generation of the church. Contrary to the myth
that there was once a perfect consensus on Christian teachings, from which
heretics later deviated and created schisms, there has always been
a diversity in the interpretations of the Christian faith. In the past this
resulted in divisions into separate churches or sects, in which the less
powerful group was driven out of existence by persecution or else divided
churches continued as separate groups, preserving their distinct historical
perspectives, theologies and polities.
In recent decades there has emerged a new form of division among
Christians. Rather than separating into different churches, much of the
division among Christians has taken the form of polarization between factions
within the same historic churches. Instead of each church being relatively
coherent in its views of theology and polity, defined against other churches
with different views, there develops an ecumenical similarity between the
progressive wing of many of the historically divided churches, but this
progressive wing is deeply divided from the conservative and fundamentalists of
their own historical church.
Progressive Catholics find they have more in common with
progressive Protestants and vice versa than with the right wing of their own
churches. The right wing of the different churches are less likely to be in
ecumenical consensus with each other, but sometimes make tactical alliances
against progressive Christians of their own churches on social issues, such as
homosexuality, abortion and womens ordination.
Dialogue between separated factions within the same historic
churches has proved very difficult. Some who have tried to engage in dialogue
have concluded that these separate factions hold such different presuppositions
that dialogue is impossible.
One such effort to dialogue between progressive feminist
Catholicism and right-wing Catholicism was undertaken by Mary Jo Weaver,
professor of religious studies at Indiana University in Bloomington, Ind. She
engaged in a several-year process of discussion with leaders of the Catholic
right, which was published in the book she and Scott Appleby edited, Being
Right: Conservative American Catholics (Indiana University Press). Weaver
subsequently edited a parallel book on liberal American Catholics, called
Whats Left? (Indiana University Press).
Weaver went into the process of discussion and book editing with
the hope that some consensus or at least improved understanding between
conservative Catholics and progressives such as herself would ensue. She came
out of the dialogue convinced that this was impossible. Her presuppositions and
those of the Catholic right were incompatible. Weaver reported on this process
and her conclusions in a lecture given April 15, 1996 at Santa Clara University
in Santa Clara, Calif., called Whats Wrong with Being
Right?
Weaver is not the only person to come to the conclusion that
dialogue is impossible between polarized factions within their historical
churches. Dr. Linda Thomas, African-American womanist theologian and a United
Methodist minister, was part of a process of dialogue between right-wing and
progressive Methodists a few years ago. In her report on those meetings to our
faculty at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, a Methodist-related
seminary, she expressed the conclusion of the liberals that dialogue with the
conservatives was impossible, even though they had gone into the dialogue
expecting to come out with better understandings of each other.
Rather, the more the two sides dialogued, the more they realized
that their differences were irreconcilable. For example, those who assume that
the Bible is divinely inspired and those who see the Bible as a historical
collection of writings that point to inspired insights, but dont contain
it in a final and unchangeable form, simply do not have the same starting point
for discussion.
For many years I have been a part of interreligious dialogues,
between Christians and Jews, Christians and Muslims and Christians and
Buddhists. Certain ground rules have evolved that help make dialogue possible.
Each side must give up the assumption that they are out to convert the other
side to their faith, that they alone have the true faith and the others are
heretics, idolaters or demon-worshippers. Each starts with an attitude of
mutual respect for each others faith. They assume that there is some
truth in both religious perspectives and both are partial and historically
constructed, although pointing to deep truths. Each can learn from the other,
both to more deeply appreciate the others faith, and also to better
understand their own faith. These presuppositions make dialogue possible.
I would suggest that the same presuppositions that make dialogue
possible between religions are also necessary for dialogue between Christians,
even Christians in the same denominations. Dialogue is impossible if some
Catholics start with the assumption that those of the other side are stupid,
perverse or evil, and that your group alone has the fullness of the truth, that
the goal is to make the other side either submit to your fullness of truth or
get out of the church.
Such presuppositions, unfortunately, are exactly the
presuppositions of right-wing Catholics and Protestants with regard to the
liberals of their churches. It is these presuppositions that make dialogue
impossible.
What is to be done? I believe it is essential that neither side
gain the power to drive out or silence the other side. Each must continue to
coexist within their churches, even if it means constructing distinct media of
communication, educational institutions and networks to maintain ones own
existence. We must continue to clarify not simply the surface points of
difference, but the difference of presuppositions. These will not lead easily
to a new consensus, but rather to a clarification of the depths of the
differences. But both sides must continue to exist and to try to communicate.
Perhaps eventually a new synthesis will arise. Perhaps it wont. But
neither group should be allowed to destroy the other.
Rosemary Radford Ruether is a professor of theology at
Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, Evanston, Ill.
National Catholic Reporter, April 12,
2002
|