Talk:Christian ecumenism

Major rewrite required
I am surprised in an article on Christian Ecumenism that I do not find any reference to ecumenical dialogue, to the models of Church unity that have been promoted, or to the historical efforts at unity. Even if we limited the article to the modern ecumenical movement, we would need to cover a large amount of history. The sections on Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism are not about ecumenism at all. These are Christian traditions, or families of churches. To describe them as ecumenism (or approaches to ecumenism) is tantamount to choosing one model of unity over all others. This does not do justice to the topic. Nor does it do justice to the diversity of views on ecumenism found within each of these traditions. Njesson Dec 15, 2005

This is a very interesting and well written essay. However, I do think that it is really more of an essay than an encylopedia article, and it does reflect and express various opinions about several topics (although it generally tries to be fair, it still does express opinions). I actually would hate to tamper with it much because it stands out on its own as an essay. Perhaps it belongs in metapedia? soulpatch


 * I wonder if the original could go into metapedia, while this one gets edited down to NPOV. For the most part, I'd like to see the opinions attributed and maybe balanced, rather than removed. At the very least, it provides excellent structure for an encyclopedia article on the subject. We still have several of Larry's essays in essay form in wikipedia, after all. Wesley 17:23 Nov 13, 2002 (UTC)


 * I think I would rather see it re-written wiki-style. You're certainly right, that it does express a lot of opinions. The original, essay form can always be retrieved for other purposes.  (Thank you for saying it's well-written; all I can see are silly typos an syntax mistakes.) &mdash; Mkmcconn

Dogface, what do you have against "Three Houses". This is a much more nuanced heading than "Three Approaches" - I'm not even sure that I could agree that it's true, that there are "three approaches". Rather, there are three sets of problems, distinct from one another. Mkmcconn 23:37, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What I have "against" it is that it's too artsy. I prefer more neutral language for an encyclopedia. Dogface 23:47, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I suggest, hoping that it's not too argumentative, that "Neutral" is not equivalent to "Dull" or "Objective" in the sense of "Pseudo-scientific". Ecumenism is nothing if not the attempt to sort through the problem of the clash of perspectives, and as such it is a problem of problem domains that are exclusive of one another.  "House" is a better way of encompassing the issues, than "Approach".  And furthermore, it is more in keeping with the way that the parties perceive one another, and themselves.  Mkmcconn \


 * On the other hand, removing "House" is fine, as long as it is replaced with something more meaningful than the utterly colorless and inadequate term "approaches". Mkmcconn 00:00, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Right. "Approaches" stays, then.  Obviously, any term that is able to arouse such an emotional response must be the exact opposite of "colorless" and "inadequate".  Likewise, speaking as an Orthodox Christian, I will say that "houses" does not automatically describe how we see the heterodox.  It depends upon the individual heterodox group. Dogface 18:07, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * "Approaches" is completely colorless, and that is the reason for my objection (but then, you knew that). At any rate, my question is more aimed at trying to understand the reasons for your changes.  Now I have them, and can live with them; although, I do perceive a difference in your understanding of "neutrality", when you mean, apparently, "uninteresting". Mkmcconn 18:22, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The section on Protestantism really does read like a sci-fi novel. Other than that, very thorough. We need more Wikipedia entries like this (with slightly less colourful language, however).

No, we REALLY fucking don't. Kade 05:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What the Heck?
This is the most bizarrely biased article on Wiki I've ever read. The Protestant section alone reads like pro-Catholic propaganda.

'''Dogmatic Protestantism will not look for unity to come over the wall — it must come through the door, applying the key of unhidden Scripture, or the offerer of unity will be distrusted as a thief and a murderer through every point of his approach. As for Orthodoxy, by which it was fascinated at first, now confessing Protestantism grows weary of the Eastern inability to discern the difference between culture and dogma, and sees little hope of union so long as the East continues to promote mere eastern-ness as its point of departure and first point of pride.'''

Completely and utterly offensive, one-sided, editorialized, garbage.

NPOV'ed. Kade 05:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * C'mon, Kade, let's not use over-harsh, inflammatory language. It just isn't productive or polite. But thanks for being a watchdog.-LtNOWIS 23:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it was just biased, that'd be fine. But this is intentionally inflammatory. Kade 02:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's often a mistake to think that you can see into "intentions", and it's rarely relevant even if you could. As you can see from the earliest talk, this article was never intended to stand in its submitted form.  Edit away. Mkmcconn (Talk)  22:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If you knew the article was biased, why did you post it?  Moreover, why did you post it without a boilerplate warning?   Your actions speak louder than your words.   I don't really care about Christian ecumenism, I'm not an authority on the subject.   But I know blatant bias when I see it.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and you were fully aware of that when you posted this rhetoric-laden essay.  Kade 01:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I posted it because I can, and have assisted cooperatively in every attempt to edit it. And moreover, you should encourage others to do the same with their essays on subjects they feel passionately about.  You need to realize ahead of time though, that what you post will be brutally reviewed and even edited by people who admit disinterest in, and ignorance of, the subject.  Still, looking past any pompous, obscenity-laced rants and sermons you might be subjected to about how Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, in the long run the process yields benefit to yourself, and builds something useful to others. That's why I posted it. Mkmcconn (Talk)  00:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I found it offensive too, and I would concider myself more on the orthodox side on most things. Inserted a NPOV-section tag, to clairify where the problem is.--Weyoun6 19:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * In my opinion it would be more helpful if you would clarify what the problem is, instead of "where" it is. It's been a while since I've had time to edit frequently, but back in the day we used to say "be bold". Mkmcconn (Talk)  23:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protestantism
I edited the "Protestantism" section for NPOV purposes...just a brief sketch remains. I also removed an NPOV piece from the "Signs" section. I did not remove any NPOV labels or disputed labels...that needs to be a consensus decision. Hope the sections are acceptable. KHM03 19:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Your new section looks ok by me, I would have no problem removing the NPOV section label. --Weyoun6 07:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks fine to me, too. Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV labels. Hope that's acceptable to all interested parties. KHM03 21:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moved over from "Ecumenism"
I moved the following stuff over from Ecumenism, to strip down the latter article to the mere explanation of the word, as the rest was basically about "Christian Ecumenism". Maybe even a merger of the two is appropriate. Any suggestions of including it here are welcome.


 * The word "ecumenism" (also oecumenism, œcumenism) is derived from the Greek oikoumene, which means "the inhabited world". The term is usually used with regard to movements toward religious unity. In its broadest meaning therefore, ecumenism is the religious initiative towards world-wide unity. At a minimum, ecumenism is the promotion of unity, co-operation, or improved understanding between distinct religious groups or denominations within the same religion more or less broadly defined.
 * Two general types of ecumenism are discernible. The interfaith ecumenical movement strives for greater mutual respect, toleration, and co-operation among the world religions. Ecumenism in this sense is discussed at great length under the entry on religious pluralism. This is distinguishable from ecumenism within a faith-group.


 * One of the important theoreticians of ecumenism was a French priest and theologian Yves Congar.


 * World Council of Churches


 * The World Council of Churches is an assembly of representatives from most Protestant and Orthodox churches worldwide, with observers from the Holy See. It strives for world Christian unity and action, especially with regard to world relief organizations and messages of faith. It was started initially amonst Protestant Churches towards a reunion of Christians. Some parts of the Orthodox Church participate in the W.C.C.
 * The Roman Catholic Church, though participating in the Ecumenical Movement, has not joined the W.C.C., though it has send observers.
 * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which also believes itself to be authentic and universal, has not joined the World Council of Churches either.


 * Bibliography
 * Hein, David. "The Episcopal Church and the Ecumenical Movement, 1937-1997: Presbyterians, Lutherans, and the Future." Anglican and Episcopal History 66 (1997): 4-29.


 * See also
 * Universalism
 * Unitarian Universalism
 * Jewish views of religious pluralism and Relationships between Jewish religious movements
 * Religious pluralism


 * External links
 * http://www.geocities.com/pastorkeith/ecumenical.html Ecumenical & Denominational Links]: a definitive list
 * Ecumenical News International (ENI)

Str1977 16:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)