Ecumenism and Identity

Does ecumenism necessarily mean sacrificing identity? If so, then I think it is a foolish, foolish idea that should be sent back to the netherworld from whence it came.

I would like to think ecumensim is a good thing. Creating a baseline Mere Christianity is a good place to begin interfaith discussions. However, agreeing on Mere Christianity should not in any way deemphasize the differences between faiths. If you believe that your particular church is right (and I think that everyone must believe this; why would anyone attend a church that they think is wrong?), then you should not be too quick to cede those things that separate yours from Mere Christianity even while agreeing on the baseline (noting, of course, that all disagreements should occur with love and humility).

So you may imagine the queasy feeling I got from this story about a handwritten Bible commissioned by the Benedictine monks of Saint John's University. A little off the topic of the article, though very important, is the penultimate paragraph:

The monks' committee has been particularly keen on ensuring the project's ecumenical appeal. It instructed Mr. Jackson to illustrate Matthew 16:18--"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it"--in a way that would de-emphasize the passage's special significance for the Roman Catholic Church. Catholics trace to this passage the idea of the one true church being in Rome and of the popes' being the spiritual descendants of Peter. But the illustration merely shows Jesus standing as a bulwark between various demonic images representing Hell and a rock with the vague outlines of a face on it, representing the Christian community. There are no signs of the Roman Catholic hierarchy or St. Peter's Basilica, for example.

Why would the Catholic monks try so hard to deemphasize this passage? Is it that important that we all agree on the meaning of Scripture when we sit in mixed company? If Mary Theresa Catholic believes that this passage supports the papacy and Joe Protestant believes otherwise, is it better that Mary Theresa abondons her interpretation so they can agree that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is Peter's faith, if not Peter himself. They go away ecuminecally happy, but Joe does not get any closer to the Truth (in fact, he still believes that the pope is the antichrist).

If we keep paring down our idea of Christianity to what everyone can agree on, we will be paring it down until nothing remains. Thomas Jefferson created a version of the Bible, too, but he took out all references to Jesus's divinity and made Him nothing more than a great moral teacher. Must we be sensitive to the beliefs of the Jeffersonian deists as well?

I wonder if the monks will do anything else to make this Bible less offensive to other faiths. Perhaps they should take out those pesky Catholic books that protestants dislike. All in the name of ecumenism, you know. The idea of making a non-offensive Bible is a bit absurd; it is hard to imagine where it will end. Those folks who don't believe in slippery slopes may be asking 'how bad could it really get?' I am not sure, but if someone takes this politically correct idea to the extreme I bet it could get pretty bad.