‘Enclave’ vs. ‘Ecumenical’ Theology

Michael Bird has an interesting blog post this week on so-called ‘Enclave Theology’. I’m still pondering the outworking of this, but for now here is the quote he cites from George Hunsinger’s The Eucharist and Ecumenism:

By ‘enclave’ theology, I mean a theology based narrowly in a single tradition that seeks not to learn from other traditions and to enrich them, but instead to topple and defeat them, or at least to withstand them. Enclave theology is polemical theology even when it assumes an irenic facade. Its limited agenda makes it difficult for it to take other traditions seriously and deal with them fairly. Whether openly or secretly, it is not really interested in dialogue but in rectitude and hegemony…Because of its temptation to misrepresent or devalue traditions with which it disagrees, such theology is finally divisive and futile … Enclave theology makes itself look good, at least in its own eyes, by making others look bad. (The Eucharist and Ecumenism, p. 1)

Bird suggest as an antidote to ‘enclave theology’ something akin to the ‘Reformational Catholicism’ of Leithart or Vanhoozer. But another reader shows that Hunsinger himself offers a solution:

“It presupposes that every tradition in the church has something valuable to contribute even if we cannot discern what it is. The ecumenical movement will succeed not when all other traditions capitulate to the one true church — whether centered in Geneva, Constantinople, Canterbury, Wittenberg or Rome — to say nothing of other symbolic locales like Lima, Cape Town, New Delhi, Canberra or Beijing. On the contrary, it will succeed only by a deeper conversion of alltraditions to Christ. Ecumenical theology, though properly grounded in a single tradition, looks for what is best in traditions not its own. It seeks not to defeat them but to respect and learn from them. It earns the right to speak only by listening, and it listens much more than it speaks… Each will contribute to the richness of the whole, and all will be expected to stretch to accept some things that at first do not seem possible” [my italics]. (The Eucharist and Ecumenism, p. 2.)

What would this look like in practice? I’m sure we can all think of bad examples from both viewpoints. Is there a middle ground? And is ‘enclave theology’ really a bad thing, or can it have benefits? Finally, (and related to my current area of research), how could we classify the early church using these (limited) definitions?

Thoughts?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Daily Dose of Latin

A Latin a day keeps the doctor away...

EerdWord

the Eerdmans blog

Larry Hurtado's Blog

Comments on the New Testament and Early Christianity (and related matters)

Daniel B. Wallace

Executive Director of CSNTM & Senior Research Professor of NT Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary

Life Matters New York

40 days of reflection · © John G. Mason · www.christchurchnyc.com

Old School Script

where linguistics & biblical studies intersect

New Testament Scholarship Worldwide

Bridging Eastern and Western New Testament Scholarship

German for Neutestamentler

A blog devoted to the translation of German New Testament scholarship

Seriously

tom's blogging at last

Words on the Word

Blog by Abram K-J

%d bloggers like this: