On the maturation of Receptive Ecumenism: The connection between Receptive Ecumenism and Spiritual Ecumenism

Receptive Ecumenism: Areas in need of clarification

RE has a disarmingly simple methodology: instead of what others need to learn or take from us, what can we learn or receive from others? ⁴ However, despite its simplicity (or, perhaps, because of its simplicity), certain points of RE require further clarification. Four areas are briefly highlighted here: the importance of criteria; the tension between being academic and practical aspects; the focus on lived traditions rather than doctrine; and clarification over RE’s notion of ‘reparative ministry’.

Firstly, there is a question of what criteria should guide Receptive Ecumenical learning. RE is deliberate in its intent to engage with a broad array of people, both lay and professional. ⁵ As Murray explains, RE is ‘quite clear that asking the basic receptive ecumenical question … is not the exclusive preserve of an elite caste of theologians’. ⁶ Rather, the premise is that ‘everyone at every level of church life is capable of asking in relation to any given issue, problem, area of understanding, or responsibility, what might fruitfully be learned from one’s ecumenical others in this specific regard’. ⁷ In a somewhat radical manner, RE recognizes the role of the whole church in ecumenical engagement. However, this approach is not as straightforward as it may seem, particularly in a hierarchical church such as the Catholic Church. To combat the risk of fragmentation, there is a need for set criteria for what can change, what may be received and what should remain the same. Then, of course, there is the question of developing the criteria. There is also the issue of how to deal with difference and disagreement. Further explanation is required for how this ‘democratized’ ecumenism would work in practice, and what it might mean for churches.

The second area is that of a tension between the academic and practical within RE. The simplicity of RE’s methodology makes sense in view of the fact that RE is explicitly designed for practical use. RE certainly has popular appeal, yet at the same time, it is an academic discipline. Murray argues that RE ‘depends upon’ the ‘need for rigorous and sophisticated theological scrutiny, testing and discernment, drawing upon all the traditional sub-disciplines of theology as appropriate’. ⁸ It is here that simplicity becomes more problematic. Whereas RE appears to have much energy and commitment at the practical level, there has been somewhat less engagement academically. This may not be surprising, as one characteristic of RE is its emphasis that the academic must always be in service of practical real life ecumenism. Murray explains that ‘the point is that the basic process is one in which all can share’.’ ⁹ Consequently, RE would lose its integrity were it to become dominantly academic. It is in this sense that Murray can argue that ‘all effective ecumenical learning’, while ‘always in need of being tested by the “head”’, nevertheless ‘consists most deeply in an affair of the “heart”’. ¹⁰ For instance, it is important to note that RE explicitly draws upon the affective levels of ecumenical encounter. ‘Felt needs’, ‘wounds’, ¹¹ and ‘conversion’ ¹² all involve affective engagement and assessment. Moreover, Murray describes RE as ‘“the dreaming of dreams” and their critical testing and scrutinizing’. ¹³ RE is therefore both academic and practical, affective and rational. As such, there are interior tensions within RE. Practical and academic approaches have different requirements and goals. Moreover, while RE appears relatively successful practically, certain academic aspects require further development, such as criteria and theological groundwork. There is still more work needed in the analysis of RE as an academic discipline, and in the maintenance of a careful balance between head and heart.

Because of its practical orientation, instead of approaching ecumenism from an academic perspective, considering theological texts and doctrines, RE focuses on lived traditions. Murray writes that the ‘intention’ of RE is to ‘not simply be a highly theorized endeavour’ or become ‘abstracted from the ordinary lived practice of the traditions concerned’. ¹⁴ Rather:

the core focus in Receptive Ecumenism is on the lived practice of traditions, their organisational, structural and procedural realities, and the wounds and tensions to be found there that call out for repair through potential receptive learning from another’s particular gifts. ¹⁵

This leads on to the next point over which some clarification would be helpful: RE as a reparative ministry. ¹⁸ The purpose of RE is not to try to remove, minimize, or seek agreement over doctrinal differences, but rather to focus inwardly on the tradition itself, and most especially, on its ‘wounds’. ¹⁹ Murray writes that RE should ‘with all due expertise, rigor and sophistication … explicitly seek to perform a reparative ministry addressing these wounds’. ²⁰ RE is therefore somewhat in tension with ecumenical methodologies based on theological ecumenism aiming to resolve differences between traditions. RE, in contrast, aims to sort out the tradition itself, based on lived experience of that tradition, rather than solely doctrinal concerns. ²¹ The point of learning from others is to ‘repair’ or ‘heal’ our own ‘wounds’. ²² Murray describes RE as an ecumenism of ‘the wounded hands’, wherein a church openly displays its weaknesses to other Christians, rather than its strengths. ²³ This is undertaken ‘knowing that we cannot save ourselves, asking our ecumenical others to minister to us in our need from their gifts’. ²⁴ Undoubtedly, this implies a radical humility and hope in our Christian brothers and sisters.

Moreover, this is not an ecumenism undertaken with the goal of achieving full structural unity, as Murray recognizes. ²⁵ Rather, he proposes RE as an interim measure, something to revitalize the ecumenical movement from its state of stagnancy and, in that way, help ecumenism forward on the path to full visible unity. ²⁶ Therefore, RE’s focus is on the ‘repair’ of our own tradition, through learning from others. However, how does a tradition decide what to learn or receive from another tradition? What ‘repairs’ need to be made? What is the best way to go about healing these wounds? Again, some criteria would be useful in undertaking this process.

These four points where the Receptive Ecumenical methodology requires clarification highlight the need for a set of criteria to guide Receptive Ecumenical learning. Searching for these criteria brings us to examine the relationship between RE and SE.

Clarification over the connection between Receptive Ecumenism and Spiritual Ecumenism

Having described certain points where RE requires further development, we turn now to the area of most significance here, RE’s connection with SE. SE is recognized as a formative influence on the development of RE. ²⁷ Murray acknowledges a level of continuity between SE and RE, explaining that ‘Receptive Ecumenism resonates both with …“spiritual ecumenism” and expands upon’ the ‘more obviously personal that is the focus of spiritual ecumenism’. ²⁸ Here RE is perceived as ‘expanding’ upon SE. Furthering this interpretation, he explains that the ‘one caveat’ between SE and RE:

was that Spiritual Ecumenism could potentially be heard as speaking of the need for receptive learning purely at the level of one’s personal spirituality or, if extended to the collective level at all, to the need for such learning merely in relation to respective spiritual and liturgical traditions. ²⁹

Murray argues that SE is in need of some recovery in order to regain its ‘full radical intent’. He sees the scope of SE as properly extending to ‘structural, institutional, ecclesial and theological renewal’, rather than just ‘prayer’, but believes that SE has become limited to ‘prayer’ and the ‘personal’. ³² In this light, he regards RE as re-orientating SE to Couturier’s original thrust. After all, one of RE’s aims is ‘to emphasize that the ecclesial dimension of conversion includes the ongoing development of the organizational, structural, cultural, and practical aspects of the church’. ³³ Here he sees conversion as having transformative potential for the whole church. For Murray, the relationship between SE and RE is one of RE restoring SE, which he considers has become too narrow in scope. Whether this is an accurate interpretation of SE requires further consideration. Arguably, the connection between the two may be more dynamic than represented here – perhaps SE also enriches RE?

However, what exactly is SE? Vatican II declares that ‘The soul of the whole ecumenical movement … merits the name, “spiritual ecumenism”.’ ³⁴ As such, SE both overarches and properly forms the basis for all ecumenism. Nonetheless, despite its importance, SE is in need of some rediscovery. SE can best be understood as a movement beginning with the work of Paul Couturier (1881–1953), and his establishment of the Groupe des Dombes in 1937. ³⁵ Following Couturier, Vatican II adopted the concept of Spiritual Ecumenism, proclaiming it as the ‘soul’ of ecumenism. ³⁶ Key characteristics of SE were further developed in John Paul II’s encyclical Ut Unum Sint (henceforth UUS) Therefore, SE’s theological grounding can be found in Couturier, UR, and UUS. It has since been expanded in the work of others, most notably Walter Kasper, Margaret O’Gara and Paul Murray.

In my understanding, an outline of the main characteristics of SE, in reference to the key sources above, is as follows: first, SE has an explicitly pneumatological orientation, with a primary emphasis on openness to the Holy Spirit; ³⁷ second, SE centres on interior conversion, to the extent that conversion is considered the aim of ecumenical endeavours; ³⁸ third, there is an emphasis on ecumenism as an exchange of gifts; ³⁹ finally, SE prioritizes the spiritual and affective levels of ecumenical encounter, especially virtues such as hope (in Christ and for the future) and humility (to recognize sin and trust in the Holy Spirit), and the vital role of prayer. These four elements are primary characteristics of SE, resonating through Spiritual Ecumenical sources such as Paul Couturier, ⁴⁰ the Groupe des Dombes, ⁴¹ Vatican II, ⁴² UUS, Walter Kasper ⁴³ and Margaret O’Gara. ⁴⁴ In this light, SE has far more than a ‘personal’ scope, and the connection between SE and RE may be significantly deeper than first apparent.

Moreover, a review of the literature on RE reveals strong links between it and SE as understood above. Undoubtedly, conversion and the ecumenical exchange of gifts are two key themes in the RE volume. ⁴⁵ There are substantial links between SE and RE, with authors referring to elements of SE in relation to RE. ⁴⁶ For instance, Paul Avis remarks, that RE ‘could not flourish except on the basis of all that Vatican II said about ecumenism and all that Pope John Paul II said in Ut Unum Sint (1995)’. ⁴⁷ It was Vatican II that declared SE to be its ‘soul’, and Ut Unum Sint that developed the concept of the ecumenical gift exchange, a possibility first indicated in Lumen Gentium. ⁴⁸ Moreover, RE’s surrounding context is considerably influenced by Walter Kasper. ⁴⁹ It is surely no coincidence that Kasper, who has done much to stress SE’s importance, also strongly supports RE. ⁵⁰ Clearly, the relationship between them warrants further investigation.

Links between Receptive Ecumenism and Spiritual Ecumenism: Interior conversion

A key parallel between RE and SE is their focus on interior conversion. As such, a comparative analysis of the import of interior conversion within RE and SE will be undertaken in order to highlight convergences between the two approaches.

For Couturier, the father of SE, the ecumenical movement is a matter of Christians ‘being drawn in the same spiritual movement towards Christ’, as Catherine Clifford explains. ⁵¹ This spiritual movement does not (and must not) compromise a Christian’s ecclesial identity. ‘In this movement of prayer one remains entirely Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, and Protestant and renounces nothing of one’s theology.’ ⁵² Therefore, rather than threatening ecclesial identity or loyalties, Couturier’s approach acts to deepen conversion into one’s own tradition, as participants open themselves to the will of Christ, and the activity of the Spirit. RE is similarly concerned not to compromise ecclesial identities. Murray asserts that RE is ‘not a matter of becoming less Catholic but of becoming more Catholic precisely by becoming more appropriately Anglican, more appropriately Lutheran’, and so on. ⁵³ He attests that RE emphasizes the ‘need’ for churches ‘to walk the way of conversion towards more visible structural and sacramental unity’. ⁵⁴ However, it is still to be determined whether Murray and Couturier use the term ‘conversion’ in the same manner. While RE has a pneumatological focus, ⁵⁵ it may need to be expressed more explicitly, a point that will be considered in more detail later.

Couturier contends that each tradition needs to pray and work for its own renewal first. Spiritual emulation involves attending first to any obstacles to unity that can be found inside one’s own tradition. Couturier’s priority on internal renewal was challenging to the prevalent attitudes of his time, which tended towards criticism of others, rather than oneself. ⁵⁶ This focus on seeking internal renewal resonates strongly within RE. The assertion that we must become self-critical for our own learning is fundamental to RE’s methodology. ⁵⁷ Moreover, as Clifford explains, Couturier’s notion of SE is ‘aimed ultimately at a corporate and ecclesial renewal’. ⁵⁸ Couturier considers that ‘personal sanctification’ is inextricable from ‘the sanctification of each confessional body’. ⁵⁹ The individual and the community are indissolubly linked, such that community renewal is intertwined with the personal conversion of each of its members. SE, therefore, is intended to influence all aspects of the church, theologically, liturgically, doctrinally and morally. ⁶⁰ This aim is echoed in RE, as the intention of RE is to inspire interior conversion, and the ‘structural, institutional, ecclesial and theological’ ramifications this conversion may have. ⁶¹

Moreover, Couturier’s focus on ecumenism as conversion is developed by Vatican II, and intertwines with its ecclesiology of a pilgrim Church. The Council asserts that the church ‘will receive its perfection only in’ the Eschaton. ⁶² The pilgrim nature of the church links with the Council’s ground-breaking ecclesiological shift, from identifying the church of Christ with the Catholic Church, to the church of Christ subsisting within the Catholic Church. ⁶³ This humbler declaration moves away from the return model which previously dominated Catholic attitudes towards a genuine ecumenism. As pilgrim, the church is still in need of conversion, and by recognising the richness that exists in other Christian communities for the whole Body of Christ, ecumenism becomes an integral part of that conversion. This assertion is echoed in RE, as Murray insists that churches must focus on what they can learn from others. This learning (or pilgrimage) does not detract from one’s identity. Rather, ‘this … process of ecclesial growth, conversion and maturing through receptive ecumenical learning’ should not be considered ‘a matter of becoming less Catholic but of becoming more Catholic’. ⁶⁴ Therefore, conversion is both the goal and the core of ecumenism. After all, as the Decree on Ecumenism declares: ‘There can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without interior conversion.’ ⁶⁵ The use of the word ‘interior’ is of key importance, as ecumenism is not something the church undertakes for external reasons, but because it is necessary for the Catholic Church within herself. ⁶⁶ SE is therefore intrinsically a reform movement within the church, seeking her ever-deepening conversion in Christ.

Likewise, RE is based around a shift in thinking to ask the self-critical question: ‘What, in any given situation, can one’s own tradition appropriately learn with integrity from other traditions?’ ⁶⁷ Murray argues that if each tradition applies this question to their particular situation, then the ecumenical movement would regain momentum. He stresses the importance of each tradition doing this for their own benefit, for healing and reform, and not out of any insistence on others’ reciprocation. ⁶⁸ This is a key point, as the focus here is on the church ad intra, rather than ad extra; on interior conversion, rather than quid pro quo ecumenical engagement.

Therefore, SE formulates ecumenism as a process of conversion, rather than a purely abstract, academic, or rational pursuit. True ecumenism is not just undertaken on the level of the head, or intellect, but also at the level of the heart, especially the change of heart involved in metanoia. Thus, ecumenism is ‘guided by love’, as John Paul II highlights. ⁶⁹ He emphasizes that: ‘the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts’. ⁷⁰ Ecumenism therefore entails spiritual, affective and virtuous aspects that have not always been emphasized, but which are evoked throughout RE. Jeffrey Gros makes the point that ‘Receptive Ecumenism is first of all a matter of spirituality’, ⁷¹ an assessment that emphasizes the spiritual and affective aspects of ecumenism characteristic of SE.

In sum, RE focuses on enriching one’s own tradition by engaging in a process of hope-filled ecumenical learning, intended to lead towards deeper conversion. ⁷² Clear parallels exist between the notions of conversion in RE and SE. In fact, conversion is at the core of both types of ecumenism. However, while this is a point of convergence between SE and RE, there are also tensions between them.

Tensions between Receptive Ecumenism and Spiritual Ecumenism: The ecumenical exchange of gifts

An important tension exists between RE and SE over the model of the ecumenical exchange of gifts. It is necessary to firstly explain SE’s notion of the ecumenical gift exchange (focusing on Ut Unum Sint and the work of Margaret O’Gara), before probing RE’s difficulty with it.

Intertwined with the concept of interior conversion, SE emphasizes the process of ecumenism as an exchange of gifts. In Ut Unum Sint, John Paul II states, ‘Dialogue is not simply an exchange of ideas. In some way it is always an “exchange of gifts”’. ⁷³ The acknowledgement that Christian communities have gifts for sharing, giving and receiving recognizes that no one ecclesial community has the total fullness of the body of Christ. An ecumenical exchange of gifts means that the pilgrimage towards conversion cannot be undertaken alone. As John Paul II explains, ‘Communities strive to give in mutual exchange what each one needs in order to grow towards definitive fullness in accordance with God’s plan.’ ⁷⁴ Ecumenism as gift exchange emphasizes the need for humility, as churches acknowledge both areas within themselves for improvement, and their need to receive gifts from other ecclesial groups. ⁷⁵ Such an exchange benefits all, as John Paul II observes, ‘everything that the Spirit brings about in “others” can serve for the building up of all communities’. ⁷⁶ Consequently, he affirms: ‘Ecumenism implies that the Christian communities should help one another.’ Moreover, ‘This mutual help in the search for truth is a sublime form of evangelical charity.’ ⁷⁷ Therefore the exchange of gifts asserts that ecumenism is more than just an intellectual endeavour. Ecumenism is also an act of love.

The ecumenical emphasis on an exchange of gifts is a prominent theme in the work of Margaret O’Gara. For O’Gara, the notion of gift exchange becomes the fundamental basis for ecumenical activity. She insists that ‘the gifts exchanged in ecumenical dialogue are more like a mosaic, where every piece is … needed for the full picture of the one Church of Christ’. ⁷⁸ Here she emphasizes the heart of John Paul II’s teachings on dialogue as fundamental to the nature of the human person, and essential to the Church. ⁷⁹ Rejecting a charge frequently levelled at ecumenism, that it seeks to be ‘a kind of melting pot’, ⁸⁰ she argues that ‘the gift-giving enriches all of the partners, since we do not lose our gifts by sharing them with others’. ⁸¹ Moreover, the gift exchange inspires reform, as O’Gara explains, wherever ‘a church tradition’s emphases’ may be ‘distorted due to isolation’, they ‘are corrected and complemented in the emerging mosaic that results from ecumenical gift exchange’. ⁸²

As an example, O’Gara focuses on a particular gift that Catholics have to give: the papacy. She explains that while the papacy may not always be considered a ‘gift’, that in ARCIC’s ‘The Gift of Authority’, it is proposed that the papacy may be something that Catholics and Anglicans can share, perhaps even before establishing full communion between the two traditions. ⁸³ She explains something of the importance of this:

It says that Roman Catholics should desire not only that such a gift be received, but that they should want to offer this ministry as a gift to the whole church of God. This text suggests that receiving gifts is not the only difficult part of the ecumenical gift exchange. Even offering them suitably can be a challenge. ⁸⁴

In view of the fact that O’Gara penned these words a year after the first RE conference, it seems possible that her statement may, at least implicitly, critique the Receptive Ecumenical methodology. It is clear that O’Gara upholds both sides of the ecumenical gift exchange. She recognizes not just the challenges inherent to reception, but also those of giving, and hints at the difficulties and guidelines that may be required for ‘suitable’ gift-giving. ⁸⁵ O’Gara maintains that Christians should desire to give as well as receive. She argues that sometimes, ‘a gift needs to be repaired or changed before it is offered’. ⁸⁶ She remarks upon the recalcitrance that may exist among Catholics to offer such a gift, as giving it to others may seem to risk Catholic ecclesial identity. To this, O’Gara declares that we ‘must learn to want to share the gift of the papacy with others’. ⁸⁷ Her assertion of the indivisibility of ecumenism as an exchange of gifts evokes a significant tension between SE and RE.

In relation to RE, Murray advocates an exclusive focus on the reception of gifts, and in particular, on learning from each other. ⁸⁸ The argument is that an emphasis on gift-giving or teaching may carry with it tones of superiority or arrogance. It places the teacher or gift-giver in a position of superiority or authority. It may reinforce boundaries between traditions, rather than fostering ecumenical engagement. It could lead the church to assert that other traditions must learn from it, or must accept the gift it is offering. The emphasis becomes on what other churches must do, instead of what our church needs to do. If the dimension of giving overrides that of receiving, the church risks becoming hypocritical, simply telling rather than listening.

In contrast, RE fosters a sense of receptivity towards others. RE involves looking at other Christian churches and what we can learn from them in order to heal our own wounds. ⁸⁹ Certainly, this Receptive Ecumenical attitude does not appear discordant with the pilgrim church envisaged by Vatican II. Although, presumably, an emphasis on receiving gifts would not disallow others taking gifts that they may find valuable from our church. ⁹⁰ The difference, here, Murray is pointing out, is that the gift is not thrust upon another church. Instead, that tradition would come first to the other and say:

[E]ach tradition takes responsibility for its own potential learning from others and is, in turn, willing to facilitate the learning of others as requested but without either requiring how this should be done, or even making others’ learning a precondition to attending to one’s own. ⁹¹

However, there is a question of the validity of focusing on only half of the ecumenical exchange. After all, how can there be reception if there is not also giving, or learning without teaching? Whether or not the ecumenical exchange (not just reception) of gifts is still implied in RE requires further examination. Here, Kallistos Ware offers a useful reflection on RE from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. ⁹² Ware writes that at first he intended to draw up ‘two lists’, one for what the Orthodox Church can learn, and one for what the Orthodox Church can teach. ‘Very quickly, however, I discover that this approach will not work.’ ⁹³ For every point he believes the Orthodox Church could teach, they actually still need to ‘understand far better’ themselves, and ‘other Christian communities can help us to do precisely this’. ⁹⁴ Ware resolves this by coming up with just one list of ‘themes’ that ‘all of us need to explore in common’. ⁹⁵ So, with humility, Ware emphasizes that everyone is learning, an emphasis that correlates with RE. However, learning and teaching, giving and receiving remain inseparable. He attests that by ‘learning from one another, and at the same time teaching one another’, we may ‘explore in common the urgent issues that at present we understand so imperfectly’. ⁹⁶ Therefore, Ware presents an account of RE that emphasizes learning that is not divorced from teaching.

Thus, RE intentionally focuses on one half of the ecumenical exchange of gifts, in order to place a priority upon receiving and learning. However, despite this emphasis, it is not possible to understand RE without some reference to the ecumenical exchange of gifts. Even though RE only emphasizes one side of the equation, the ecumenical gift exchange can still be seen underpinning RE.

Understanding Receptive Ecumenism in relation to Spiritual Ecumenism

One question about RE is whether it actually constitutes anything new. ⁹⁷ Murray himself acknowledges that RE aims to highlight ideas that have always been part of the ecumenical endeavour. ⁹⁸ Quoting William James, Murray states that RE could be considered ‘a new name for some old ways of thinking’. ⁹⁹ However, he qualifies this statement: ‘But, of course, formally naming a way of thinking or proceeding and so drawing it to explicit attention can release a strategic potential and shaping influence in ways previously unforeseen.’ ¹⁰⁰ As such, part of RE’s distinctive contribution to ecumenism is highlighting processes that have been working underneath ecumenism without sufficient recognition, and ‘releasing’ their strategic potential. Moreover, RE is designed to complement, rather than replace, existing ecumenical methodologies. ¹⁰¹ That being said, how does RE fit with SE?

Paul Avis briefly raises the question: ‘Is “receptive ecumenism” a new name for “spiritual ecumenism”?’ ¹⁰² As mentioned previously, Murray considers RE’s role as one of expanding upon SE. However, arguably, the connection between the two is more of a dynamic exchange. RE is not the same as SE, but RE can best be understood as a part of the Spiritual Ecumenical Movement. Its inherited elements and commonalities with SE, especially Couturier, Vatican II, Walter Kasper and Margaret O’Gara, are too great to be ignored. However, RE cannot simply be considered a new name for SE. Where SE focuses on the gift exchange, RE emphasizes receiving from others. Where SE emphasizes prayer, RE focuses on learning. While part of the Spiritual Ecumenical Movement, RE interprets SE in a different manner. These areas of difference may be points of dynamic exchange and enrichment.

For example, whilst RE acknowledges Christian unity as the work of the Spirit, it focuses upon receptivity towards other traditions. ¹⁰³ Therefore, RE’s pneumatological basis may be deepened by SE. In line with Couturier, Murray emphasizes humility and a renewed openness to the other. ¹⁰⁴ Murray considers that ecumenical progress is still possible, but only through the practice of RE, if each tradition approaches other denominations from the humble perspective of what they have to learn from others. ¹⁰⁵ However, whereas Couturier specifically advocates humility and openness to Christ and the Spirit as the way forward, Murray places the primary emphasis upon humility and openness towards other traditions, ¹⁰⁶ although he does so with an overarching awareness of ecumenism as ‘Spirit driven’. ¹⁰⁷ Whether RE leaves enough space for God, and places enough emphasis upon the activity of the Spirit, requires further reflection. ¹⁰⁸ This may be an area where RE could benefit from a deeper engagement with SE.

In contrast to SE, RE emphasizes learning rather than prayer. Couturier emphasizes prayer above all. ¹⁰⁹ SE is intrinsically a prayer movement, where prayer leads one more deeply into relationship with Christ. The proper response to Christian division is repentance and prayer, in particular, prayer which opens hearts and minds to the workings of the Holy Spirit. As Couturier proclaims, ‘How are Christians to discover each other, recognize each other, and love each other unless prayer, the source of power, the only power which can move all, is the primary incentive acting upon their souls, which would otherwise be helpless before these crippling separations!’ ¹¹⁰ Grounded in Christ’s prayer for unity (Jn 17:21), Couturier’s prayer has an encompassing scope that goes beyond confessional borders to strike at the heart of Christian belief. Girded by respect for religious freedom, SE does not challenge ecclesial identity, but rather inspires deepening conversion. ¹¹¹

In contrast, RE does not have this singular focus on prayer. RE’s emphasis is on learning. Prayer and learning have significantly different connotations. The distinction between the two in RE is one area which requires greater clarification. One point to consider here is whether RE places enough emphasis upon prayer, and how this should be addressed. It should also be acknowledged, however, that Couturier places a high regard upon virtues traditionally emphasized in a monastic lifestyle. ¹¹² This focus on monasticism necessarily influences his work on ecumenism. Bearing this in mind, the primacy Couturier places on prayer, and the need for self-emptying humility is certainly not without a definite context. In contrast, Murray is a married layman, engaged in academic work. As such, Murray’s emphasis upon learning, rather than prayer, may appeal to different contexts than Couturier’s undoubtedly monastic approach. Murray pushes SE in a different direction from Couturier, which opens up different possibilities. Nevertheless, the legacy of Couturier’s work in RE is one which needs to be clarified in more depth.

In summary, RE cannot be properly understood without reference to SE. At least two of SE’s core aspects, interior conversion and the exchange of gifts, underpin RE. Moreover, SE provides a theological context for RE. However, the relationship between the two is dynamic in the sense that RE interprets SE in a new fashion. In this way, RE can be seen as a valuable development of the Spiritual Ecumenical Movement. In short, RE is not SE – but it is the child of SE. As such (to make further use of this analogy), SE has a parental role in the maturation process of RE.

Conclusion

Despite the fact that it is a decade since RE’s launch, the success it has achieved internationally and the potential it is considered to have for the future of the ecumenical movement, there are aspects of RE that require further clarification. In light of the significant links that exist between RE and SE, the relationship between the two is particularly important for understanding RE. Indeed, RE cannot properly be understood without reference to SE, and may best be understood as part of the Spiritual Ecumenical Movement. Now that the first flush of excitement is over, and RE enters into its second decade, it seems fair to say that if RE is to mature as an ecumenical methodology, it must first be clearly defined, and a set of criteria established. Part of this maturation lies in recognising its ties with SE.