Ecumenism of the wounded hands

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Cf. Hietamäki, “Finding Warmth,” 368–369; Pizzey, Receptive Ecumenism, 180–182.

2 Cf. Kelly, “A New Ecumenical Wave,” 1–2, 10.

3 Cf. Murray, “Introducing,” 5.

4 Cf. Murray, “Introducing,” 1–5.

5 The author of this article discusses the inward-looking nature of receptive ecumenism in more detail in a previous article: Gehlin, “Asymmetry and Mutuality.”

6 Pizzey, Receptive Ecumenism, 18, 23.

7 The World Council of Churches (WCC) was founded in 1948. The Second Vatican Council took place from 1962 to 1965. The document "Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry" was adopted by the Faith and Order Plenary Commission of the WCC in 1982.

8 The ecumenical vision of Christian unity finds its basis in the words of Jesus in John 17:21.

9 Asprey, “The Universal Church,” 3–5; Pizzey, Receptive Ecumenism, 180–183.

10 Prof. Paul D. Murray at the Centre for Catholic Studies, Durham University, developed the theoretical and methodological frameworks of receptive ecumenism.

11 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 12–17; Murray, “Introducing,” 1–4.

12 Rescher develops his stance of pragmatic idealism in his work System of Pragmatic Idealism. In his book Reason, Truth and Theology, Murray elaborates on the pragmatic idealism of Rescher from theological perspectives.

13 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 7–8, 12–16.

14 Pizzey, Receptive Ecumenism, 51–54, 220.

15 Murray, “Introducing,” 1.

16 The author of this article discusses the unilateral nature of receptive ecumenical learning more closely in a previous article: Gehlin, “Asymmetry and Mutuality”. Practical examples of unilateral processes of learning in receptive ecumenism are given in her article “Receptive Ecumenism”.

17 Murray, “Introducing,” 4–7.

18 Murray, “Introducing,” 5.

19 Murray, “Introducing,” 4–7.

20 Hawkes et al., “Introduction,” viii–ix.

21 Hawkes et al., “Introduction,” ix.

22 Hawkes et al., “Introduction,” viii–ix.

23 Murray, “Introducing,” 1–3.

24 Thomas, For the Good, 103.

25 Ibid., 107, 171.

26 Ibid., 27.

27 Ibid., 107–108, 169–171.

28 Ibid., 193–194.

29 Ibid., 173.

30 Ibid., 84, 102, 107, 195.

31 Ibid., 192.

32 In feminist theology, vulnerability is being discussed with regard to its vast scope of meaning. See e.g. Gilson, The Ethics of Vulnerability.

33 Coakley, Powers, 25, 32–33.

34 Coakley, God, 84-90; Coakley, Powers, 3–5. Here, Coakley’s reasoning finds important background in feminist theological discussions on the meaning and implication of kenosis in Christian theology. See e.g. the contributions by Coakley and Daphne Hampson in Swallowing a Fishbone?.

35 Coakley, God, 18–19; Coakley, Powers, 5, 34–36.

36 Coakley, God, 23, 86–87.

37 Coakley, “Is there a Future,” 52, 55, 57; Coakley, God, 25; Coakley, Powers, 36.

38 Coakley, God, 86-87.

39 Pizzey, Receptive Ecumenism, 9–15, 122–123.

40 Murray, “Growing,” 473–476. Cf. Pizzey, Receptive Ecumenism, 122–123.

41 Pizzey, Receptive Ecumenism, 62–72, 120–125. Cf. Clifford, “Towards a Spirituality,” 430–432.

42 Pizzey, Receptive Ecumenism, 62–72; Pizzey, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 450.

43 See the encyclical by Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, §2.

44 Pizzey, Receptive Ecumenism, 100.

45 Pizzey, Receptive Ecumenism, 151–153. Cf. Pizzey, “Receptive Ecumenism,” 450–454.

46 Coakley, Powers, 32-39; Coakley, God, 54, 84–85.

47 Eriksson, “Behold,” 7–73.

48 Eriksson, “Behold,” 73–74; Eriksson, “The Other,” 176. Here, Eriksson’s response to Coakley is part of their debate on the concept of kenosis. See their contributions to Svensk teologisk kvartalskrift/Swedish Theological Quarterly 85, no. 2 (2009).

49 Nyman, Det konstruktiva, 293.

50 The author of this article discusses the non-expectation of mutuality in receptive ecumenism more closely in a previous article: Gehlin, “Asymmetry and Mutuality”.

51 Thomas, For the Good, 102–103.

52 The author of this article discusses the receptive ecumenical approach to asymmetry more in depth in a previous article: Gehlin, “Asymmetry and Mutuality”.

53 Grenholm, Moderskap och kärlek, 165–188.

54 Thomas, For the Good, 102–103, 159, 193–195.

55 Ibid., 164–170, 178–186.