Is Ecumenism Dead On Arrival?

(I'm feeling a little rant-ish as I write this post. I guess that means I have lots more work to do healing the hurts from my monastic sojourn. Or maybe July humidity is getting me down.)

When I first went to retreats at the monastery, I was an eccentric pantheist and universalist. I'd explored many religions and was a member of a UU congregation. I heard the sisters speak glowingly of their groundbreaking work in "ecumenism." That was exciting because I thought it meant sharing worship with people of other beliefs - something I was very interested in.

18th century Unitarians, such as John Adams, had explored religions other than Christianity since before the founding of the United States. After the Unitarian Universalist merger in the 1960s, this became central to most UU congregations. For me, incorporation of many faiths was one of the major draws of UU worship.

(BTW, funny how American "Christians" who cry that the USA has strayed from an original, narrow-minded Christianity - like theirs - know nothing about the actual religious beliefs of the "founding fathers"- nominally "Christian" or not. Many were Unitarians, liberal Congregationalists or Deists - believing God started the universe but was no longer involved in human affairs. They meant to found a country of religious pluralism - explicitly including all religions in every public arena, not a country of exclusionary Christianity.)
"That's wrong," I was emphatically told. "'Ecumenism' only includes dialog among traditional, Trinitarian, Christian churches. What you mean is called 'interfaith.'"

Perhaps ecumenism has been somewhat lacking in effect because those who pursued it began by setting up barriers of inclusion and exclusion.

The reason the sisters gave for kicking me (and others) out of their self-styled "ecumenical" monastery was that we were too different. There were only three sisters, so they represented almost no diversity at all. Yet they only wanted new members who "fit into what is already here like a hand in a glove" - to quote the Prioress. Yet these sisters who were often applauded as the pinnacle of Catholic ecumenism. If they couldn't accept anyone slightly different from themselves, was ecumenism DOA?

In fact it often seems like religious America has split in two. Those with strong denominational identities mostly have no interest in beliefs other than their own. They tend to be totally exclusionary in outlook. People (like me) who are interested in different beliefs often have no denominational allegiance and draw on many faiths. We want entirely inclusive exchanges - where no one is barred from the table because of religious affiliation.

Group One holds the resistant position of hunkering down with like-minded types, shutting out all differences. Group Two wants to embrace, welcome and celebrate differences. Old style, orthodox ecumenism is meaningless to both of these groups: too expansive for Group One and too small for Group Two.

So, yeah, I expect orthodox "ecumenism" is DOA. Although I imagine it was useful, even if it never quite got off the ground.