The history of Europe is characterised by two warring tribes facing each other across some river with each of them hating everything about the other. In response to an aeon of war, the basic impulse of modern European society has been to unite people of the same language, ethnicity, colour or creed in one state.
Since the late 18th century the quest for unity has plagued European politicians. After the French Revolution, nationalism reared its head and insisted that political union was the only way forward. Italy, Germany and Britain all forged central governments to make their respective nations great. Powerful empires rose but, instead of bringing peace and prosperity, they fought horrific wars across the rivers of Europe. The Rhine, the Danube and even the Boyne rolled along while the hate-filled tribes that had become empires continued the warring habits of their ancestors.
These unions did not bring happiness for all. Our strong unions brought much suffering to the outsiders in our midst. Minorities were subjected to genocide and holocaust; pogroms were enacted and citizens were often coerced into conforming with the doctrines of the unified state. Within the fortresses of the unified nations, separatist and minority interest groups thrived and fought the system. These malcontents proved that unity was not simply about making everybody conform to a fixed prototype. They showed us that the model of unity based on conformity was as much a causa belli as the tribalism that had preceded it. Unity began to evolve as a concept of sharing common ground rather than in forging bonds. From our first steps to unity through the League of Nations to the United Nations and thence to the European Union, the great countries of Western Europe are still striving for unity, but the concept has developed a less forced nature than it had before.
During this week of prayer for Christian Unity we are faced with some strange inherited ideas about what that union should entail. Should we have a definitive and solid union as Garibaldi forged, or would Schumann's EEC be a better model for the churches?
It would be both impossible and undesirable to force all Christians into one homogenetic mould and expect us all to live in singularity of mind and heart. On the other hand, it would seem that we should strive towards this union, as Christ himself said: "There shall be one flock and one shepherd" (John 10:16). Does this mean that, with Christ as our shepherd, we should all pray at the same time and in the same way? That we should believe the same things and teach the same tenets to each other? Maybe we should even speak one language and dress the same way?
Chairman Mao, Hitler and Stalin attempted that model of unity. The outcome of their attempts could hardly be described as attractive! It is clear from Jesus's words that the one shepherd is Christ himself and the one flock is Christianity. Even though one finds plenty of apologists who interpret this text as a command to unity, it is not so clear that Christ ordered us to be members of one single church.
Every family enjoys a type of unity that binds and links the individual members of that family together. The beauty of a family unit is that each individual retains his or her particular characteristics, ideas, habits and opinions. No reasonable parents would strive to forge their children into some type of clones; likewise, the family of Christian churches should use this time to foster familiar links with each other.
There is much in common between churches. We have the scriptures and the traditions of our communities. There are cases of different traditions influencing the growth of understanding in another Christian community. We can recognise Catholic elements and influences within Protestantism and similar elements within Catholicism. In short, every Christian community learns from other traditions. We still have much to learn from each other.
However, there are also important differences between the communities. They are important because each church celebrates the mystery of Christ in its own unique way. If we are united into a single Church tomorrow we would surely disagree and divide again the following day - I am for Peter, I am for Paul. From the very day we were born we have differed from our brothers and sisters. But we are still a family.
This week let us learn from the evolution of the politicians' concept of union. Let us strive to respect the common inheritance of our sibling churches while delighting in the richness and diversity of our traditions. This week is about praying together as a family and not about legislating for another "Act of Union". This week should foster a mutual enjoyment of our similar but differing traditions - unity in diversity!