Ecumenism: A Reflective Pause Along a Long Journey
The Secretary General of the Middle East Council of Churches (MECC) Professor Michel Abs delivered this speech at the Ecumenical Prayer Service held on the occasion of the Closing of the "Week of Prayer for Christian Unity," on Sunday, January 25, 2026, at the Archangel Raphael Chaldean Cathedral, Baabda - Lebanon.
Professor Michel Abs
Secretary General of the Middle East Council of Churches (MECC)
Today we conclude the prayers of the Week of Christian Unity at St. Raphael Chaldean Cathedral—a church of martyrs, like St. Ephrem the Syrian Church, where we prayed two days ago, and like the Cathedral of St. Gregory the Illuminator at the Armenian Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia, where we opened the Week of Prayer. It is as though blood has been our means and martyrdom our destiny: we offer our lives in defense of humanity and as a path to its salvation. The purest testimony is the testimony of blood.
Today we pray in the presence of the spirit of Mar Addai and Mar Mari, among the earliest saints and evangelizers of the Church of the East in the first century AD, founders of the Church in Beth Nahrain (Mesopotamia) and Persia. Mar Addai was one of the Seventy-Two disciples whom the Apostle Thomas sent to Edessa (Urfa), and he became its first bishop. Mar Mari was his disciple, who continued evangelization throughout Beth Nahrain—present-day Iraq—and founded the Church in Mosul. They share a renowned liturgy known as the Liturgy of Addai and Mari, one of the oldest Christian liturgies still in use in the Chaldean and Assyrian Churches.
We pray today under the care of the active shepherd of this blessed eparchy and with its team—an eparchy whose history now spans a century and a half. We thank them for their hospitality and commend their efforts in welcoming successive waves of displacement over past decades—efforts that, I am convinced, continue to this day, though at a lesser pace, given the numerical decline of the faithful in their lands of origin.
As we conclude the one hundred and eighteenth Week of Prayer for Unity, we are called to pause and reflect on this journey, attempting to outline an evaluative perspective—especially since criticisms of it persist, and some reject it outright. Every opinion has its place, and every scholarly opinion deserves respect, provided it is expressed through accepted and civil means.
More than a century has passed since the launch of the ecumenical movement, that initiative which emerged at the beginning of the twentieth century and sought to promote unity, cooperation, and understanding among the various churches and traditions, inspired by the desire to fulfill Jesus’ prayer for unity: “That they may all be one, as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be one in Us, so that the world may believe that You have sent Me” (John 17:21).
Some literature refers to the ecumenism we know as “classical ecumenism,” or the ecumenism of the twentieth-century movement, considering that it aimed at a visible unity among the churches. Some even spoke of—and dreamed of—an institutional unity encompassing all the churches of the ecumene.
It is worth noting that, given the foundational orientation of ecumenism, there was a strong theological focus, as the movement sought to recover the “apostolic spirit of the early Church,” a unity in diversity.
Throughout this journey of more than a century, the principal challenge lay in differences of methods and approaches. While some traditions prioritize doctrinal agreement and regard it as an indispensable condition for unity, others emphasize practical cooperation across various fields. Here lie the roots of neo-ecumenism.
This means that a related challenge arises from divergent views on authority, the sacraments, and ecclesial ministry—that is, doctrinal differences. Dialogue among the churches on these matters has advanced, yet the road toward overcoming doctrinal obstacles remains long.
Over this extended period, the primary means adopted by the movement to reach its goal has been dialogue, complemented by activities such as shared worship, ecumenical prayers—most notably the Week of Unity and the Season of Creation—joint social action, and theological discussions.
Some have gone so far as to argue that the ecumenical movement’s distinctive strength lies precisely in these areas, and that social service has become a kind of substitute in light of the lack of progress in other domains.
In this context, observers note that the ecumenical movement has been partially hindered by the slowing of progress on core issues and has shifted its focus toward a practical approach that gradually led to neo-ecumenism. Others, however, view the evolution of the movement’s dynamics as a transition from an initial optimism—at times idealistic—to a more pragmatic, cautious, and long-term approach to unity, passing through practical unitive measures.
If we pause to reflect on the past, with its achievements and shortcomings, we can say that the movement has indeed accomplished essential gains. It laid the foundations and paved the way for sustained dialogue and cooperation among churches, and it even led to certain church mergers in various parts of the world. These achievements were realized despite persistent differences in ecclesiological visions and concepts of authority that prevented full unity.
In this regard, it is noteworthy that Catholic participation has had a profound impact, even though the Catholic Church is not a member of the World Council of Churches. It has nevertheless been officially engaged in ecumenical dialogue, especially since the Second Vatican Council. It is also important to note that the Middle East Council of Churches is among the few councils worldwide that have included the family of Catholic Churches in their membership since 1990.
Neo-ecumenism (or contemporary ecumenism), for its part, is a movement aimed at promoting unity and cooperation among the churches of Christ in the face of modern challenges such as religious indifference, climate change, new technologies, and other challenges of modern society. Since the mid-twentieth century, it has placed particular emphasis on dialogue, the European Ecumenical Charter, and the care of creation.
Historically, it developed as a response to the weakening of Christian communities and the rise of anti-religious trends, becoming an organized effort to confront these tendencies.
From another angle, the term “neo-ecumenism” refers to a twenty-first-century shift toward cooperation among Christian denominations based on shared traditional values, practical service, and a “mutual exchange of gifts,” rather than on purely structural or doctrinal unity. It builds bridges between traditionally separated communities by focusing on shared ethical, social, and cultural positions, in response to a globalized and secular world.
It is thus an attempt to renew ecumenism so as to include contemporary ethical, technological, and environmental issues, not only traditional theology. In short, the new ecumenical movement moves away from focusing on resolving centuries-old theological disputes toward acting as a unified front on contemporary social and ethical issues. For this reason, some criticize it as a “modern heresy” seeking a “superficial peace” at the expense of doctrinal purity.
Neo-ecumenism has nonetheless marked a shift in practical cooperation, in methodology—by prioritizing shared mission over doctrinal agreement—and in scope, through broader engagement with diverse Christian traditions. Accordingly, some see neo-ecumenism as an evolution—an adaptation to changing contexts—and as a practical approach that focuses on achievable goals, taking contextual factors into account, recognizing that shifts in global Christianity—such as its growth in the Global South or East Asia—affect ecumenical priorities. In this sense, it grapples with ongoing challenges, notably the need to balance unity and diversity.
Therefore, the new ecumenical orientation requires Christians to understand the emerging Christian phenomena upon which the spread of Christianity in today’s world depends. Here lies a new ecumenical dilemma: adherents must be alert to the risks of expansion at the expense of doctrinal integrity. When hundreds of millions join Christianity today, distributed across dozens of cultures worldwide—and when each community may interpret Christianity in its own way—what will be my position, and how will I respond?
The challenge is set before the faithful, and they are called to respond. Whatever that response may be, let us remember that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.