The name Ecumenical Relativism is chosen deliberately, but both words are liable to be misunderstood on first encounter, and that misunderstanding is worth addressing directly.
The Problem with “Relativism”
In popular usage, relativism has acquired a pejorative meaning. Politicians and commentators use it to mean something like “the belief that anything goes”, that no behaviour can be criticised, that all values are equally valid, and that moral standards are merely matters of personal preference. This is sometimes called moral nihilism, and it is not what Ecumenical Relativism asserts.
In its philosophical sense, relativism simply means the recognition that truth, particularly in matters of belief, doctrine, and metaphysics, is perceived differently from different standpoints, and that no single standpoint commands a monopoly on the complete picture. This is not the same as saying that all standpoints are equally useful, or that nothing can be known, or that cruelty and kindness are interchangeable. It is an epistemological humility, not a moral vacuum.
Within Ecumenical Relativism, relativism applies specifically to matters of faith and doctrine, the unprovable metaphysical claims that distinguish one religious tradition from another. On those questions, the honest position is that certainty is not available to any of us. On questions of moral behaviour, the position is precisely the opposite of relativism: there are real, universal, and discoverable standards of right and wrong, grounded in human nature itself and detailed in the Seven Ethical Pillars of Morality.
The Problem with “Ecumenical”
Ecumenical derives from the Greek oikoumene: the inhabited world. In its most familiar modern usage it refers to dialogue and cooperation between Christian denominations. This may make it sound as though Ecumenical Relativism is a Christian or at least theistic project.
It is not. The word is used here in its broader and older sense: concerning the whole of humanity, across all traditions and none. The ecumenical impulse of Ecumenical Relativism is not the reconciliation of Christian churches, but the recognition that every human being, whatever their faith, culture, or metaphysical position, shares a common moral nature and a common claim to dignity. The inhabited world is the scope of concern; no tradition is inside the circle and none outside it.
Why These Two Words Together?
The combination is intentional and reflects the two central commitments of the ethos:
Ecumenical — all belief systems are equally valid as expressions of the human attempt to make sense of existence. No faith has the right to claim superiority over another, nor to impose its specific doctrines on those who have reached different conclusions. This is where the inclusivity sits.
Relativist — on matters of doctrine, revelation, and metaphysics, certainty is not available. The honest position is one of humility about what cannot be known. We can commit deeply to a tradition while acknowledging that others have committed equally deeply to different ones, and that no earthly tribunal can definitively adjudicate between them.
Together, the words describe an ethos that is open without being empty. It does not say that belief does not matter, or that all actions are equally acceptable. It says that on the deepest questions of faith, humility is warranted, and that on the practical question of how we treat each other, clarity is not only possible but required.
Is This Just Secular Humanism?
It shares territory with secular humanism: the commitment to human dignity, the grounding of morality in reason and human nature rather than divine command, the rejection of religious authority over personal belief. But it differs in one important respect: Ecumenical Relativism makes no claim that religion is wrong, unnecessary, or merely a pre-scientific attempt to explain the world. It is entirely compatible with deep personal faith. An Equivocant may be a devout believer in any tradition; the ethos simply asks that they hold their faith without requiring others to share it, and that they recognise moral obligation as something that precedes and transcends any particular creed.
The name, in short, is not accidental. It names the two things the ethos actually does: it embraces the full breadth of human belief (ecumenical), and it declines to adjudicate between metaphysical claims that lie beyond the reach of proof (relativist). What it does not relativise, what it holds firmly, is the obligation to treat other human beings with justice, compassion, and respect.