CENTRO PRO UNIONE N. 74 - Fall 2008 ISSN: 1122-0384 semi-annual Bulletin In this issue: Letter from the Director..........................................................p. 2 Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry: A Continuing Challenge for the Churches Thomas F. Best ..........................................................p. 3 La “Liturgia di Lima” ed il rinnovamento liturgico nel mondo protestante Ermanno Genre......................................................... p. 11 The Challenge of Reciting the Creed Today Timothy Radcliffe ........................................................p. 17 Jesus as a Teacher of Judaism Jack Bemporad.......................................................... p. 23 Centro Pro Unione - Via S. Maria dell'Anima, 30 - 00186 Rome, Italy A Center conducted by the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement www.prounione.urbe.it Director's Desk The Fall issue of the Bulletin carries the remaining conferences that were given in the Centro’s cycle honoring twenty-five years since the publication of the Lima document on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. The first of these is a lecture given by Tom Best concerning the challenges that the BEM text still offers the Churches today. By publishing it we also want to greet our dear friend as he brings to a conclusion many years of service in the Faith and Order Commission. Tom retired this year and has returned to the United States. The Centro Pro Unione recognizes his tireless commitment to the cause of Christian unity and his loyalty to our ministry here in Rome. The second article presented by Prof. Ermanno Genre of the Waldensian Faculty raises some interesting points about the Lima Liturgy which was not an official part of the BEM document but was elaborated as an example of how one might apply the wisdom of the Eucharist section of the document to the practice of the composing eucharistic prayers. After considering questions of the legitimacy of the text, Genre then considers the liturgical text as a model and an effective leaven for churches who do not have a tradition of frequent celebrations nor have a clear eucharistic theology. Important questions of inculturation and of establishing an ordo for celebrations are also taken into consideration. He concludes by looking at several renewal attempts made by Protestant churches. Timothy Radcliffe presented the tenth annual lecture honoring the co-founders of the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Atonement. He looked at the problem of believing in the world today by asking how can one recite the Creed today. It is not just a matter of knowing and saying the words but rather of understanding their meaning in an existential way. This itinerant preacher did not let down the expectations of a standing room only audience! During January, the Italian Church has the tradition of setting aside a day dedicated to Jewish- Christian relations. The Centro invited rabbi Bemporard to speak to us about the relationship between Jews and Christians which he did in his stimulating lecture “Jesus as a Teacher of Judaism”. In this context he illustrates the role that the teaching of Jesus played within Judaism. This year’s activity will take into consideration models of ministry. The year 2010 will mark the 100 anniversary of the World Missionary Conference held in Edinburgh in 1910 with twoth conferences: “The Nestorian Missions: The Spread of the Gospel in Asia from the V to the XV Centuries” and “The Chinese Rites Question: A Clash of Cultures”. The eleventh Wattson/White lecture entitled “Leading Women. Some Reflections on Women, Leadership and the Anglican Communion” and will be giving by Dr. Jane Williams. An invitation is enclosed in this issue. Lastly, we began this year with the launching of the recent work Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism (edited by Paul Murray). The month of October ended with a concert of sacred music offered by two choirs: Russian Orthodox choir from Moscow and an Italian choir. Check our web site for up to date information on the Centro’s activities. This Bulletin is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, published by the American Theological Library Association, 250 S. Wacker Drive, 16 Floor, Chicago, IL 60606 (thhttp://www.atla.com). James F. Puglisi, sa DirectorN. 74 / Fall 2008Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 3 Centro Conferences CCCC Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry A Continuing Challenge to the Churches Thomas F. Best Director, Faith and Order Commission, WCC, Geneva (Conference given at the Centro Pro Unione, Thursday, 22 November 2007) It is an honor to participate in this series of lectures marking the 25 anniversary of the Faith and Order Convergence text th Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (BEM). On behalf of the1 Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Church- es, I would like to extend thanks to the Centro Pro Unione for marking this ecumenical milestone in such a significant way. I. BEM: An Unprecedented ecumenical journey Since its publication in 1982, BEM has had a unique impact on the ecumenical movement and on the churches and institu- tions which comprise it. The remarkable story of the reception of BEM can be told in many ways, not least by the following facts and figures: the text has been printed and reprinted no less than thirty-nine times; it has been translated into 40 languages; some 180,000 copies have been sold in English alone (even today, after 25 years, the WCC bookshop is selling 1000 copies per year). It has been the subject of many reviews and com- ments from councils of churches, pastors, and academics, as2 well as inspiring conferences such as the present series of lectures at the Centro Pro Unione. Even more importantly, BEM has stimulated an unparal- leled process of study and reflection within and among the churches themselves. No fewer than 185 member churches of the WCC issued official responses to the text, and these were published in the six-volume series Churches Respond to BEM.3 All the responses were studied carefully by the Faith and Order Commission; the agreements among the churches, and the points on which they still differ, were carefully documented in Baptism, Eucharist & Ministry 1982-1990, which served as 4 Faith and Order’s “response to the responses.” In addition to these official results BEM also generated a broader “unofficial” response process, through which Faith and Order received many hundreds of comments from study groups, seminars, and concerned pastors and laypersons. As we shall see later on, in this way BEM brought issues of theology, church practice and visible unity to a much wider audience than before. The 25 anniversary of the publication of BEM in 2007 hasth been marked by a number of publications and events: a 25 th anniversary reprinting with an additional introduction; a 5 substantial book, BEM at 25, which offers evaluative and6 critical essays on the text and its impact over the past quarter century; and lectures and lecture series such as the present one at the Centro Pro Unione. These remarkable facts justify the claim that BEM has become, in a word, the best-known and most widely studied ecumenical text yet produced. Furthermore, and decisively, BEM has borne fruit in the many church agreements based on, and inspired and encour- aged by, the text and response process. BEM documented the level of agreement already existing among many churches on fundamental issues of faith and church order. This agreement has, in turn, inspired and enabled many formal church agree- ments - as recorded, for example, in the later volumes of Faith and Order Paper No. 111 (Geneva: WCC, 1982). The 1 most recent printing is the 39; see Baptism, Eucharist and th Ministry, 25 anniversary printing with additional introduction, th Faith and Order Paper No. 111 (Geneva, WCC, 1982-2007). For a recent critical review of the origin and lasting effect of 2 BEM see L. VISCHER, “The Convergence Texts on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry: How Did They Take Shape? What Have They Achieved?” The Ecumenical Review 54, 4 (2002) 431-454. M. THURIAN, (ed.), Churches Respond to BEM: Official 3 Responses to the “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” Text, Vols. I-VI, Faith and Order Papers Nos. 129, 132, 135, 137, 143, 144 ( Geneva: WCC, 1986-1988). Baptism, Eucharist & Ministry 1982-1990: Report on the 4 Process and Responses, Faith and Order Paper No. 149 (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1990). See Note 1, above. 5 T. F. BEST and T. GRDZELIDZE, (eds.), BEM at 25: Critical 6 Insights into a Continuing Legacy, Faith and Order Paper No. 205 (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2007).4 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 74 / Fall 2008 Growth in Agreement and as documented in the Bulletin of the 7 Centro Pro Unione. I need not recount these here, as they have 8 been surveyed admirably by Günther Gassmann, my predeces- sor as Director of Faith and Order, in an earlier lecture within this series at the Centro. But they remain as the most enduring9 single result of the entire BEM process. In view of all these facts and the intensive attention BEM has received, I had seriously to ask myself: What distinctive perspective and contribution can I bring to the story of BEM and its reception by the churches? I want today to offer personal reflections from the perspective of one who, coming to Faith and Order in 1984 - shortly after BEM was sent to the churches - has experienced the whole process of its reception, its use in the churches and ecumenically, the work and agreements which it has inspired, and how all this has related to other work pursued by Faith and Order on behalf of the visible unity of the church. In doing so I want to highlight what, for me personally, are the central and enduring themes from this 25 years story of BEM. This will unfold in four stages: BEM’s production and unique character; the BEM response process; BEM’s presence and role today; and finally reflections on future work for the search for visible unity, as inspired by BEM. II. BEM: Its Production and unique character BEM was an idea whose time had come. To understand this, it is helpful to begin with an historical perspective. The most radical 20 century shift in the churches’ theological th engagement with one another was that from a comparative to a convergence method. In the comparative approach, which reigned from the beginning until the middle of the 20 century,th churches shared their diverse beliefs and practices, aiming at better understanding and mutual acceptance (or at least toler- ance) of one another. Oliver Tompkins, then Secretary of F&O Commission, noted at the Faith and Order Plenary Commission meeting in Lund in 1952 that the churches “have reached a limit in what can be profitably done in mutual explanation.” 10 The meeting at Lund looked beyond this, noting that “There are truths about the nature of God and His Church which will remain for ever closed to us unless we act together in obedience to the unity which is already ours…” That is, the active 11 engagement of the churches with one another is necessary - not just an objective sharing of positions, but a readiness of the churches to change and even to be vulnerable to one another. This is possible because the churches, beyond all their theologi- cal and historical differences, are one in Christ and because, within the ecumenical movement, they have committed themselves to a common search to make this unity more visible in common confession, worship, mission and service to the world. Thus after centuries of division, and decades of simply comparing one another’s positions, the churches were finally ready for a deeper commitment to the search for unity - and a much more active engagement in the production of ecumenical texts. This opened up the convergence method, which meant that the focus was no longer on the distinctive positions of the particular churches, but upon what they might say together about the nature and mission of the church. This approach focuses on points at which the churches are approaching one another in their understanding and practice, while not avoiding the difficult points of divergence which remain. “Convergence” was an idea whose time had come. And BEM was a text whose time had come: it fell to BEM to embody most effectively this new convergence method. Sent to the churches, BEM carried with it the promise of a new era marked by the churches’ closer and more committed engage- ment with one another and towards the goal of visible unity. While many reasons can be given for the unprecedented “success” of BEM, I believe the following were most signifi- cant. First, BEM was not only a text but a process. A preliminary document “One baptism, one eucharist and a mutually recog- nized ministry” had been sent to the churches from the Faith and Order Plenary Commission meeting at Accra in 1974; many churches responded to this text, and the central points were incorporated into the final BEM text. This meant that when BEM was sent to the churches from Lima in 1982 for response, the churches already “owned” the text to a significant extent. Second, BEM was, in comparison with most ecumenical texts, extraordinarily well written. Its language was clear and concise; the text was laced with biblical references; historical background on central issues and concepts was included; and See J. GROS, FSC, H. MEYER, W.G. RUSCH, (eds.), Growth 7 in Agreement II: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level, 1982-1998, Faith and Order Paper No. 187 (Geneva/Grand Rapids/Cambridge: WCC Publications/ William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000); and J. GROS, FSC, T.F. BEST and L.F. FUCHS, SA, (eds.), Growth in Agreement III: International Dialogue Texts and Agreed Statements, 1998- 2005,Faith and Order Paper No. 204 (Geneva/Grand Grapids/Cambridge: WCC Publications/William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007). Twenty-three Supplements of “A Bibliography of Interchurch 8 and Interconfessional Theological Dialogues” have been published in the Bulletin – Centro Pro Unione and may be found up-dated daily on the web site of the Centro (www.prounione.urbe.it). G. GASSMANN, “25 Years of the Lima Document (BEM): A 9 Unique Document – An Extraordinary Process – A Promising Impact,” Bulletin – Centro Pro Unione 72 (2007) 3-10. O.S. TOMKINS, “Implications of the Ecumenical 10 Movement,” The Ecumenical Review 5, 1 (1952) 19-20. Tomkins was speaking to the Third World Conference on Faith and Order at Lund. “A Word to the Churches,” in O.S. TOMKINS, (ed.), Third 11 World Conference on Faith and Order, Held at Lund August 15 th to 28, 1952 (London, SCM Press, 1953) 16. thN. 74 / Fall 2008Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 5 divisive issues were identified and clarified in a helpful Com- mentary section which was clearly separated from the main text. All this meant that in terms of both content and presenta- tion, BEM stood head and shoulders above other ecumenical texts. Not least important, its unique combination of theological precision and clarity made BEM accessible to a wide range of persons within the churches. Third, BEM dealt with issues of not only theological but also existential significance. Baptism, eucharist and ministry - these are all crucial to the actual lives of the churches, they are all lively and “visible” issues within churches, and all are rich in human interest and consequences, as well as being of deep pastoral import. Many in the churches were asking fundamental questions about these areas of church life and practice: parents were asking, “Should we have our child baptized -or wait until they can affirm their faith for themselves?”; church members were asking, “Why cannot I join my friend in receiving the Lord’s Supper, as practiced in his or her church?” and, “Why is my pastor’s ordination not recognized by all the churches?” Thus BEM commended itself because the topics which it tackled were already alive in the churches. In an age in which some Catholics are considering delaying confirmation until 18 years of age or even later, and in which some Baptists are baptizing children at the tender age of 8, BEM was a prime example of the ecumenical movement speaking to issues which are “relevant” locally. Fourth, BEM not only discussed these issues but – as an official text from an appointed body of church representatives – it gave “permission” for persons at all levels within the churches to discuss them. BEM broadened the discussion radically, encouraging persons to see these lively, sensitive and sometimes controversial issues not only as matters for theologi- cal specialists but also a issues of concern to pastors, church school classes, retreats, lay academies, and individual Chris- tians. In a unique way, in many churches BEM was empower- ing to laypersons bent on serious reflection about their own faith and Christian practice. Fifth, BEM reflected the Christian life in its wholeness. It rendered irrelevant the traditional and artificial barriers between confession and prophetic witness, between faith and action, and (in the ecumenical context) between the movements of Faith and Order and Life and Work. Few parts of BEM have been more widely influential than its proclamation that baptism has dramatic consequences for the churches’ social witness: … baptism, as a baptism into Christ’s death, has ethical implications which not only call for personal sanctifica- tion, but also motivate Christians to strive for the realiza- tion of the will of God in all realms of life (Rom. 6:9ff: Gal. 3:27-28; I Peter 2:21-4:6) 12 or BEM’s remarkable evocation of the social implications of the Lord’s Supper: The eucharist embraces all aspects of life…The eucharistic celebration demands reconciliation and sharing among all those regarded as brothers and sisters in the one family of God and is a constant challenge in the search for appropriate relationships in social, eco- nomic and political life (Matt. 5:23f; I Cor. 10:16f; I Cor. 11:20-22; Gal. 3:28). All kinds of injustice, racism, separation and lack of freedom are radically challenged when we share in the body and blood of Christ.13 Thus and at one stroke, BEM affirmed a vision of the life of the church as a coherent whole, in which confession and witness are one. It insisted that the churches, and the ecumenical movement, must not be divided artificially between the faith of the church and its life, between reflection and action, between ecclesiology and ethics. In holding these aspects together, BEM was a document of the whole ecumenical movement in all its breadth and diversity. III. BEM: The Response process Since the beginning of the ecumenical movement, literally thousands of texts have been sent to the churches for review and response. Why did BEM, of all these documents, generate an unprecedented - and still unequaled - level of engagement and response? Let us now examine some factors which make the BEM response process uniquely significant. A first and decisive factor was the way in which BEM was sent to the churches. Even as it was sent to the churches for response “at the highest appropriate level,” it was accompanied by a series of 4 requests. In responding, churches were asked14 to indicate “the extent to which your church can recognize in this text the faith of the church through the ages.” The impor- tance of this quietly subversive formulation cannot be over- stated. Each church was asked to judge BEM not on the basis of its own theological position and tradition, but on the basis of a common standard to which all churches are accountable. At one stroke the “terms of engagement” were changed; not the position of each church but a more general standard, indeed an “ecumenical” standard, was to be the norm. As we shall see not many churches were able to take this request fully seriously; but the fact that the question was posed is of immense significance. Further, each church was asked also to note “the conse- quences which your church can draw from this text for its relations and dialogues with other churches…” This points to one dimension of authentic dialogue, namely that each party in the conversation must be open to change and renewal in its own life as a result of what is learned from the other: in a word, each church must make itself vulnerable to others within the frame- work of their common search for greater visible unity. This is the context in which we must read many later ecumenical texts, BEM, “Baptism” §10. 12 BEM, “Eucharist,” §20. 13 BEM, “Preface.” p. x; 25 Anniversary Printing, p. xiv. 14th6 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 74 / Fall 2008 perhaps most notably that on the “conversion” of the churches produced in 1993 by the Groupe des Dombes. 15 The churches were then asked to indicate “the guidance your church can take from this text for its worship, educational, ethical and spiritual life and witness.” Here each church is asked to learn from an ecumenical text; to understand the full significance of this, we must remember the identity of Faith and Order as a representative body of the churches. Thus BEM reflects the views not of a program in Geneva but rather of the churches themselves, speaking together and together framing, as far as possible, common theological positions. Thus in this request each church is encouraged to open itself to guidance from the other churches, speaking and acting, as far as possible, as one. In a final request, the churches were invited to offer “the suggestions your church can make for the ongoing work of Faith and Order…” With this, each church was drawn into the ongoing process of Faith and Order work, and thereby within the broader context of the churches’ search for visible unity. In the immediate context of BEM’s publication this applied especially to the study “Towards the Common Expression of the Apostolic Faith Today.” But the BEM response process 16 itself has shown that BEM is intimately related to virtually all the ongoing work of Faith and Order, including the studies on Unity and Renewal, Ecclesiology and Ethics, worship and 171819 baptism. 20 A second factor in the significance of the BEM response process was its openness to criticism of BEM itself. Perhaps the most familiar example of this is the reaction of some Reformed churches to what they saw in BEM as a lack of attention to the Word of God. For them it was not enough that - as Max 21 Thurian, one of the architects of BEM, noted in conversation – BEM is permeated with quotations from sacred scripture, that its affirmations are almost always supported by one or more biblical citations. What was needed, according to some Re- formed, was a section on the Word of God itself as a constitu- tive element of Christian faith. Several other examples could be cited. Such critical remarks were welcomed as part of the dynamic towards the future: as we shall see, this particular reaction anticipates one of the chief recommendations for further Faith and Order work on behalf of the visible unity of the church. A third factor in the BEM response process was the degree to which it taught the churches about one another, and particu- larly about their varying decision-making procedures. This is best illustrated by a comparison. In my own church, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), many thousands of persons were involved in forming the official response to BEM: it was studied in church school classes, in pastors’ retreats, in lay academies, and in many other venues. Reactions and opinions were gathered and studied so that, when our theologians finally wrote our official response, it could take account of the broad mind of the church. By contrast a former colleague of mine noted that when his church, ancient and distinguished as it is, produced its response GROUPE DES DOMBES, For the Conversion of the 15 Churches, trans. by Jim Grieg (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1993). See especially Confessing the One Faith: An Ecumenical 16 Explication of the Apostolic Faith as it is Confessed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381), Faith and Order Paper No. 153, New Revised Version, 4 printing (Geneva: WCC th Publications, 1996). Church and World: The Unity of the Church and the Renewal 17 of Human Community, Faith and Order Paper No. 151, 2, nd revised printing, (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1992). T.F. BEST and M. ROBRA, (eds.), Ecclesiology and Ethics: 18 Ecumenical Ethical Engagement, Moral Formation and the Nature of the Church (Geneva: World Council of Churches, Units I and III, 1995). See for example T.F. BEST and D. HELLER, (eds.), So We 19 Believe, So We Pray: Towards Koinonia in Worship, Faith and Order Paper No. 171 (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1995). T.F. BEST and D. HELLER, (eds.), See Becoming a 20 Christian: The Ecumenical Implications of Our Common Baptism, Faith and Order Paper No. 184 (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1999); T.F. BEST, (ed.), Baptism Today: Understanding, Practice, Ecumenical Implications, Faith and Order Paper No. 207 (Collegeville/Geneva: Liturgical Press/WCC Publications, 2008); and the Faith and Order text-in- process “One Baptism: Towards Mutual Recognition,” available in Minutes of the Standing Commission on Faith and Order, 12–19 June 2007, Crans-Montana, Switzerland, Faith and Order Paper No. 206 (Geneva: Faith and Order, 2007) Appendix V, 57–81. See Baptism, Eucharist & Ministry 1982-1990, p. 31, Note 32, 21 and p.133.N. 74 / Fall 2008Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 7 perhaps only five persons had ever even heard of BEM - but, he affirmed, “they were the right five.” In this context, the mind of the church was understood to be revealed in a radically different – but, within its own understanding, equally valid – way. Thus the BEM process made the churches aware, as perhaps never before, of each other’s varied decision-making processes and understandings of authority. This leads to a fourth factor, BEM’s effectiveness in bringing some churches to a new understanding and apprecia- tion of the position of others. In some cases, this has led even to changes and developments in the understanding and practice of the faith in particular churches. To take once again my own church, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), BEM’s position on the vexed question of rebaptism is clear: “Baptism is an unrepeatable act. Any practice which might be interpreted as ‘re-baptism’ must be avoided.” This has challenged the22 Disciples; while reaffirming strongly our traditional practice of baptizing professing believers, the church nevertheless gained a fuller understanding of the intention behind “infant” baptism. Thus it can be said that the Disciples’ response to BEM effectively consolidated its rejection of “re-baptism.” 23 A fifth factor, the obverse of the fourth, has to do with the standard by which the churches framed their responses. As noted above, BEM was sent to the churches with clear ques- tions challenging each church to judge the text not just against its own theology and tradition, but against a broader under- standing of the Christian faith as a whole and through the ages. But in fact most churches did judge BEM on the basis of their own particular understanding of the faith. Many churches, of course, showed considerable openness to understandings other than their own; yet in most cases the distinctive confessional positions remained the norm. This led to a certain paradox within the BEM process. In responding to BEM each church was rehearsing its own unique position and practice, and to some extent defending these against other options. In effect the process produced 185 statements, each setting out that particular church’s distinctive understanding of the faith and, in many cases, defending that as its normative – if not even its definitive – expression. Through this dynamic, BEM played a role in the “re-confessionalisation” and stress on the differences among the confessions, which we see in today’s ecumenical landscape. BEM’s role in this shift must not be over-emphasized; many other factors, not least the growth in self-awareness of the Christian World Communions, have contributed more strongly to it. Nevertheless this remains as a paradox within the BEM process - a document promoting the oneness of the church, and leading to many agreements among the churches, has made us newly aware of the distinc- tive identities of the churches, and the differences among them. At a more fundamental level, and as a sixth and final point, we note that the response process has revealed more clearly certain historical and cultural “fault lines” within Christendom. I may illustrate this through a personal experience. Some 20 years ago, not long after BEM was sent to the churches, I was privileged to speak on its behalf at the Fifth Assembly of the Pacific Conference of Churches. Following the lecture, some- one rose to thank Faith and Order and the World Council of Churches for sending BEM to the churches. They noted its clear exposition of what the churches have in common, and the fundamental problems that keep many churches from common confession, witness and service. And then they added: “Why, we never even knew we had these problems until you sent us BEM…” All the issues raised by the shift of the Christian “center of gravity” to the Southern hemisphere, issues debated hotly today, are implicit in this comment, as indeed already in some of the responses to BEM. The “relevance” of certain ecclesiological issues in situations far removed from the theological, historical and cultural context in which they arose; profound questions of inculturation, language and appropriate symbolism; the relation of local churches to more inclusive ecclesial bodies, or of independent churches to the missionizing churches which founded them – all these and more issues of theology and culture were made visible by the BEM response process. And while some have been taken up in some Faith and Order work, they are still largely awaiting resolution. 24 In summary, we may say that the BEM response process has had a most creative impact upon the churches and the ecumenical movement. Produced by a representative body encompassing virtually all the confessions engaged in the ecumenical movement, BEM created a new dialogue context, a fresh climate of interaction among the churches. It challenged the churches to make common reflection and discussion on matters of faith and practice the norm rather than the exception. And it challenged the churches to look beyond their own confessional norms, to focus upon a broader standard of the Christian faith which, transcending the limitations of each confession, could provide a basis for an eventual visible Christian unity. IV. “Whatever Happened to BEM?” - The Presence and impact of BEM today Let us turn now to a question asked often enough, particu- larly by laypersons who had been brought into the ecumenical movement through the BEM process: “Whatever happened to BEM?” In most places the active study of BEM seems to have ended, and to many persons it is not immediately clear where and how BEM is at work in the churches and ecumenically today. The answers to this question are several. The first point to note is that, 25 years after its launch, BEM does continue to be distributed and studied around the world. The most recent original translation, into the Yoruban language “Baptism,” §13. 22 See “Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)” in Churches 23 Respond to BEM, Vol. I, pp. 115-116. As in many other churches, Disciples congregations continue to be challenged in the pastoral context by requests for “re-baptism.” See for example the work on inculturation in So We Believe, 24 So We Pray and Becoming a Christian.8 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 74 / Fall 2008 of Nigeria, was completed as recently as 2005; one of the earliest translations, that into Korean, will soon be comple- mented by a fresh rendering in that language. And BEM continues to be studied in local situations, especially where the search for the unity of the church has taken on a new momen- tum or urgency, or where ecumenical progress has stalled and a way is sought to make a fresh start. A second point is that BEM is very much at work within the churches themselves, as noted above in the discussion of mutual recognition of baptism within the Disciples of Christ. And it is just as, or even more, influential in the inter-church context, where it continues to provide a basis on which churches can make agreements on specific matters of faith and practice. The most recent example is the agreement signed in 2007 establish- ing mutual recognition of baptism among no fewer than 11 churches in Germany. The agreement – the first at the national level to include a wide range of Protestants, Orthodox and the Catholic Church – embraces “every baptism which has been carried out according to the commission of Jesus in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit through the symbolic act of immersion in water or through the pouring of water over the person to be baptized.” Such a baptism is affirmed as 25 being “unique and unrepeatable.” Strikingly, it concludes with a direct citation from BEM: We confess together with the Lima Document: Our one baptism in Christ is “a call to the churches to overcome their divisions and visibly manifest their fellowship” (WCC Faith and Order Convergence text Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, “Baptism,” par. 6). As a third and related point, BEM has been influential in the churches’ bi-lateral discussions. In effect BEM offered an overall “framework” for the churches’ theological dialogues: by identifying points held in common, and identifying areas of continuing difference, BEM played a significant role in consolidating the existing agreement among the churches, and guiding the choice of topics for future dialogues . To this extent, BEM has been a major force for coherence and relevance among the many bi-lateral dialogues today. A fourth point is that BEM continues to affect directly many studies underway within Faith and Order and elsewhere. Statements in BEM on eucharist and baptism, in particular, have inspired further work in those areas. For example, the Faith and Order text-in-progress “One Baptism” can be 26 understood as an extended, liturgical commentary on BEM’s affirmation that “baptism is related not only to momentary experience, but to life-long growth into Christ.” Furthermore,27 traces of BEM are readily apparent in the fine recent text of the Joint Working Group of the WCC and the Roman Catholic Church, “Ecclesiological and Ecumenical Implications of a Common Baptism: A JWG Study.” 28 It should also be stressed that BEM’s insistence on the social dimension of the church’s faith and life was a direct inspira-29 tion to much path-breaking Faith and Order work on the relation of the unity of the church to the renewal of human community, on ecclesiology and ethics, and most recently on 3031 theological anthropology. 32 In several areas we may even say, as a fifth point, that BEM has set the agenda for work being pursued today by Faith and Order and elsewhere. On the basis of the churches’ responses, Faith and Order identified three areas in which – at the begin- ning of the 1990s - work was urgently needed if the search for visible unity was to move forward. One area, the relation between Scripture and Tradition, was taken up in Faith and Order work on hermeneutics; the second area, issues of33 sacrament and sacramentality, has received less explicit attention but has been noted within the hermeneutics study and in work on ecclesiology – which was the third area identified by the churches for further study. This third area requires further comment, as it has been a continuing focus of recent Faith and Order work. In the BEM response process the churches insisted that the understanding of the church itself, its nature and its role in history and in the world, has emerged as “the” fundamental ecumenical problem. In the understanding of the nature and role of the church, all the outstanding ecumenical issues intersect in all their complexity - not only the classical ecclesiological questions (for example, is a particular structure of the church itself a part of Christian revelation?) but also issues of liturgy, authority, ministry, ordination, the witness of the church in evangelism and service to the world, and a host of others. Faith and Order has pursued steady work on ecclesiology, resulting in two major, complementary texts now before the churches for consideration and response by early 2010. We will look at these texts in some detail in the final section of this presentation. For this and the next 2 citations see Baptism Today..., op. cit., 25 228. See Note 20, above. 26 BEM, “Baptism,” §9. 27 In Eighth Report, 1999-2005, Joint Working Group between28 the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, (Geneva/Rome: WCC Publications, 2005), Appendix C, pp. 45- 72. See for example Notes 12 and 13, above. 29 See Note 17, above. 30 See Note 18, above. 31 See Christian Perspectives on Theological Anthropology, 32 Faith and Order Paper No. 199 (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2005). See A Treasure in Earthen Vessels: An Instrument for an 33 Ecumenical Reflection on Hermeneutics, Faith and Order Paper No. 182 (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1998); and D. HELLER and P. BOUTENEFF, (eds.), Interpreting Together: Essays in Hermeneutics, Faith and Order Paper No. 189 (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2001).N. 74 / Fall 2008Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 9 All these points make clear that, although BEM no longer has the immediate “notoriety” which it enjoyed as long as its response process was still underway, it is nonetheless very much alive in the churches and ecumenically today. V. “Will there be another BEM?” – Challenges for the future While laypersons ask “Whatever happened to BEM?,” theologians and ecumenists have their own characteristic question: “Will there be another BEM?” “Do we look for another text which could generate the same excitement and response?” In responding to these questions I would like to offer a comment by way of perspective, and then suggest three areas where further work would be most strategic at this time. My comment is the following: it is wise, I believe, not to expect history to repeat itself. My admiration of BEM is boundless; nevertheless I doubt that the BEM “phenomenon” will happen again. Twenty-five years after BEM the ecumeni- cal scene has changed in many respects. One factor is that many, indeed too many, texts from a bewildering variety of sources are now being sent to the churches for review and response; another is that confessional links are absorbing more and more of the churches’ energy and resources; yet another is the mundane fact that many churches face a situation of shrinking circumstances, leaving fewer and fewer resources available for engagement beyond their own “borders.” For a host of reasons, then, rather than simply expecting “another BEM” I think it better to ask the following question: “What is needed today to take forward the churches’ search for the visible unity of the church, as BEM took that search for unity forward in its own day?” Here I would suggest three areas as being most strategic for work towards visible unity today. The first strategic area is ecclesiology, that major task remaining from the BEM study process. I am happy to report that intensive work is already well underway in this area, as carried by the two Faith and Order/WCC texts now before the churches. The first of these texts, the extended study document The Nature and Mission of the Church: A Stage on the Way to a Common Statement from 2005, is a nascent convergence 34 text. Its immediate aim is to draw the churches into a conversa- tion aimed at revising the text itself; the longer-term goal of the study process is to further the search for Christian unity by identifying the churches’ common ecclesiological ground and, not least, by clarifying the “structure” of the remaining divisive issues – that is, the ecclesiological assumptions underlying the churches’ divisions, and what would have to be done to overcome them. 35 Following at least one stage of church reactions and subse- quent revision, this text could be sent to the churches for official response. Could it be the “next BEM”? If any text now in development could play this role, this would be the one. The difficulties as outlined just above are formidable; yet one cannot know what the Spirit will ordain. The second text now before the churches, the concise document “Called to be the One Church,” was adopted as a36 basis for common reflection and response by WCC member churches at the WCC’s Porto Alegre Assembly in 2006. It stands in the line of Faith and Order/WCC Assembly texts from New Delhi (1961), Nairobi (1975), Vancouver (1983) and Canberra (1991) on the nature of the unity we seek. It is not intended to be revised and reissued, but as a catalyst to help the churches renew their dialogue and to identify precisely where – in their lives at the local as well as higher levels – they can, and cannot, recognize other churches as valid expressions of the Church of Jesus Christ. As a sign of how seriously WCC members churches take issues of ecclesiology, they have committed themselves to respond to the text by the next WCC Assembly in 2013. Ideally - speaking in a flush of prophetic hope – I would see the two ecclesiology texts working together to make a signifi- cant impact upon that Assembly in 2013, and upon the church- es and the wider ecumenical movement. The second strategic area for work towards visible unity is the understanding of unity itself. Since the development of “koinonia” ecclesiology the classic discussion of “models of unity” has largely fallen silent; at the same time, the term “unity” has been more and more widely used, so that it is now burdened with a hopelessly wide range of meanings from full structural union to simply cooperation in programs. “Unity” is the central goal of the ecumenical movement; but today the term is dangerously vague in meaning. Here I am happy to report that two very different church communities have, strikingly, planned to make the understand- ing of unity the focus of major meetings in 2008. The first meeting, the Forum of Bi-Lateral Conversations organized by Faith and Order on behalf of the Christian World Communions, will analyze the various visions of unity underlying the wide range of bi-lateral discussions today. Doubtless they will consider how far a synthesis of these visions is possible, taking also into account the two Faith and Order/WCC ecclesiology texts. The second meeting, the Eighth International Consulta- tion of United Churches, will consider the experience of Faith and Order Paper No. 198 (Geneva: WCC Publications, 34 2005). See also the stimulating collection of essays from the Seminar held at the American Academy of Religion meeting in 2006: P.M. COLLINS and M.A. FAHEY, (eds.), Receiving The Nature and Mission of the Church: Ecclesial Reality and Ecumenical Horizons (London/New York: T. & T. Clark, 2008). These remarks on The Nature and Mission of the Church, and 35 the following remarks on “Called to be the One Church,” draw on my recent article ”Ecclesiology and Ecumenism” in G. MANNION and L.S. MUDGE, (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Christian Church (New York/London: Routledge, 2008) 402-420. The text is available from Faith and Order, World Council of 36 Churches, 150, rte. de Ferney, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland.Next >