Gift Exchange - Martin Hailer Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau (BÖR)

Скачать книгу

to deny the label to all others than type (2). Hénaff gives good reason to distinguish a gift from an item of trade: “something from oneself as pledge and substitute for oneself” establishes a personal relationship, that money or any goods of trade cannot do. Moreover, by means of this definition, Hénaff establishes a firm connection between his opinion of the gift and various types of theories of recognition.23 However, I am reluctant when it comes to Hénaff’s conclusions concerning religion. He makes two claims, both of which are highly debatable. First, in turning to Paul Ricoeur’s contribution to the field he criticises that peaceful encounters between persons recognizing each other are a better and higher status than agony. A status of peace, so he states, is no more than “a moment of inactive rivalry”. (189) Obviously, Hénaff tends to a position in anthropology that is fuelled by Thomas Hobbes’ and Friedrich Nietzsche’s pessimism. But unfortunately, he will not let us know why. Secondly, and more important for what is at stake here, he restricts religious gifts to gift type (2): The benevolent gift comprises “the whole theoretical field of biblical grace”. (60) Gift as grace cannot ask for something in return, for this would revoke the very idea of grace. That certainly holds true for the essence of grace: God is merciful, because he is merciful and for no other reason whatsoever. But Hénaff entirely misses the point, that God’s grace summons the recipients of grace into a relationship with Him. And once being in this relationship, it will not leave those bestowed upon with grace unaltered. For example the gift of creation once recognized in its true nature evokes to an attitude of gratefulness and care for the creature oneself is and one is surrounded by. In theological terms, Hénaff concentrates on the jurisdictional side of justification and omits effective justification entirely. We should not follow this one-sidedness. Hence there is no good reason to restrict gifts in religion to type (2).

      As a result from this brief discussion of the theory of gift in social philosophy and theology of our day I would like to state the following: The concept of gift holds a prominent place in theology, since it helps to understand topics as central as justification, atonement, and love of God and one’s neighbour. Hence we might expect the concept to play a major role in hermeneutics of ecumenics, too. This, however, is not the case yet. Encouraged by the discussion in social philosophy I recommend to draw on Risto Saarinen’s basic idea in order to improve it further: Ecumenical understanding may be conceptualized as an exchange of semantic gifts of type (2) in Marcel Hénaff’s typology. A successful gift consists in presenting something from one’s own denominational tradition, so that the partner denomination is led to a better self-understanding. The goal is neither to convert the partner to one’s own denomination nor to create a new, third denomination, both partners are willing to convert to. By the mutual exchange of gifts, both partners actually learn that they benefit from the other’s self-understanding and by that see that their network of mutual recognition consolidates more and more.

      According to this view of ecumenical hermeneutics, consensus is not the highest goal, but certainly elements of consensus will be needed. The giver asks herself which of her theological resources would suit those of the recipients by clarifying that the risen Lord is present in their denomination—i.e., that they are part of the one Church. In other words, she ought to consider what she can give to the recipients in order to invite them to understand their own denomination as part of the one Church. In this way, the focus is not only on the deficiencies of the recipient’s denomination but also on those of the giver’s.

      I do not think wise to call this a new model of ecumenical hermeneutics. No, on the contrary, I am reluctant to issue “programmes” or “models” in theology—this has to do with the fact, that innovation or novelty in theology cannot take place but as a re-interpretation of given semantic material in changing ambiances. However, with respect to existing programmes one might argue that the idea of gift exchange in ecumenics seeks a middle way: On the one hand it is greatly indebted to ecumenics of consensus and is willing to oppose those who downplay its results. On the other hand it freely admits to distinctive ecumenics that a multiplicity of denominations exists and will most likely continue to exist. The model of gift exchange contradicts distinctive ecumenics insofar as the latter tends to think that there are—or should be—completed denominational identities prior to ecumenical dialogue. The shaping of identity via recognition is certainly an ongoing process.

      The issues presented in Chapters 1–4 of this work are offered as case studies in the mutual exchange of gifts. More precisely, this work holds that Lutherans and Anglicans may help each other to clarify their respective views on ordained ministries and on Church leading institutions so that both may more prudently employ key ideas such as the office of the bishop and historic succession. In all this, they will both have the opportunity to recognise themselves as full members of the one Church of Christ. I will attempt to demonstrate these aspects by discussing the Meissen and Porvoo documents (Chapter 1). Chapter 2 subsequently addresses the mutual exchange of gifts between Lutherans and Catholics. It argues that there is good reason for both partners to abandon their long-held and recently reinforced suspicions of the other. (chapter 2). The gift exchange between Lutherans and Baptists does not involve one of the two attempting to persuade the other that only their theology of baptism is right. In fact, this was a key example of what Saarinen criticised in his previously noted remarks on papacy. Actually, both give the gift of their acceptance of the other’s concept as a valid interpretation of the Bible and further grant that none of these concepts can fully grasp the Bible’s truth on their own (Chapter 3). Finally, the gift exchange between Lutherans and Orthodox is one which might occur through mutual interpretation. Through this exercise they may come to further appreciate how the concepts of justification by grace alone and deification actually have much more in common than has often been supposed (Chapter 4).

      This has been a very brief outline of the book’s chapters, all of which utilize Saarinen’s helpful metaphor of ecumenics as the exchange of gifts. Yet one more note must be added concerning his terminology. If indeed a considerate giver reflects on what the recipient might need or desire, the focus again changes from being giver-oriented to being recipient-oriented. A considerate giver is, by definition, receiver-oriented in herself. He or she cannot help but give something that she herself has, but she will always be eager to give something the receiver benefits from.

       Pursuing the Task: Case Studies and Hermeneutical Reflection

      The ecumenical exchange of gifts cannot be dealt with satisfactorily on an abstract level solely. It is only in the various fields of ecumenical dialogue that the processes of gift exchange may be studied, commented, and if possible, enhanced. This is why the main body of the book consists of ecumenical case studies. Within the framework of ecumenical hermeneutics outlined here, I will present a selection of discussions about core ecumenical problems. They differ greatly in topic, style, and with regard to the fact that some are official Church dialogues and some are not. What ties them together is their connection to the Lutheran Church and its theology—a criterion which has been chosen due to my own denominational context. Although aside from this thematic contention to Lutheranism, a quite broad range of topics, situations, and contexts are addressed. Studies on the exchange of gifts should not just concentrate on one field or one mode of deliberation. They must instead seek to accumulate a broad range of issues. As should be obvious, an exposition aiming at completeness is not a reasonable goal. Rather, the use of exemplary discussions of various topics will offer a goût of how gift exchange takes place and suggest what improvements are needed. It is only in the final chapter that I will return to a more abstract level and ask which methods and goals in ecumenical theology seem to be preferable.

      With regard to different modes or kinds of ecumenical deliberations, there are three principle models for how ecumenics take place:

      1. Official ecumenical dialogues. The vast majority of these are bilateral dialogues between denominations

Скачать книгу