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

Скачать книгу

of topics as well as in the rank or level of the participating institutions. They range from single congregations to the level of worldwide denominational institutions. One has to be cautious to talk of ranks or levels, especially with denominations refraining from installing a hierarchy. This is because, in their understanding, every congregation is an autonomous institution and so they could never say that the Church’s identity is represented by the bishop. Nevertheless, it is justified to see a difference in rank between a congregation’s accession to a local ecumenical board and a document drafted by commissions on a global level and accepted by universal institutions. Deliberations like these normally lead to the creation of dialogue documents that have to be officially accepted by the participating Churches. The most significant difference concerning these documents is whether they are barely documents of dialogue or whether they formally alter the relationship of the Churches involved. The latter holds true, for example, in the case of documents declaring Church union which has not previously been established.24

      2. Single ecumenical topics in the context of “normal” theological work. A large number of theological publications deal with ecumenical topics without making them the primary focus. That is, in the course of addressing a given theological issue, it becomes helpful to address the position of another denomination. This occurs quite often with matters relating to the history of theology or to what one may call a hermeneutics of contrast—i.e., when the partner denomination’s position serves as a contrastive agent to verify one’s own position. However, more and more publications are dealing with topics in an ecumenical fashion because they are convinced that the matter itself deserves to be addressed from the standpoint of more than one denomination’s tradition. The outcome need not be an “ecumenical position”. I do not think that something like this really exists, by contrast we should strive for a position that is thoroughly informed and modified by the ecumenical encounter.

      3. Ecumenical self-reflection. Publications of this kind refer to the history of the ecumenical movement, theological methods, and proceedings or commentaries of the first kind, regardless of whether approvi ng or critical in tone. A growing number of textbooks, journals, and encyclopedias also belong to this field. A special kind are complete overviews, that is to say, books titled “Ecumenical Theology” or anything similar. Most of them, particularly in German speaking theology, present a historical account of ecumenical achievements and ongoing difficulties. The question whether there is something as an ecumenical theology as such, is open. However, in recent years the sceptics slightly prevailed. This can be illustrated by two important German contributions to the field. Edmund Schlink called his seminal work “Ecumenical Dogmatics,” whereas the obviously more reluctant Otto H. Pesch produced “Catholic Dogmatics from Ecumenical Experience,” thus making a contribution which tends to belong to the second kind.25

      According to widespread criticism, ecumenical theology is inclined towards self-isolation. Mild mockery is sometimes heard to the effect that there is a new denomination entirely made up of ecumenical theologians and activists who gather at special events and use phrases which only they themselves are able (and perhaps willing) to understand. There is certainly a risk that this can happen within model (3), the necessity of a sound memory of the ecumenical movement notwithstanding. Therefore the choice of topics in the chapters to follow is mainly a selection from types (1) and (2). I want to analyse ecumenical theology “at work” in different fields. Chapter 1 will deal with a series of dialogue documents and thus with a contribution to a classical form of ecumenical deliberations. Accordingly, this chapter is entirely confined to kind (1). In Chapter 2 things are different. Here I will address a lecture delivered by Benedict, retired Bishop of Rome, and I try to address its theological topics and explore its ecumenical implications. As can easily be seen, this is an example for model (2). Chapter 3 will deal with dialogue documents again and refers to type (1); however, it does so on a different level and it includes reflections on model (2). Chapter 4 will refer to a classic point of divergence between Churches East and West and thus implicitly deals with a number of dialogue documents. But it does so in connection with a certain school of Luther interpretation, thereby intentionally mixing types (1) and (2).

      It is only then that reflections concerning ecumenical hermeneutics make sense. The final chapter will discuss the hermeneutical strategies used in Chapters 1–4 and suggests what methods and goals might best suit the idea of an ecumenical exchange of gifts.

      Chapter 1

      Ministry and the Office of Oversight Anglican-Lutheran Dialogues

      The theology of the ordained ministry is an odd topic in ecumenism. Church officials from various denominations will not hesitate to classify it as a topic of great importance, but if we ask lay people of the very same denominations, they will probably describe it as somewhat insignificant. They would be much more likely to point to topics such as the Eucharist, the sacraments in general, contemporary social and political issues, and so on. At least, this was my impression when I visited the Zweiter Ökumenischer Kirchentag (Second Ecumenical Church Congress) held in Munich during June of 2010. A Kirchentag in Germany is a big, perhaps even enormous, lay event which draws together more than 100,000 people for a few days of prayer, dialogue, Church concerts, and other events. The number of visitors was even higher when Catholic and Protestant lay organizations jointly organized an Ecumenical Church Congress in Berlin in 2003. The same was true a biblical seven years later when the meeting was held in Munich. One of the activities was dedicated to the core ecumenical topics of baptism, the Eucharist, and ministry. The discussions took place in an exhibition hall which held up to 6,000 persons, at least when they crouched on the cardboard stools typically used by the Kirchentag. On the first day, when baptism was discussed, the hall was almost full and there was a friendly and vivid discussion. Day 2 was dedicated to the question of Catholics and Protestants sharing the Eucharist and likewise saw a crammed audience. The hall was over-crowded and hundreds of visitors had to be refused admittance for safety reasons. The atmosphere was brimming with ecumenical prospect and anticipation, and frequently participants demanded a shared Eucharist or at least a reciprocal invitation to it. On the third day, however, the ordained ministry was scheduled. The debate was highly interesting. Bishops of several denominations, academic theologians, and lay people were all engaged, including some from ecclesial traditions that do not have an ordained ministry at all. However, the visitors did not respond to this and the participants on the podium saw more empty cardboard stools than people.

      How come? I think it is too easy an answer if one claims that lay people simply do not understand the centrality of the topic. This idea is discussed quite frequently, so academic theologians and Church officials who think so should hesitate. It is not my intention to say that official Church politics and theological argumentations should follow a momentous sentiment of some lay people—that, of course, is far too simple an answer. Rather, the small audience in Munich may serve as a theological reminder that the topics of priesthood, the bishop’s office, and holy orders are in fact not a first-hand topic—both in the Holy Scriptures as well as in theology. As for the scriptures, it is only in the post-Pauline letters that these matters becomes prominent. Before Good Friday and Easter, Jesus was not interested in bishops, and neither were the Synoptic Evangelists. Moreover, while Paul did address them, he did not develop any special terminology for the topic. And if it holds true that John’s gospel is one of the latest writings in the New Testament, then this interest ceased once more when the writings of the second part of the bible were still being completed. Additionally, the same effect may be seen in in the history of theology again. One might admit that there were early and even poignant references to the bishop’s office. Consider, for example, Ignatius’ letters, which he wrote as a prisoner on his way to martyrdom in Rome sometime around 110. However, neither the other apostolic fathers nor the apologists regarded the bishop’s ministry as a topic of key interest. If we consider his letters in their entirety,

Скачать книгу