The Nature and Purpose of Ecumenical Dialogue
by Konrad Raiser
The Ecumenical Review
Date: 7/1/2000
Proposal for a Study
It may have come as a surprise to some members of the Joint Working Group to see the topic of ecumenical dialogue placed on the agenda again more than thirty years after the JWG, during its first mandate, had published a working paper on ecumenical dialogue. Since then "dialogue" has become the comprehensive term referring to all forms of interaction, exchange, conversation and collaboration between the Roman Catholic Church and member churches of the World Council of Churches. In one form or another, all members of the JWG have been involved in ecumenical dialogue and may feel that there is no need for a renewed study about the "nature and purpose of ecumenical dialogue". And, in fact, this topic was not part of the agenda proposals for this new period included in the seventh report of the JWG, submitted in 1998. Why, then, do we propose to enter into a new study on precisely this topic?
It is true that we have been involved in ecumenical dialogue for more than thirty years. These dialogues have differed widely in character but, as a consequence of this intensive activity, the conditions and the frame of reference for ecumenical dialogue have changed compared with the situation immediately after the Second Vatican Council. The most recent evidence of the fruits of ecumenical dialogue is the joint declaration on justification signed by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church and by the Lutheran World Federation on behalf of the Lutheran churches around the world. Many other dialogues, in particular those of a bilateral doctrinal character, have entered the phase of reception which changes the dynamic of the dialogue. It would therefore seem useful and appropriate to take stock of the experience of the last three decades and to map out the perspectives for ecumenical dialogue in the period ahead.
There is an additional reason for reopening the question of ecumenical dialogue. In several instances it seems that the dialogues have revitalized confessional identity and self-confidence, with the consequence that the results of ecumenical dialogue are being evaluated against the background of the official doctrinal positions of the separated churches, questioning the validity of the agreements reached. Expectations placed by the faithful in many of the churches in the ability of ecumenical dialogue to heal the divisions have been disappointed. It is therefore necessary to clarify the aims, the methodologies and the criteria used in evaluating the results of ecumenical dialogue.
Early positions on ecumenical dialogue
When the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches was formed in 1965, it was given the mandate to explore the bases and forms of collaboration between the Roman Catholic Church and the fellowship of churches in the World Council. In responding to this mandate, the JWG focused on the understanding and methodologies of ecumenical dialogue and published the results of its reflections in a working document in 1967. In a succinct way the document describes the aim and the basis of ecumenical dialogue, outlines the themes that should appropriately be covered, and identifies the conditions for and different forms of dialogue. Three years later, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity also published a text with "reflections and suggestions concerning ecumenical dialogue". The text was originally envisaged as part 3 of the Ecumenical Directory, but was then published as a "working paper". The structure is very similar to the text by the JWG, with slight changes in the sequence of the chapters; however, the document is much more developed and is rooted especially in the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.
Both texts taken together have served as a good framework for ecumenical activity for some thirty years. What was said then about the nature and aim, as well as the bases and the conditions, of ecumenical dialogue is still valid today. They have presented a comprehensive understanding of dialogue related to the full scope of the life of the churches. In many respects, their understanding of dialogue is more inclusive than the largely intellectual and theological model which has become dominant since then. Both texts hint at the underlying hermeneutical and methodological questions, but have probably underestimated their importance. The question of reception and, linked with this, of the addressees of the eventual results of ecumenical dialogue is not yet raised.
Obviously, thirty years ago ecumenical dialogue was a new undertaking and the affirmations about the bases and aims of ecumenical dialogue remained relatively general and tentative. Both texts seem to oscillate between a concept of dialogue as a means to reach agreement and understanding, or to search together for a deeper understanding of the truth; and an understanding of dialogue as an expression and manifestation of the real, even though limited, communion that already exists between the churches by virtue of the common baptism. In the development of ecumenical dialogue within the World Council of Churches this dialectic is well known since the commission on Faith and Order, at the third world conference in Lund in 1952, made the deliberate shift from the method of comparative ecclesiology to the christological method emphasizing the vertical, over against the horizontal, dimension in ecumenical dialogue.
More recent statements
This concern for the vertical and spiritual dimension of dialogue is placed in the centre of the reflection on ecumenical dialogue in the famous encyclical of Pope John Paul II Ut Unum Sint. In fact, the whole encyclical deals with the question of the nature and purpose of ecumenical dialogue, and its third chapter discusses extensively the fruits of ecumenical dialogues carded on over the last thirty years. Before addressing the practice and the results of dialogue, however, the encyclical focuses on the very basis and nature of dialogue as a way towards renewal and conversion. The encyclical places dialogue into the context of profound anthropological insights: dialogue is not only a way of exchanging ideas, but represents a mutual, reciprocal giving of oneself as an existential act. The encyclical wants to nurture this "spirit of dialogue" and to contribute to the emergence of a culture of dialogue.
Thus, before speaking about dialogue as a way to overcome disagreements, the encyclical underlines the need for an examination of conscience, that is, for the purification of the heart, and it calls for a mutual acknowledgment of the personal as well as social and structural "sins against unity". Dialogue must be permeated by the spirit of conversion, and thus become truly a "dialogue of conversion". It does not take place merely on a horizontal level, but has a vertical thrust in the common turning to God in Christ. This vertical aspect of dialogue lies in our acknowledgment, jointly and to each other, that we are men and women who have sinned. It is precisely this acknowledgment which creates in brothers and sisters living in communities, not in full communion with one another, that interior space where Christ, the source of the church's unity, can effectively act, with all the power of his Spirit, the Paraclete ( [sections] 35).
The encyclical thus takes seriously the call for "spiritual ecumenism", that change of heart and mind which is required for any true progress towards unity. It is this emphasis on the vertical and spiritual dimension of dialogue which is the most distinctive contribution of the encyclical to this renewed discussion about the nature and purpose of ecumenical dialogue. The subsequent indications of the encyclical about the conditions and methods of dialogue restate earlier explanations without, however, becoming more explicit about the underlying hermeneutical issues.
In the same year (1995), the JWG issued a study document concerning "Ecumenical Dialogue on Moral Issues", which was reprinted in the seventh report of the JWG. The document is an expression of wisdom and experience gained in ecumenical dialogue about potentially church-divisive moral and ethical issues. It strongly underlines the need to acknowledge the common basis which helps to place the differences in their proper perspective. One particularly important insight is the recognition of different "path-ways", that is, coherent frameworks of understanding, mentality and ethos which condition moral judgments. This insight is of great significance for any reflection about the hermeneutics of dialogue, and points to the need to take the contextual and historical dimensions more seriously than has hitherto been the case.
Where are we today: experiences and problems
After more than thirty years of ecumenical dialogue, a number of observations call for renewed reflection.
* At the beginning of Roman Catholic participation in the ecumenical movement, dialogue was the appropriate term to characterize the emerging relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the fellowship of churches in the WCC. Meanwhile, a great variety of forms of exchange and interaction have developed between churches and Christians of different traditions, and in many instances a genuine sense of communion has emerged. Is dialogue still the appropriate term to characterize these relationships?
* In spite of the affirmations in the different texts reviewed in the previous sections, dialogue is commonly associated with the exchange of ideas. The majority of encounters for which the term dialogue is being used focus largely on the doctrinal and intellectual dimension and have thus become a matter for experts. Very few dialogues include pastoral, ethical or contextual issues in their agenda. The meaning of dialogue has thus been narrowed and does not really embrace the encounter of life, the mutual giving of one another.
* Ecumenical dialogues, in particular those of a bilateral character, have taken very seriously the appeal to maintain the loyalty to one's own tradition. In fact, the intensive activity of bilateral dialogues seems to have led to an increased awareness of confessional identity. As a consequence, the partners in ecumenical dialogue have been more hesitant to engage in a process of learning from one another and thus to allow a renewal of the respective traditions to take place.
* The agreements reached in ecumenical dialogue respond to problems associated with historical doctrinal controversies, but they encounter difficulties in the process of reception, both on the level of the official teaching authority of the respective churches and among the faithful. This reveals that ecumenical dialogue very often gives insufficient attention to the historical, cultural and contextual dimension of differences and divisions. This would require a more intentional hermeneutical reflection.
* The emphasis on the examination of conscience and on the "dialogue of conversion", with the aim of opening the internal space for Christ to act through the Holy Spirit, has opened an important new perspective on ecumenical dialogue. However, the readiness to confess sins against unity must be coupled with the genuine will and openness to be transformed and changed. It is this process of transformation through dialogue which needs to be understood more fully and calls for methodological clarification.
* In this connection we will also have to become more explicit in discerning the common bases of dialogue which make ecumenical dialogue more than an academic exercise and turn it into an expression of the fellowship which already exists. The aim of dialogue would therefore not only be to reach agreement in the horizontal sense, but to deepen the sense of communion through processes of transformation and genuine conversion, in the sense of turning to God and to one another.
The hermeneutics of ecumenical dialogue
At several points, reference has already been made to the hermeneutical issues raised in the context of ecumenical dialogue. In this concluding section I want to draw attention to the study document on ecumenical hermeneutics published in 1998 by the commission on Faith and Order.(1) I believe that the JWG needs to take this study seriously in its effort to clarify the nature and purpose of ecumenical dialogue. In fact, the Faith and Order study can be regarded as a working instrument for those engaged in ecumenical dialogue, helping them to clarify the implicit questions of methodology which have been hinted at in the earlier texts on ecumenical dialogue, but have so far never been fully explicated.
This is not the place to give an extensive summary of the study. I shall limit myself to certain highlights.
* The study describes the task of ecumenical hermeneutics in ways that relate directly to the praxis of ecumenical dialogue. Ecumenical hermeneutics aims at "facilitating interpretation, communication and reception of texts, symbols and practices which give shape and meaning to particular communities" ( [sections] 5). Widening the scope of hermeneutics beyond the interpretation of texts to include also symbols and practices has its parallel in the more inclusive interpretation of dialogue. This is also true for the fuller definition of hermeneutics referring to "the art of interpretation and application of texts, symbols and practices in the present and from the past, and the theory about the methods of such interpretation and application" ([sections] 5). Beyond this general definition, the study distinguishes three dimensions of ecumenical hermeneutics, that is, a hermeneutics of coherence, responding to the need to hold together in unity the diverse expressions of the Christian faith; a hermeneutics of suspicion, reflecting the critical task of examining the historical and contextual relativity of affirmations of the faith; and a hermeneutics of confidence, aiming at the mutual reception and recognition of Christians and churches from various cultures, contexts and different confessions. All three dimensions of ecumenical hermeneutics find their parallel in central aspects of the method of ecumenical dialogue.
* The longest chapter of the study deals with the common understanding of the one Tradition, reviewing and taking further the discussion on scripture, Tradition and traditions since the affirmations of the Faith and Order world conference in Montreal in 1963.(2) This discussion is of immediate relevance for the question of how to remain loyal to one's own tradition and at the same time remain open to the renewing and transforming power of the Holy Spirit. The study reaffirms the insight that the tradition of the apostolic faith is never given once and for all, but that the gospel of Christ must continuously be re-received. Ecumenical dialogue opens the space for a renewed reception together of the "truth". As the partners in ecumenical dialogue open themselves to receiving together the gift of the gospel, they begin to move from mutual understanding to mutual recognition. Those engaging in ecumenical dialogue should constantly remind themselves that "ultimately, amid the many ecclesial traditions, the one Tradition is revealed in the living presence of Christ in the world, but is not something to be captured and controlled by human discourse. It is a living, eschatological reality, eluding all attempts at a final linguistic definition and conceptual disclosure. One way of describing the one Tradition is by speaking about the ecclesial capacity of receiving revelation. This capacity is nothing less than the gift of the Holy Spirit, ... who `will guide you into all the truth' (John 16:13)" ([sections] 37).
* In its chapter on the one gospel in many contexts the study examines the relationship between contextuality and catholicity and offers criteria which are equally relevant for ecumenical dialogue. More important, however, is the final chapter which describes "the church as a hermeneutical community". Ecumenical dialogue then becomes an expression of this calling of the church on all levels of its life to "interpret texts, symbols and practices so as to discern the word of God as a word of life amid ever changing times and places. This hermeneutical task undertaken by the church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is a condition for apostolic mission in and for the world. To speak of the church as a hermeneutical community is also to say that this community is a proper locus for the interpretation and the proclamation of the gospel" ([sections] 49). Ecumenical dialogue therefore becomes in itself an exercise of hermeneutics in the pursuit of visible unity. It cannot and must not be limited to experts and specialists, but is a task involving the whole people of God gathered in believing communities in diverse contexts. The hermeneutics of ecumenical dialogue refers in particular to the fact that the contributions of the partners in dialogue are shaped and conditioned by specific ecclesial, cultural, social, economic, geographical and historical backgrounds.
* The study finally addresses the issues of authority, mutual accountability and reception related to the hermeneutics of ecumenical dialogue. It emphasizes that the exercise of authority, in the sense of the ministry of oversight, must include a hermeneutical function. Within the church as a hermeneutical community, this responsibility is shared by the partners in dialogue who accept a mutual accountability and thus exercise for one another the ministry of oversight. Ecumenical dialogue ultimately aims at reception of the insights gained and the agreements reached, but reception goes beyond the official affirmation of common statements. It involves the mutual reception of the partners in dialogue as sisters and brothers in Christ. "It may require a transformation of one's own life and of relations with others" ([sections] 63).
I hope to have shown with these brief references to the Faith and Order study that the hermeneutical approach offers a new and rich perspective on the nature and purpose of ecumenical dialogue.
NOTES
(1) A Treasure in Earthen Vessels: An instrument for an Ecumenical Reflection on Hermeneutics, Faith and Order Paper no. 182, Geneva, WCC, 1998.
(2) Cf. "Scripture, Tradition and traditions", in The Fourth World Conference on Faith and Order, P.C. Rodger and L. Vischer, eds, Faith and Order Paper no. 42, London, SCM Press, 1964, pp.50-61.
* Konrad Raiser, general secretary of the World Council of Churches, gave this paper at the meeting of the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches in Antelias, Lebanon, 29 May 2000.
This document provided by HighBeam Research at http://www.highbeam.com
The Ecumenical Review
Date: 7/1/2000
Proposal for a Study
It may have come as a surprise to some members of the Joint Working Group to see the topic of ecumenical dialogue placed on the agenda again more than thirty years after the JWG, during its first mandate, had published a working paper on ecumenical dialogue. Since then "dialogue" has become the comprehensive term referring to all forms of interaction, exchange, conversation and collaboration between the Roman Catholic Church and member churches of the World Council of Churches. In one form or another, all members of the JWG have been involved in ecumenical dialogue and may feel that there is no need for a renewed study about the "nature and purpose of ecumenical dialogue". And, in fact, this topic was not part of the agenda proposals for this new period included in the seventh report of the JWG, submitted in 1998. Why, then, do we propose to enter into a new study on precisely this topic?
It is true that we have been involved in ecumenical dialogue for more than thirty years. These dialogues have differed widely in character but, as a consequence of this intensive activity, the conditions and the frame of reference for ecumenical dialogue have changed compared with the situation immediately after the Second Vatican Council. The most recent evidence of the fruits of ecumenical dialogue is the joint declaration on justification signed by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church and by the Lutheran World Federation on behalf of the Lutheran churches around the world. Many other dialogues, in particular those of a bilateral doctrinal character, have entered the phase of reception which changes the dynamic of the dialogue. It would therefore seem useful and appropriate to take stock of the experience of the last three decades and to map out the perspectives for ecumenical dialogue in the period ahead.
There is an additional reason for reopening the question of ecumenical dialogue. In several instances it seems that the dialogues have revitalized confessional identity and self-confidence, with the consequence that the results of ecumenical dialogue are being evaluated against the background of the official doctrinal positions of the separated churches, questioning the validity of the agreements reached. Expectations placed by the faithful in many of the churches in the ability of ecumenical dialogue to heal the divisions have been disappointed. It is therefore necessary to clarify the aims, the methodologies and the criteria used in evaluating the results of ecumenical dialogue.
Early positions on ecumenical dialogue
When the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches was formed in 1965, it was given the mandate to explore the bases and forms of collaboration between the Roman Catholic Church and the fellowship of churches in the World Council. In responding to this mandate, the JWG focused on the understanding and methodologies of ecumenical dialogue and published the results of its reflections in a working document in 1967. In a succinct way the document describes the aim and the basis of ecumenical dialogue, outlines the themes that should appropriately be covered, and identifies the conditions for and different forms of dialogue. Three years later, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity also published a text with "reflections and suggestions concerning ecumenical dialogue". The text was originally envisaged as part 3 of the Ecumenical Directory, but was then published as a "working paper". The structure is very similar to the text by the JWG, with slight changes in the sequence of the chapters; however, the document is much more developed and is rooted especially in the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.
Both texts taken together have served as a good framework for ecumenical activity for some thirty years. What was said then about the nature and aim, as well as the bases and the conditions, of ecumenical dialogue is still valid today. They have presented a comprehensive understanding of dialogue related to the full scope of the life of the churches. In many respects, their understanding of dialogue is more inclusive than the largely intellectual and theological model which has become dominant since then. Both texts hint at the underlying hermeneutical and methodological questions, but have probably underestimated their importance. The question of reception and, linked with this, of the addressees of the eventual results of ecumenical dialogue is not yet raised.
Obviously, thirty years ago ecumenical dialogue was a new undertaking and the affirmations about the bases and aims of ecumenical dialogue remained relatively general and tentative. Both texts seem to oscillate between a concept of dialogue as a means to reach agreement and understanding, or to search together for a deeper understanding of the truth; and an understanding of dialogue as an expression and manifestation of the real, even though limited, communion that already exists between the churches by virtue of the common baptism. In the development of ecumenical dialogue within the World Council of Churches this dialectic is well known since the commission on Faith and Order, at the third world conference in Lund in 1952, made the deliberate shift from the method of comparative ecclesiology to the christological method emphasizing the vertical, over against the horizontal, dimension in ecumenical dialogue.
More recent statements
This concern for the vertical and spiritual dimension of dialogue is placed in the centre of the reflection on ecumenical dialogue in the famous encyclical of Pope John Paul II Ut Unum Sint. In fact, the whole encyclical deals with the question of the nature and purpose of ecumenical dialogue, and its third chapter discusses extensively the fruits of ecumenical dialogues carded on over the last thirty years. Before addressing the practice and the results of dialogue, however, the encyclical focuses on the very basis and nature of dialogue as a way towards renewal and conversion. The encyclical places dialogue into the context of profound anthropological insights: dialogue is not only a way of exchanging ideas, but represents a mutual, reciprocal giving of oneself as an existential act. The encyclical wants to nurture this "spirit of dialogue" and to contribute to the emergence of a culture of dialogue.
Thus, before speaking about dialogue as a way to overcome disagreements, the encyclical underlines the need for an examination of conscience, that is, for the purification of the heart, and it calls for a mutual acknowledgment of the personal as well as social and structural "sins against unity". Dialogue must be permeated by the spirit of conversion, and thus become truly a "dialogue of conversion". It does not take place merely on a horizontal level, but has a vertical thrust in the common turning to God in Christ. This vertical aspect of dialogue lies in our acknowledgment, jointly and to each other, that we are men and women who have sinned. It is precisely this acknowledgment which creates in brothers and sisters living in communities, not in full communion with one another, that interior space where Christ, the source of the church's unity, can effectively act, with all the power of his Spirit, the Paraclete ( [sections] 35).
The encyclical thus takes seriously the call for "spiritual ecumenism", that change of heart and mind which is required for any true progress towards unity. It is this emphasis on the vertical and spiritual dimension of dialogue which is the most distinctive contribution of the encyclical to this renewed discussion about the nature and purpose of ecumenical dialogue. The subsequent indications of the encyclical about the conditions and methods of dialogue restate earlier explanations without, however, becoming more explicit about the underlying hermeneutical issues.
In the same year (1995), the JWG issued a study document concerning "Ecumenical Dialogue on Moral Issues", which was reprinted in the seventh report of the JWG. The document is an expression of wisdom and experience gained in ecumenical dialogue about potentially church-divisive moral and ethical issues. It strongly underlines the need to acknowledge the common basis which helps to place the differences in their proper perspective. One particularly important insight is the recognition of different "path-ways", that is, coherent frameworks of understanding, mentality and ethos which condition moral judgments. This insight is of great significance for any reflection about the hermeneutics of dialogue, and points to the need to take the contextual and historical dimensions more seriously than has hitherto been the case.
Where are we today: experiences and problems
After more than thirty years of ecumenical dialogue, a number of observations call for renewed reflection.
* At the beginning of Roman Catholic participation in the ecumenical movement, dialogue was the appropriate term to characterize the emerging relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the fellowship of churches in the WCC. Meanwhile, a great variety of forms of exchange and interaction have developed between churches and Christians of different traditions, and in many instances a genuine sense of communion has emerged. Is dialogue still the appropriate term to characterize these relationships?
* In spite of the affirmations in the different texts reviewed in the previous sections, dialogue is commonly associated with the exchange of ideas. The majority of encounters for which the term dialogue is being used focus largely on the doctrinal and intellectual dimension and have thus become a matter for experts. Very few dialogues include pastoral, ethical or contextual issues in their agenda. The meaning of dialogue has thus been narrowed and does not really embrace the encounter of life, the mutual giving of one another.
* Ecumenical dialogues, in particular those of a bilateral character, have taken very seriously the appeal to maintain the loyalty to one's own tradition. In fact, the intensive activity of bilateral dialogues seems to have led to an increased awareness of confessional identity. As a consequence, the partners in ecumenical dialogue have been more hesitant to engage in a process of learning from one another and thus to allow a renewal of the respective traditions to take place.
* The agreements reached in ecumenical dialogue respond to problems associated with historical doctrinal controversies, but they encounter difficulties in the process of reception, both on the level of the official teaching authority of the respective churches and among the faithful. This reveals that ecumenical dialogue very often gives insufficient attention to the historical, cultural and contextual dimension of differences and divisions. This would require a more intentional hermeneutical reflection.
* The emphasis on the examination of conscience and on the "dialogue of conversion", with the aim of opening the internal space for Christ to act through the Holy Spirit, has opened an important new perspective on ecumenical dialogue. However, the readiness to confess sins against unity must be coupled with the genuine will and openness to be transformed and changed. It is this process of transformation through dialogue which needs to be understood more fully and calls for methodological clarification.
* In this connection we will also have to become more explicit in discerning the common bases of dialogue which make ecumenical dialogue more than an academic exercise and turn it into an expression of the fellowship which already exists. The aim of dialogue would therefore not only be to reach agreement in the horizontal sense, but to deepen the sense of communion through processes of transformation and genuine conversion, in the sense of turning to God and to one another.
The hermeneutics of ecumenical dialogue
At several points, reference has already been made to the hermeneutical issues raised in the context of ecumenical dialogue. In this concluding section I want to draw attention to the study document on ecumenical hermeneutics published in 1998 by the commission on Faith and Order.(1) I believe that the JWG needs to take this study seriously in its effort to clarify the nature and purpose of ecumenical dialogue. In fact, the Faith and Order study can be regarded as a working instrument for those engaged in ecumenical dialogue, helping them to clarify the implicit questions of methodology which have been hinted at in the earlier texts on ecumenical dialogue, but have so far never been fully explicated.
This is not the place to give an extensive summary of the study. I shall limit myself to certain highlights.
* The study describes the task of ecumenical hermeneutics in ways that relate directly to the praxis of ecumenical dialogue. Ecumenical hermeneutics aims at "facilitating interpretation, communication and reception of texts, symbols and practices which give shape and meaning to particular communities" ( [sections] 5). Widening the scope of hermeneutics beyond the interpretation of texts to include also symbols and practices has its parallel in the more inclusive interpretation of dialogue. This is also true for the fuller definition of hermeneutics referring to "the art of interpretation and application of texts, symbols and practices in the present and from the past, and the theory about the methods of such interpretation and application" ([sections] 5). Beyond this general definition, the study distinguishes three dimensions of ecumenical hermeneutics, that is, a hermeneutics of coherence, responding to the need to hold together in unity the diverse expressions of the Christian faith; a hermeneutics of suspicion, reflecting the critical task of examining the historical and contextual relativity of affirmations of the faith; and a hermeneutics of confidence, aiming at the mutual reception and recognition of Christians and churches from various cultures, contexts and different confessions. All three dimensions of ecumenical hermeneutics find their parallel in central aspects of the method of ecumenical dialogue.
* The longest chapter of the study deals with the common understanding of the one Tradition, reviewing and taking further the discussion on scripture, Tradition and traditions since the affirmations of the Faith and Order world conference in Montreal in 1963.(2) This discussion is of immediate relevance for the question of how to remain loyal to one's own tradition and at the same time remain open to the renewing and transforming power of the Holy Spirit. The study reaffirms the insight that the tradition of the apostolic faith is never given once and for all, but that the gospel of Christ must continuously be re-received. Ecumenical dialogue opens the space for a renewed reception together of the "truth". As the partners in ecumenical dialogue open themselves to receiving together the gift of the gospel, they begin to move from mutual understanding to mutual recognition. Those engaging in ecumenical dialogue should constantly remind themselves that "ultimately, amid the many ecclesial traditions, the one Tradition is revealed in the living presence of Christ in the world, but is not something to be captured and controlled by human discourse. It is a living, eschatological reality, eluding all attempts at a final linguistic definition and conceptual disclosure. One way of describing the one Tradition is by speaking about the ecclesial capacity of receiving revelation. This capacity is nothing less than the gift of the Holy Spirit, ... who `will guide you into all the truth' (John 16:13)" ([sections] 37).
* In its chapter on the one gospel in many contexts the study examines the relationship between contextuality and catholicity and offers criteria which are equally relevant for ecumenical dialogue. More important, however, is the final chapter which describes "the church as a hermeneutical community". Ecumenical dialogue then becomes an expression of this calling of the church on all levels of its life to "interpret texts, symbols and practices so as to discern the word of God as a word of life amid ever changing times and places. This hermeneutical task undertaken by the church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is a condition for apostolic mission in and for the world. To speak of the church as a hermeneutical community is also to say that this community is a proper locus for the interpretation and the proclamation of the gospel" ([sections] 49). Ecumenical dialogue therefore becomes in itself an exercise of hermeneutics in the pursuit of visible unity. It cannot and must not be limited to experts and specialists, but is a task involving the whole people of God gathered in believing communities in diverse contexts. The hermeneutics of ecumenical dialogue refers in particular to the fact that the contributions of the partners in dialogue are shaped and conditioned by specific ecclesial, cultural, social, economic, geographical and historical backgrounds.
* The study finally addresses the issues of authority, mutual accountability and reception related to the hermeneutics of ecumenical dialogue. It emphasizes that the exercise of authority, in the sense of the ministry of oversight, must include a hermeneutical function. Within the church as a hermeneutical community, this responsibility is shared by the partners in dialogue who accept a mutual accountability and thus exercise for one another the ministry of oversight. Ecumenical dialogue ultimately aims at reception of the insights gained and the agreements reached, but reception goes beyond the official affirmation of common statements. It involves the mutual reception of the partners in dialogue as sisters and brothers in Christ. "It may require a transformation of one's own life and of relations with others" ([sections] 63).
I hope to have shown with these brief references to the Faith and Order study that the hermeneutical approach offers a new and rich perspective on the nature and purpose of ecumenical dialogue.
NOTES
(1) A Treasure in Earthen Vessels: An instrument for an Ecumenical Reflection on Hermeneutics, Faith and Order Paper no. 182, Geneva, WCC, 1998.
(2) Cf. "Scripture, Tradition and traditions", in The Fourth World Conference on Faith and Order, P.C. Rodger and L. Vischer, eds, Faith and Order Paper no. 42, London, SCM Press, 1964, pp.50-61.
* Konrad Raiser, general secretary of the World Council of Churches, gave this paper at the meeting of the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches in Antelias, Lebanon, 29 May 2000.
This document provided by HighBeam Research at http://www.highbeam.com
posted by Eric Nicolai @ 5:56 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home