COMMENTS ON “UNITY OF THE CHURCH - UNITY OF MANKIND”

Josi MIGUEZ Bomo*

As I read Prof. Meyendorff‘s presentation, and as I listened to it today, I was moved in two different directions. It is this duality which I want to present as simply and as frankly as I can. On the one hand, I am greatly attracted by the theological depth and richness of the presentation. It seems to me that it has succeeded in focusing on the central issue - anthropology, and then in rightly connecting this basic nucleus with the two foci of our theme : the unity of the Church, and the unity of mankind, placing the whole in the escha- tological perspective which gives to it direction and dynamism. In this respect I think we would greatly profit by taking very seriously this presentation’s strong plea not to lose ourselves in the consideration of a number of interesting but secondary issues, or rather not to lose sight, even in these considerations, of the central core of our subject. Moreover, I find myself in total agreement with Prof. Meyendorff’s insistence on the fundamental character of the local as centre, and in this respect his emphasis on the eucharistic center of unity - the eucha- rist, as he says, can only be celebrated locally - this emphasis must be welcome. I am one, at least, who believes that we should not strive to outgrow too quickly the New Delhi point of departure in characterizing Christian unity, not at least until we have solidly incorporated this basic local reference in our thought about unity. Consequently, I find totally congenial the presentation’s emphasis on “fellowship” (koinonia) as the defining category in the consideration of unity. Much discussion of unity has been so fascinated with the structure and the scope of ecclesiastical unity that it has missed what to me seems central to the New Testament, namely the quality of ecclesial unity. It seems to me that the exploration of this quality is a much more fruitful way of relating, both positively and critically, the unity of the Church and the unity of mankind. A number of very valuable points of theological reflection can very profitably be pursued starting from this point. For all these reasons, I find myself reacting positively to this address.

* The Rev. Dr. JosB MICUEZ BONINO, Methodist Church, is Dean of Graduate Studies at the Instituto Superior Evangklico de Estudios Teol6gicos, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

48 THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

But at the same time I have felt all along a growing uneasiness, not so much with the contents as with some hidden presupposition or pre- condition of this whole theological exercise. I find this dissatisfaction quite difficult to articulate. But at the same time I think it is important to bring it out, because it has to do with the way in which we face theological problematics. And I feel it very deeply because it has to do with a question which has in the last years disturbed more and more my own theological stance and work. I think I can best convey my concern by asking one question. From what point is this theology done? Where is the theologian placed who can think and write this theology? What is the location which makes his perspective possible ? This theology seems to look at the question of unity and division from a place where, for instance, non-involvement in the issues of the world (p. 45) is a possibility ; a place in which it is possible to do theology dis- carding secular categories; a place from which one can survey with detachment human enthusiasm about various social causes and systems ; a place at which one is free from ‘dogmatic political ideologies’, a place in which one is liberated from all determinisms. All in all, this theology seems to be possible for a man placed outside conflict and tension, hovering above history and the world, detachedly looking at men and history sub specie aeternitatis. My description may be somewhat exaggerated, but I cannot evade this overall impression as I read this paper. And I ask myself, where is that place? The answer seems to be that this eschatological place in which the Church moves free from the secular goals of mankind is at the eucharist . This unthreatened standpoint becomes then the centre of unity, the point of departure for our reflection about the unity of the Church and the unity of mankind. Herein is precisely my problem. Is this “eschatological eucharist” a place at which a theologian can place himself, from which he can theologize? Is it not rather a place for which one can hope and pray, a judgement and a promise on all our theological thinking - a thinking which one must avow that it is done within the conditions of this worldly, historical existence, here between the times, at a eucharist and in a Church which are fraught with all the ambiguities and tensions of com- mon human life, subject to an unavoidable entanglement with ideo- logies and determinisms, secular categories and conscious or unconscious involvement.

COMMENTS ON <( UNITY OF THE CHURCH - UNITY OF MANKIND )) 49

This is, at least, the only theology I find. The claims to transcend it only succeed in suppressing the consciousness of the time-boundness of their categories and engagements, and therefore making them all the more dangerous. Even more decisively, is this threatened and conflicting world not the one in which Biblical thought and action themselves find their locus ? Must not all our discussion of the eucharist resemble Paul’s Corinthian struggle with class tension, immorality and division in relation to the Table of the Lord ? Is it not significant that Koinonia is repeatedly brought in the N.T. in connection with the selling and sharing of prop- erty, the offering of solidarity, or with very concrete actions and suffer- ings of the Church in the midst of the world ? Can we speak of a relation to God to which human relations are “only secondary” which is inde- pendent of the human relations pointed out in the law? Is not the prophetic message precisely that there is no ‘eucharist’ outside the scope of the conditions of justice and faithfulness in terms of which God has covenanted with his people ? And, in turn, whenever we start discussing unity from within the context defined by these questions, are we not immediately plunged in the world of ideologies, secular categories, involve- ment, conflict and tension ? I know that this paper invites us to move from the eschatological centre (!) to the world and its tensions. But is this possible? Is not this really an artificial planteamiento of the problem ? Is it not really the case that we stak always from somewhere within the world, and then can only look critically at our own condition from within it ? In other words, do not theologians always look at unity from below, not from above, from within divisions and tensions ? Do we have any other place from where to look at the eschatological promise except the cross? This question of perspective seems to me very important. Somehow, from the perspective chosen in the paper, the very problem of evil which is so strongly raised, seems to be clouded in vagueness. On the other hand, the ‘transcendence’ intended seems to issue in conservatism. The author may not intend it. But what other consequence can come - or indeed has come - from a position for which “active work for recon- ciliation, unity and justice” is “of no great eschatological significance ?’. Are we not finally led in this way to a reconciliation with ‘things as they are’ by contrasting the ambiguous involvement in which only ‘relative betterments’ can be found with a ‘complete refusal to compromise with the forms and forces of our world’ (Ellul) - so absolute that it does not touch reality at any point ? Can we - the Christians and the

50 THE ECUMENICAL. REVIEW

Churches that meet here or anywhere in this world and in history - claim to withdraw into the Absolute except by absolutizing the very relative standpoint in which we happen to find ourselves? Which, in our particular case, means absolutizing as “Christian unity” one of the patterns of thought and structure that can be so clearly dated historically, politically, ideologically. I am aware that I have pushed some elements in the presentation to rather extreme consequences. As the paper itself says, this is not a “balanced presidential address” ! I have therefore tried to pose an issue which seems to me of extreme importance in terms of the significance of the work of Faith and Order for the life of the Church and of mankind in general at this moment in history.