478 - BEM: Challenge and Promise

BEM: Challenge and Promise
By Paul A. Crow, Jr.

"BEM is a barometer of the churches' honesty before God in the eventual fulfillment of Christ's will 'that they may all be one' (John 17)…. BEM brings a critical moment of truth to all Christian traditions. It is a moment of judgment and a moment of decision, neither of which can fulfill the will of the risen Christ without deep prayer, repentance, and spiritual struggling over what it means to be Christ's one body, one flock, one household in the world which God has created and redeemed."

IN 1982, the search for the visible unity of the church reached a landmark moment of maturity. Gathered at Lima, Peru, the theologians of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches unanimously received the convergence text on Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (BEM) and sent this 32-page document to the churches for official response and reception, saying:

We believe that the Holy Spirit has led us to this time, a kairos of the ecumenical movement when sadly divided churches have been enabled to arrive at substantial theological agreements. We believe that many significant advances are possible if in our churches we are sufficiently courageous and imaginative to embrace God's gift of church unity.¹

I

Beyond the historic dimensions of the agreements contained in this text, BEM has created phenomenal interest among Christians around the world. A dramatic symbol was revealed by the fervency shown toward BEM at the Vancouver Assembly of the WCC (1983). No official consideration was planned, yet in the midst of the Assembly-prompted by the celebration of BEM's companion liturgy, the so-called Lima Liturgy, in a colorful tent-the participants constantly witnessed to their enthusiasm and hope for this convergence process.

Since Vancouver, an avalanche of literature has appeared; for example,

Paul A. Crow, Jr. is President of the Council on Christian Unity of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and Editor of the ecumenical journal Mid-Stream. He has also served as the General Secretary of the Consultation on Church Union (COCU). An earlier draft of this article was presented last year at a conference in Moscow, USSR, jointly sponsored by the NationaI Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. and the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church.
1 Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry. Faith and Order Paper No. 111 (Geneva: WorId Council of Churches, 1982), p. xi (hereafter BEM).

479 - BEM: Challenge and Promise

with special issues on BEM in major ecumenical journals such as The International Review of Mission (WCC, Geneva), Mid-Stream: An Ecumenical Journal (Indianapolis), Journal of Ecumenical Studies (Philadelphia), One in Christ (London), and St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly (New York).² Reports tell of countless conferences in distant and diverse places on all six continents. In congregations, ecumenical study groups, ministerial associations, local and regional councils of churches, women's and youth groups, seminaries and theological faculties, official commissions and decision-making bodies in the churches, BEM or the Lima text is bringing the churches into a lively process of dialogue and ecclesiological reflection. The text itself has been translated into 26 languages and is an all-time bestseller among ecumenical publications. While more than enthusiasm will be required if God's gift of unity is to be accepted, nevertheless the unprecedented attention now being given to BEM illustrates its promise.

In this light, BEM is far more than a fad. It symbolizes the spiritual yearning of the churches to discover new relations, to be a truly reconciled and reconciling people. The divided churches realize they live today in a powerful contradiction. In the earlier days of the ecumenical movement, they proudly greeted the reclaiming of the biblical vision of unity and the opportunities for mutual understanding and common service and witness. But today, progress toward unity seems more difficult and diffused. Furthermore, the churches have been deeply shaken by their encounter with the moods and dynamics of the contemporary world where secularism and division reign. The innermost consciences of the churches are leading them to realize that unity is far more urgent and practical than is often acknowledged, and BEM is a providential theological instrument for bringing the churches out of their isolation into community and for giving them a life-giving presence in a fragmented world. In this sense, BEM is a barometer of the churches' honesty before God in the eventual fulfillment of Christ's will "that they may all be one … so that the world may believe that thou has sent me … and hast loved them…." (John 17).

II

The drama of Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry comes from several factors:

First, it represents nearly 60 years of prayerful, responsible, and official theological work. It reflects mature consensus-building about those issues which have divided the churches for centuries, and divides them even today. The origins of BEM lie in the First World Conference on Faith and Order held in 1927 at Lausanne, Switzerland, where church leaders and theologians identified these three issues as among

² International Review of Mission, Vol. LXXII, No. 286 (April, 1983); Mid-Stream: An Ecumenical Journal, Vol. XXIII, No. 3 (July, 1984); Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Vol. 21, No. I (Winter, 1984); One in Christ, Vol. XX, No. 1 (1984); St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 4 (1983).

480 - BEM: Challenge and Promise

those upon which the churches are most divided. During three later world conferences on Faith and Order, five assemblies of the World Council of Churches, and numerous consultations and commission meetings, the theology and praxis of the church's sacraments and ministry were debated and explored. The debate and consensus-building took place across at least six generations. A new momentum began at Lund, Sweden, in 1952, when the Third World Conference on Faith and Order marked a change in methodology. Lund decided that "comparative ecelesiology," merely comparing the different doctrines of the churches, had reached the end of its productiveness. The doctrine of the church should be explored in close relation both to the doctrine of Christ and to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. "Once again it has been proved true," said Lund, "that as we seek to draw closer to Christ we come closer to one another. We need, therefore, to penetrate behind our divisions to a deeper and richer understanding of the mystery of the God-given union of Christ with his church."³

In 1963, at Montreal, the Fourth World Conference liberated the search for a common understanding of ecclesiology, sacraments, and ministry by its decisive distinction between the Tradition of the Gospel and the different traditions of the churches which transmit the Tradition in historically conditioned forms. The starting-point for overcoming divisions, said Montreal, is therefore the affirmation of Scripture and Tradition. By Tradition is meant "the Tradition of the Gospel (the paradosis of the kerygma) testified in the Scripture, transmitted in and by the church through the power of the Holy Spirit."⁴ Once the churches began to seek their unity by exploring and expressing this Tradition, they found themselves drawn closer to each other and closer to the expression of their common faith.

On the basis of those two breakthroughs at Lund and Montreal, Faith and Order produced three agreed statements entitled One Baptism, One Eucharist, and a Mutually Recognized Ministry (Faith and Order Paper No. 73), which by the actions of the Commission at Accra, Ghana (1974) and the Nairobi Assembly (1975) were sent to the churches for official response. By 1976, about 110 member churches responded and contributed to the reshaping of the materials. After numerous consultations on various topics and with various constituencies, for example, Baptists (1978) and Orthodox (1979), the revised text on Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (Faith and Order Paper No. 111) went to the Faith and Order Commission at its l982 session at Lima, Peru. During the Lima meeting, 190 proposed revisions were considered; major issues were debated. Finally, on January l2, 1982, the text was unanimously received by the churches' representatives, declaring it "is now ready for transmission to the churches."

³ Oliver S. Tomkins, ed., The Third World Conference on Faith and Order Held at Lund, August l5th to 28th, 1952 (London: SCM Press, 1953), p. 15.
⁴ Patrick C. Rodger and Lukas Vischer, eds., The Fourth World Conference on Faith and Order, Montreal, 1963 (New York: Association Press, 1964), pp. 51-52.

481 - BEM: Challenge and Promise

It is important to note that the Commission on Faith and Order did not approve the text; the theologians transmitted the text to the churches for their response and eventual reception. I have gone to some length on this point to show that BEM is the product of a long, responsible process and that it was shaped not only by theological specialists but by widely representative church members.

The second significance of this convergence text lies in the universal participation which produced BEM. The Faith and Order Commission is, according to Orthodox theologian Nikos Nissiotis, "the most comprehensive theological and ecclesiastical forum in Christendom." This means that those who participate in shaping them are Protestants of all varieties-Anglicans, Lutherans, Disciples of Christ, Methodists, Reformed/Presbyterians, Baptists (including Southern Baptists), United Churches, Pentecostals, et al. Orthodox of all traditions, Eastern and Oriental, played major roles. Roman Catholic theologians, full members of Faith and Order since 1968, also made major contributions. Even churches outside the realm of the WCC see BEM as a spiritual catalyst toward the church's visible unity. Far beyond Europe and North America, it speaks of the faith in perspectives from Australia, Burma, India, Madagascar, the Soviet Union, the Middle East, and the Pacific Islands.

Those who shaped and finally affirmed BEM came from all parts of the Body of Christ and the oikoumene. This has led Fr. Avery Dulles, the Roman Catholic theologian, to say: "That theologians of such widely different traditions should be able to speak so harmoniously about Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry is unprecedented in the ecumenical movement." This significance could be perceived in even greater terms. The universal character of BEM's process undoubtedly represents the most inclusive theological process in the history of the church. But the crux of whether this fact bears fruit toward the unity of Christ's church will depend on whether the churches consider BEM as a discussion document for ecumenical game-playing or as a vision of the church to be claimed juridically and pastorally in their teaching and spirituality. In the latter way, it will manifest what the Uppsala Assembly called "a dynamic catholicity."

Third, BEM's significance comes from its role as a pivotal mark of the visible unity of the church which is the goal of the ecumenical movement. At the Nairobi Assembly (l975), the WCC made two commitments about the nature of the unity we seek in the ecumenical movement.

The WCC revised its Constitution in order to articulate its primary function in these words: "to proclaim the oneness of the church of Jesus Christ and to call the churches to the goal of visible unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship, expressed in worship and common life in Christ, in order that the world might believe." This change offered a

482 - BEM: Challenge and Promise

second clue to the vision of the church's unity which motivates the WCC and which after Nairobi became more specific. Nairobi adopted a description of this unity in the new term "conciliar fellowship," declaring:

The one church is to be envisioned as a conciliar fellowship of local churches which are themselves truly united. In this conciliar fellowship, each local church possesses, in communion with the others, the fullness of catholicity, witnesses to the same apostolic faith, and therefore recognizes the others as belonging to the same church of Christ and guided by the same Spirit…. They are bound together because they have received the same baptism, and share the same eucharist; they recognize each other's members and ministries. They are one in their common commitment to confess the Gospel of Christ by proclamation and service to the world. To this end, each church aims at maintaining sustained and sustaining relationships with her sister churches in conciliar gatherings whenever required for the fulfillment of their common calling….

It [conciliar fellowship] does not look towards a conception of unity different from that full organic unity sketched in the New Delhi Statement, but is rather a further elaboration of it. The term is intended to describe an aspect of the life of the one undivided church at all levels. In the first place, it expresses the unity of churches separated by distance, culture, and time, a unity which is publicly manifested when the representatives of these local churches gather together for a common meeting. It also refers to a quality of life within each local church; it underlies the fact that true unity is not monolithic, does not override the special gifts given to each member and to each local church, but rather cherishes and protects them.⁵

It is evident that this visible, organic unity implies neither a merger of organizations and institutions nor a uniformity which stifles all differences limiting the richness of Christian diversity. What the WCC wants to overcome is division, not diversity. It seeks a community (koinonia) in which the given unity of the faith makes possible a large diversity in all matters which express the Gospel.

In 1978 at Bangalore, India, Faith and Order fleshed out this vision by identifying at least three marks which the Vancouver Assembly (1983) agreed would be needed for a reunited church. These "credible marks" of conciliar fellowship, "affirmed in words, lived in deeds, relevant and credible to the problems of human community," but not yet fully shared by the divided churches, are: (1) a common understanding of the apostolic faith, (2) full mutual recognition of baptism, the eucharist, and the ministry, and (3) common ways of decision-making and teaching the faith authoritatively. It is only by understanding and accepting the goal of "conciliar fellowship," which is the hope for visible organic unity, that the purpose of BEM and other Faith and Order agenda will make sense. This purpose is to begin to move toward a doctrine of the church that centers its life at the eucharist and in mission. Conciliar fellowship becomes an expression of the koinonia of

⁵ David M. Paton, ed., Breaking Barriers: Nairobi 1975 (London: SPCK and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1976), p. 60.

483 - BEM: Challenge and Promise

those who are united in each place and in all places, and an expression of the fullness of eucharistic sharing and common witness in the midst of a suffering world divided by injustices, greed, and war.

Fourth, BEM's spiritual charisma can be seen in the fact that it is one of several signs of theological convergence within the wider ecumenical movement. In most situations, but especially for American churches, the vision of the church articulated in BEM is essentially the same as what is emerging in the church union movement (for example, in the USA the "emerging theological consensus" of the nine-church Consultation on Church Union) and in the theological vision of the bilateral dialogues. Scholars who are familiar with the Anglican-Roman Catholic (ARCIC), the Lutheran-Roman Catholic, or the Disciples of Christ-Roman Catholic international dialogues, can perceive the commonality of understanding about the faith and the church.

At a minimum, this similarity implies that the different documents should be studied together or in relationship to each other. The pace and status of these projects of theological convergence may be different, but they must be seen as complementary not competitive. These processes of reconciliation must be allowed to reinforce one another and to allow the unity process toward visible union to become more intense among the churches.

III

The dramatic impact of Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry comes not only from its potential to offer broad agreements upon those issues which have long divided the churches. Equally dramatic are the character of the document itself and the manner in which the document is expected to be used and acted upon by the churches.

BEM is described as a "convergence text" and not a "consensus." This distinction is more than a linguistic choice. Consensus is the fuller, more mature concept. It means "that experience of life and articulation of faith necessary to realize and maintain the church's unity. Such consensus is rooted in the communion built on Jesus Christ and the witness of the apostles. As a gift of the Spirit, it is realized as a communal experience before it can be articulated by common efforts into words."⁶ The drafters of BEM define its character with modesty in light of this far-reaching possibility.

In BEM, the churches have not yet fully reached consensus (consentire) as described above. Such consensus can be proclaimed and experienced only from a shared ecclesial and eucharistic life. The character of BEM is announced as a "convergence text," which is a fundamental, substantial agreement on the way toward a full unity in Christ. While never thought to be a complete agreement on all matters of faith-for such a moment we shall undoubtedly have to await the

6 BEM, p. x.

484 - BEM: Challenge and Promise

eschaton--this convergence does make it possible for a church to recognize the authentic witness of the apostolic faith in other churches. This convergence can thereby be called "a faithful and sufficient reflection of the common Christian tradition on essential elements of Christian communion."

Such a convergence text carries particular implications about the way the divided churches struggle together with those controversial issues that keep them from full living fellowship. Above all, it makes clear that theological convergence is more than political negotiation. Ecumenical dialogue, says Lukas Vischer, the former director of Faith and Order under whose guidance much of the work on BEM was achieved, is not only the encounter of two parties or churches about their differences:

Rather it brings both parties together in the presence of God. It is nothing less than the readiness of the partners to stand together in their responsibility to the Gospel itself, as it has been delivered to us. Its source lies in Jesus Christ and the cloud of witnesses who have confessed him through the centuries. We do not create the results ourselves; they are not due to clever inspirations which enable us to make fancy proclamations. What is won in the dialogue is more that the partners turn together to Jesus Christ, that they correct each other in their hearing and understanding, that they are ready to learn from the other something which they have overlooked up to this point .⁷

Such a theological convergence is thus a revelation to all the participants of the one Truth of God as given in Christ. The purpose of the BEM text is to show how the churches can confess Christ today together. Convergence, in this sense, is far more than negotiating past differences, however sacred and carefully defined. Its spiritual power increases when it opens the way to the future. Convergence is "a dynamic remembering" which presses the churches to the future.

From this qualitative description of the character of the BEM text, we need to understand exactly what the churches are asked to say and do about this convergence. The key word is "reception." Unlike the many ecumenical documents and reports sent again and again to the churches by the WCC, the bilateral dialogues, and other ecumenical bodies, BEM is not simply commended to them for "study and response," which implies casual reflection and possible action. This time the churches are asked to "receive" BEM, that is, to recognize in the text the faith of the church through the ages, to claim it as one of the teaching documents of the church, and to draw consequences about the relation of unity which might be possible among those churches which recognize BEM as an expression of the apostolic faith. Essentially, the reception of BEM calls upon the churches to discern Christ's body in our church and in the other churches. In this sense, BEM is the carrier of communion (koinonia) and unity and so offers the promise of new ecclesial fellowship.

Although reception calls for action by each church's juridical or

⁷ Lukas Vischer, "The Process of 'Reception' in the Ecumenical Movement," Mid-Stream: An Ecumenical Journal, Vol. XXIII, No. 3 (July, 1984), p. 222.

485 - BEM: Challenge and Promise

plenary body, it is more than a one-time action upon a document. Reception is a long-term, spiritual process of appropriating new life in the churches. A process so fundamental to our ecclesiology surely requires the active participation of the whole people of God-clergy and laity, men and women,, those who represent all the diversities of the one family of God. The specific ways in which BEM is to be received will vary from church to church. Ultimately, reception will lead the churches to adopt into their constitutions, canons, and disciplines, those definitions and interpretations which will encourage koinonia, the fuller ecumenical life. Our ways of communicating and interpreting the Gospel, our ways of worship and spirituality, our practices of Christian and theological education-all will embrace BEM as an instrument of the unity of the church.

For such a step to be taken can be seen as a bold, almost breathless, expectation. For such a reception to take place the churches will have to be open to renewal and reform, to interim steps of the mutual recognition of members and ministries, and to structures of common decisionmaking about faith and mission. Clearly, the reception of BEM will require of the churches a spiritual maturity which gives reality not only to the unity we seek in the ecumenical movement but to the unity we already have in Christ. Reception will involve a spirituality which leads to reconciliation.

IV

Seen from the perspective of a spiritual process, BEM brings promise in several directions.

In the first place, BEM posits the centrality of theology in the ecumenical vocation. Theology by definition is logos about theos, thought/action about God. Theology is the insightfulness of faith which empowers Christian proclamation and witness. Accordingly, theology is not merely what professors do with abstract concepts and scholarly tools. Nor is it the theory which church leaders need to justify their public prophetic messages. These are far too provincial images of the theological task. Theology is the daily reflection of all Christians whereby we seek to understand the mystery of our human existence as given by the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Such theology, which BEM is about, lies at the heart of the ecumenical pilgrimage because it integrates faith and mission, Gospel and world.

Second, BEM challenges us with a vision of the church which is sacramental and missional. Ironically, our divided ecclesiologies encourage false self-images at this point. It is often assumed that some churches, particularly the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican, are caretakers of the sacraments; others, primarily Protestants, are assumed to be the most faithful in prophetic mission and evangelism. These schismatic caricatures even affect the way certain theologians are responding to BEM. A few Reformed theologians think the convergence statement is too "catholic." Some Orthodox and Roman Catholics

486 - BEM: Challenge and Promise

mistrust the words of BEM, confessing their fear that the language alone will not be sufficient to overcome the Protestant ecclesiological biases which have developed since the sixteenth century.⁸ Yet both are inaccurate caricatures. BEM assumes the church is a community of evangelical koinonia and sacramental mission.

When Christians' missionary and social vision is separated from their sacramental life, both the sacraments and Christian witness are made trivial and the trancendance of the Gospel is lost. For example, if mission becomes only goodwill responses to human problems, or if evangelism becomes only proclaiming to save individual souls, our progress in witness and service will come to nought. Such mission becomes solidarity with others without the presence of Christ. The brokenness of the world-symbolized by racism, the threat of nuclear holocaust, the denial of human rights-is more than social problems. Fundamentally, this brokenness is a denial of the sacramental character of life given by God, and only a sacramental community will know the difference. Conversely, if the sacraments become merely institutional rites or rituals of personal piety without the conviction that they are empowerments for God's mission in the world, then baptism, eucharist, and ministry are distorted. We become a church without any expectation of the Kingdom of God. But for the community which awaits the Kingdom, which knows it is called to bear the stigmata, the marks of suffering, in its own life and members, the sacraments are signs of God's solidarity with the poor, the suffering, and the rejected of the world. This is one of BEM's most powerful promises.

Third, BEM conveys an inseparable relation between the unity of the church and the renewal of human community. A divided, fragmented world is the context for our search for wholeness and fullness. Sensitivity to this insight has led the. churches in the ecumenical movement to confess that what divides the people of God is more than the historic theological issues such as the alienation between believers' baptism and infant baptism, the nature of Christ's presence at the eucharist, or episcopacy and papacy. The church is also divided by the denial of human dignity and the image of God to the poor or to those of other races and ethnic groups. Schism is caused by those who marginalize women in the church or who put the church in uncritical service of nationalism. These divisions of the human community are reflected by the lack of community in the church. This paradigm is both old and new in the ecumenical movement, but it gives a powerful sense of urgency to the calling to visible church unity. God has called the church to be a sign to the world, the human community, of its unity and wholeness. Yet a divided church contributes not to reconciliation but to the power of division in the world.

⁸ Jean M. R. Tillard, O.P., "BEM: The Call for Judgment Upon the Churches and the Ecumenical Movement," Mid-Stream: An Ecumenical Journal, Vol. XXIII, No. 3 (July, 1984), pp. 234-242.

487 - BEM: Challenge and Promise

V

The greatest tragedy in the consideration and reception of BEM will be if some church leaders consider the issues of BEM as secondary or unimportant. Indeed, we already know that such an opinion exists in some of the member churches. This fact led the Vancouver Assembly to address the issue directly in the Issue 2 report on "Taking Steps Towards Unity":

At this assembly we have sensed a tension between some of those who are concerned for the unity of the church and others concerned with the desperate need for justice, peace, and reconciliation in the human community. For some, the search for a unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship seems, at best secondary, at worst irrelevant to the struggles for peace, justice, and human dignity; for others the church's political involvement against the evils of history seems at best, secondary, at worst detrimental to its role as eucharistic community and witness to the Gospel.

As Christians we want to affirm there can be no such division between unity and human renewal either in the church or in the agenda of the WCC. Indeed, the Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry text has underlined for us that baptism, eucharist, and ministry are healing and uniting signs of a church living and working for a renewed and reconciled humankind.⁹

While not as dominant as many would like, this vision of the ecumenical hope is internal to the text itself. About baptism, BEM says:

As they grow in the Christian life of faith, baptized Christians demonstrate that humanity can be regenerated and liberated…. Within the fellowship of witness and service, Christians discover the full significance of the one baptism and the gift of God to all God's people. Likewise, they acknowledge that baptism, as a baptism into Christ's death, has ethical implications which not only call for personal sanctification, but also motivate Christians to strive for the realization of the will of God in all realms of life (Rom. 6:9ff.; Gal. 3:27-28; I Pet. 2:21-4:6).¹⁰

On the eucharist, the text endorses a eucharistic life in the midst of all struggles for justice, peace, and power in the world:

The eucharist embraces all aspects of life. It is a representative act of thanksgiving and offering on behalf of the whole world. 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, economic, and political life (Matt. 5:23f.; I Cor. 10:16f.; 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. Through the eucharist, the all-renewing grace of God penetrates and restores human personality and dignity. The eucharist involves the believer in the central event of the world's history.¹¹

⁹ David Gill, ed., Gathered for Life: Official Report of the 6th Assembly of the World Council of Churches, Vancouver, Canada, 24 July-10 August, 1983 (Geneva: WCC and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983), p. 49.
¹⁰ BEM, paragraph 10 (Baptism), p. 4.
¹¹ BEM, paragraph 20 (Eucharist), p. 14.

488 - BEM: Challenge and Promise

The ministry section projects an ordained ministry based upon the calling of the whole people of God to proclaim and prefigure the Kingdom of God:

The church is called to proclaim and prefigure the Kingdom of God. It accomplishes this by announcing the Gospel to the world and by its very existence as the body of Christ. In Jesus, the Kingdom of God came among us. He offered salvation to sinners. He preached the good news to the poor, release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, liberation to the oppressed (Luke 4:18). Christ established a new access to the Father. Living in this communion with God, all members of the church are called to confess their faith and to give account of their hope. They are to identify with the joys and sufferings of all people as they seek to witness in caring love. The members of Christ's body are to struggle with the oppressed towards that freedom and dignity promised with the coming of the Kingdom. This mission needs to be carried out in varying political, social, and cultural contexts. In order to fulfill this mission faithfully, they seek relevant forms of witness and service in each situation. In doing so, they bring to the world a foretaste of the joy and glory of God's Kingdom.¹²

Those led by such a doctrine and praxis of the church will see both the unity of the church and the unity and renewal of the human family as the common calling of the Gospel. They will confess together that nothing is more critical and timely than for the universal fellowship of Christ to become visible in the world of pain, struggling, and disunity.

The ecumenical movement always addresses the churches with judgment and promise, with practical proposals and eschatological hope for the unity of the church. The judgment which BEM brings to our divisions-ancient and contemporary, theological, and societal-is recognized by those in the churches who are probing the meaning of this "fragile bridge of words" which we call Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry. Orthodox theologians such as Nikos Nissiotis (Greek Orthodox) and Thomas Hopko (Orthodox Church of America) believe BEM confronts Orthodox both with a number of critical issues about Orthodox beliefs and practice and with difficult decisions.¹³ Jean Tillard, the Roman Catholic vice-moderator of Faith and Order and leading theologian in the bilateral dialogues, is convinced that BEM offers the possibility of true ecumenical "growing together towards fullness in truth. As such it is the fulfillment of ecumenism as taught by the Roman Catholic Church and ecumenism as pursued so many decades by the World Council of Churches." If, therefore, some churches in general and the Roman Catholic Church in particular reject BEM because of the way it draws all the churches back to the early tradition, then, says Tillard, they "shall implicitly affirm that everything done since Lausanne (1927) and ever since the foundation of the WCC (1948) was on a

¹² BEM, paragraph 4 (Ministry), p. 20.
¹³ Nikos Nissiotis, "Preface" in Ecumenical Perspectives on Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry, ed. by Max Thurian. Faith and Order Paper No. 116 (Geneva: WCC, 1983), pp. vii-xiii; Thomas Hopko, "The Lima Statement and the Orthodox," St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 4 (1983), pp. 281-290.

489 - BEM: Challenge and Promise

wrong track."¹⁴ The only option in such a case would be to begin with an entirely different approach to the unity of Christ's church. Yet, in such a departure it would be nearly impossible to expect confidence from other churches toward any approach which deliberately bypasses BEM. Numerous Protestant theologians make the same testimony.

No one expects the reception of BEM to be heralded with uncritical rapture or instant universal approval. Reception will come, by God's grace, through profound spiritual struggle and renewal. In this respect, BEM brings a critical moment of truth to all Christian traditions. It is a moment of judgment and a moment of decision, neither of which can fulfill the will of the risen Christ without deep prayer, repentance, and spiritual struggling over what it means to be Christ's one body, one flock, one household in the world which God has created and redeemed.

¹⁴ See Tillard op. cit., p. 240.