Theology Today - Vol 42, No. 4 - January 1986 - ARTICLE

490 - BEM: Questions and Considerations

BEM: Questions and Considerations
By Markus Barth

"The authors of BEM do not intend to degrade Christ to a mere founder of the holy sacraments, or the Holy Spirit to a mere instrument of sacramental miracle working. But they say so many and such powerful things in praise of the sacraments that one would almost think that the perfection, validity, and glory of the work of Christ needs ecclesiastical assistance in order to be effective…. The document should in fact be 'received' just as it is. It deserves to be thoroughly discussed. But then, with expressions of thanks for services rendered, it should be packed away behind glass and carefully preserved in a safe place. "

AFTER working intensively for over almost two years with the Lima documents of 1982 (in the following, called BEM) and some of the consequent secondary literature, I present for discussion some provisional results of my observations and impressions. They can be expressed in the form of four critical questions, which deal with the relationships between: (1) the Word of God and the church, (2) God's accomplished work and the church's sacraments, (3) the celebration of the eucharist and the ordained ministry, and (4) the present scandalous division and the hoped-for future unity of the churches. Each question will be followed by some brief considerations.

Does BEM really mean to propose that the independent existence Of the church, that is, the structures and traditions, doctrines and practices which stem from the ancient church and later developments, occupy the same rank as (or even in practice a higher rank than) the living Word of God, the constantly renewed listening to that Word, and the ever renewed reformation of the church through the same Word?

Reformed doctrine is not the first nor the only voice to speak of the church as creatura verbi (creature of the Word). And yet a prominent Reformed theologian, who contributed much to the production of BEM,

Markus Barth is Professor of New Testament at the University of Basel, SwitzerIand. He is the author of several volumes on biblical studies and the nature of the church, such as Conversation with the Bible (1964) and The People of God (1983). The English translator of Dr. Barth's article, which is appearing in several other languages, is Lloyd Gaston, Professor of New Testament, Vancouver SchooI of Theology.

491 - BEM: Questions and Considerations

seems properly to interpret the intention and results of the so-called "ecumenical convergence" when he writes, "the church is not constantly being reborn of the Word alone" (Ecumenical Perspectives on Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry, ed. M. Thurian [Geneva: WCC, 1983], p. 8). That an ontology of the church, or a doctrinal and liturgical tradition together with a ministerial succession, participates in the same authority and is entitled to claim the same pious respect as the Word of God witnessed to in Scripture is a notion that belongs, to be sure, to the self-understanding of some three-quarters of the churches represented in the development of BEM. But if such a view were to become a presupposition of the promised and longed for unity of the church and of the proposed "common expression of the apostolic faith today" (BEM, p. x), the result would be only a Three-Quarter Oekumene. This would come to pass only by excluding churches of the Reformed and some Free Church traditions. The division among the churches would only be exacerbated by such a prostration before an institutional Great Church.

To be sure, biblical texts are often referred to explicitly or implicitly in BEM, but in decisive passages on the ministry they are conspicuously absent or meagre. Very often in the discussion of baptism and eucharist such biblical texts are adduced which, while they have been used as pillars in liturgical developments and sacramental doctrines since the second century, nevertheless do not speak explicitly of baptism or Lord's Supper at all. For example, John 3:5, I Cor. 6:11, and Heb. 10:22 are cited to show that baptism effects rebirth, justification, and cleansing of the heart (Bapt. 2, 4), while Rom. 12:1 and I Pet. 2:5 are taken to show that our sacrifice is united with Christ's sacrifice in the eucharistic anamnesis (rather vague in Euch. 10, clearer in the Lima Liturgy 23-24, and clearest in Ecumenical Perspectives, pp. 91, 231). It is, then, through the misuse of biblical texts in this fashion that justification, the gift of the Spirit, and baptism are declared to be simultaneous if not identical events (Bapt. 7, 8, 10, 14) and that the eucharist is sometimes characterized as a sacrifice offered by the church which actualizes the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Does BEM not give the impression that God's accomplished work-the incarnation of Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit-would be ineffective if it were not actualized through baptism, eucharist, and ministry; that is, ontologically mediated, noetically guaranteed, and thus functionally validated? Does not the one Mediator and his completed work thereby become dependent on "means of grace," on which the church thinks to have an administrative monopoly?

While BEM very impressively recognizes the once-for-all quality of the sacrificial and liberating death of Jesus Christ and its significance

492 - BEM: Questions and Considerations

for the salvation of all humanity (Euch. 5, 6, 8), it also presents impressive lists which specify the effects of the sacraments (especially Bapt. 2-4, l4; Euch. 1-2, 8, 13-14). Baptism and eucharist are quite properly called gifts of God, but BEM appears to stipulate that through them alone are mediated and applied God's paramount gifts, that is, the Son and the Spirit, grace and life, justification and sanctification. It is, for example, maintained that a person is reborn, incorporated into Christ, filled with the Spirit, made a new creature, assured of eternal life only when confronted with the Christ present in unique fashion in bread and wine (Euch. 13-14). In agreement with almost all prevailing doctrines of the sacraments, it is repeatedly pointed out that the sacraments signify what they effect and effect what they signify.

It must be admitted that the section on baptism does -not explicitly assert that salvation and the Spirit are given solely through baptism. Nevertheless, there is ascribed to the eucharist a unique presence of Christ, a very specific operation of the Spirit, a validation of the sacrifice on the cross, and a particularly effective anticipation of the return of the Lord. This observation does not mean to deny, of course, that baptism and eucharist have a necessary and exemplary function for all true liturgical and ethical service of God.

In the Bible, particularly in the narratives of Acts, water baptism is always carefully distinguished from Spirit baptism (differing from Bapt. l4). No eucharistic text whatsoever speaks of an extension of the incarnation, a combination of the sacrifice of Christ with the sacrifice of Christians, or a return of the Lord occurring in the transformed elements of bread and wine. Of course, the authors of BEM do not intend to degrade Christ to a mere founder of the holy sacraments, or the Holy Spirit to a mere instrument of sacramental miracle working. But they say so many and such powerful things in praise of the sacraments that one would almost think that the perfection, validity, and glory of the work of Christ needs ecclesiastical assistance in order to be effective. Because in similar fashion the Holy Spirit is, so to speak, channeled and ritually tamed, also the sovereignty and freedom of the Spirit seem more than merely curtailed; in any case, they are not praised enough.

When the Lima Liturgy (22) takes up a variation of the jubilant cry from I Tim. 3:16, "Great is the mystery of faith!", it probably does not relate it, as does the biblical text, to Jesus Christ himself. The newly created liturgical context makes the worshiper think rather of an actualization achieved through the miraculous transformation of bread and wine. Long ago, Jeremiah castigated with the strongest possible words a devotion to the temple and the cult of the Lord which blossomed at the expense of worship in spirit and in truth.

III

Does BEM really want to teach that the sacraments are only completely valid when they are celebrated by an official who has been consecrated by episcopal laying on of hands? Is then a hierarchical

493 - BEM: Questions and Considerations

church structure, especially the distinction between clergy and laity, a precondition for the reception and effectiveness of the gifts of God?

While BEM (Bapt. 22) provides for emergency baptism by a nonordained person, the celebration of the Lord's Supper without the presence of a consecrated priestly official is excluded. While the overall category "ministry" might allow one to consider the presider of the eucharist to be a "servant," other terms point in a direction which does not exclude power, domination, and a claim to monopoly. Jesus spoke very clearly against such claims in Matt. 20:25-26. But the Ministry section of BEM is as long as the Baptism and Eucharist parts put together, and it has the last word. The rendition of "ministry" by Amt (office) in the official German version augments the impression that BEM understands the church as a power structure in the sense repudiated, among others, by Luther's On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church and by Leonardo Boff in his recent book, Church, Charism, and Power (1985).

Why was the theme of ministry, that is, of ordained clergy, awarded so much space and weight? It is probably because the mutual nonrecognition of church offices and officers contributes more to the separation of the churches than the divergent ways of understanding the sacraments. It must be admitted that the authors of BEM did not want to solve the existing problems by propagating a secular concept of order and power. When they placed the sections on the sacraments before and above the discussion of offices, they hoped to make sure that the celebration of baptism and eucharist, as instituted by Jesus Christ, rather than any given concept of office, is the criterion and means to reunite the divided church. Although these reasons deserve to be taken seriously, some biblical considerations are more important.

In the New Testament, baptism, eucharist, and ministry are never found combined as a triple star in heaven or as three supports of a platform on the earth. While in BEM (Min. 11 - 12, 14, 17), ordained ministers are interpolated as intermediaries and power-channels between Jesus Christ and the congregation, this is not the case in the New Testament accounts of Jesus' Last Supper, in Paul's discussion of the Supper in I Cor. 10-11, or in John 6 and 13. Indispensable for the celebration of the Lord's Supper are in each case Jesus Christ alone and his flock, rather than ritually ordained clergy. He alone, and not a specific church hierarchy, is to be praised and glorified during this meal.

When the New Testament speaks of the institution of baptism, that is, in the account of Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist, the ministry of powerful proclamation is exercised by the one baptized, not by the baptizer (see especially Matt. 3:14-15). Similarly, the eucharistic text, I Cor. ll:26, says that all guests at the table of the Lord perform the proclamation of the death of the Lord. All church members who are present, rather than a presiding church officer alone, "do this in

494 - BEM: Questions and Considerations

remembrance" as joyful celebrants and communal heralds of the crucified, raised, and coming Lord. In short, the New Testament encourages us to understand baptism as the ordination of every Christian and the Lord's Supper as the union, edification, and fortification of the body of Christ in common praise of God, in missionary responsibility, and in brotherly and sisterly love.

For this reason, it is precisely these two sacred acts instituted by Jesus Christ which forbid and make impossible once for all the division of church members into two groups, the clergy and the laity. When BEM says "the ministry was instituted in the revelation accomplished in Christ" (Min. 39), it places the divine origin of church offices on the same high level as the unquestionable institution of the sacraments by the Lord. If the authors of BEM had carefully searched for a third partner to form a triad together with baptism and eucharist, then proclamation, prayer, faithful obedience, mission, or worship in everyday life would have recommended themselves, out of inner necessity and because of their close relationship to baptism and the Lord's Supper. BEM's talk of ministry is a metabasis eis allo genos, a change of topic based on preconceived ideas and hidden special interests.

BEM goes so far as to assert that ordained ministers are "representatives" of Christ to the congregation and that in most churches it is the ordained minister presiding at the table of the Lord who demonstrates that the eucharist is a gift of God; the minister is even said to "represent" the divine initiative (Min. 11, cf. 12; Euch. 29). In consequence, the real presence of Christ at the meal, which is everywhere passionately emphasized, is ascribed not only to the transformed bread and wine but just as much, or even more, to the function and person of the so-called "representative" of Christ ordained through episcopal laying on of hands. But the honor which is thus conferred exclusively on the properly ordained priest really belongs (according to Matt. 25:31ff., I Cor. 8, 12, 14, and also in the practice of the ancient church) to the little ones, the weak, and poor in the congregation.

It is precisely the little ones who count as the most valuable and necessary members of every congregation and of the whole church. For Christ has promised to be present before his triumphal return precisely in the least and the last of the congregation and the world. A eucharistic celebration that intends to establish communion with the crucified one in any other way than through communion with the least of his brothers and sisters is called by Paul impossible and unworthy; by putting to shame the "have-nots" among the brothers and sisters, it calls down judgment and is therefore catastrophic for the communicants (I Cor. 11:20-22, 27-33).

Of course, one thing or another could be omitted from or added to the third section of BEM which would modify somewhat the protest which so far has been raised against it, both in this article and in other critical evaluations. For example, the three-fold ministry which has been uncritically taken over from Ignatius of Antioch could at least be

495 - BEM: Questions and Considerations

somewhat relativized by a reference to the four-fold pattern suggested by Calvin. Episcopal succession and the laying on of hands could be mentioned less frequently and less tiresomely as a precondition and sign of the true church and the proper celebration of the sacraments. One could leave a little room for synods and accord them a bit of recognition. The ministry of Peter and the papacy could have been carefully defined, and a few critical remarks concerning its hitherto concrete manifestations could easily have been collected, especially from some recent Roman Catholic scholars.

Why does BEM dodge this issue when de facto the papacy has become an obstacle to unity rather than a symbol of it? However, the real weakness and fundamental wrongheadedness of the BEM statement on ministry are rooted so deeply in the system that one hardly touches them with a few cosmetic changes. In the third part on ministry, BEM brings to light and trumpets to the whole world what was already questionable in parts I and II (baptism and eucharist). Everywhere, to my regret and horror, the notion prevails that a church which relies on its structures and institutions and prides itself on its mandate of sacramental mediation of salvation can unite the presently divided churches and give to the whole world a believable witness to the grace of God.

Do the BEM authors really think that they can contribute to the unity of the churches and a future common expression of faith through the collection, addition, mixture, and compromise of older and newer ecclesiastical traditions?

According to the Preface (paragraph 17), the authors rejoice in the rediscovery of the richness of the common inheritance of all churches. The buried riches which have been discovered and called to our attention consist of ancient and medieval liturgies, doctrines, and traditions, in formulations which stem largely from the First and Second Worlds and which are influenced by their systems of thought and life. What then do they have to say to Third World churches? Instead of ignoring, despising, pre-judging, hating, and fighting one another, the authors were prepared to guarantee each other's inherited and well-preserved treasures, while preserving their own possessions. Cooperation and merger instead of competition, a common exterior front instead of mutual internal laceration, the accumulation of capital and the means of production-this is the language used for similar secular endeavors and actions, and it seems that something of the sort also lies behind BEM.

A few examples will illustrate the procedures adopted. In the "epiclesis" of the Eastern churches, the invocation of the Holy Spirit occurs during the consecration, with the conviction that the creator Spirit will change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ and thus ensure his real presence. In the Western "epiclesis," on the other hand, the Spirit is invoked to sanctify the hearts of believers and to unite dispersed

496 - BEM: Questions and Considerations

Christians and churches. These two "epicleses" are simply placed side by side in BEM (Euch. 14; cf. Lima Liturgy 21 and 24), with the result that faith in a physical transformation of the elements is connected amicably and peacefully with a spiritual interpretation of the Lord's Supper. In the East, more weight was put on the Spirit; in the West, on the Word. While the correctly enunciated formula was decisive for the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformation churches emphasized living proclamation, but in both cases the Word was paramount. BEM gives equal weight to both Spirit and Word. Finally, the document suggests the compatibility of the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus with the concept of a completion and re-presentation of this sacrifice through repeated ecclesiastical acts of sacrifice. On the other hand, a move both bold and overdue has been made when permission is granted in the future to let baptism of children and of "believers" coexist side by side, with equal validity and recognition by all churches.

Since all earthly committees have to find compromises, and since the results of their deliberations are often published in awkward, ambiguous, or simply very poor style, it is no surprise that the present result of almost sixty years' work by the Faith and Order Commission is a compromise document characterized by language which is not only often complicated but almost always less than beautiful. The slang of professional theologians prevails.

More important and surely more offensive, however, is the fact that instead of a search for the one and only truth, which according to John 14:6 is Jesus Christ alone, and to which in their own way all Christian communities once wanted to testify (often with burning zeal and not so rarely even with nasty means), the attempt has been made to compile a series of diverse truths which supposedly can be cheerfully mixed together. The possibility seems not to have been taken seriously that some theological controversies of the past have become unedifying, not to say sterile, because misleading questions had been asked, ugly and queer alternatives were considered crucial, and problematic philosophical premises were elevated to the rank of criteria for describing theological mysteries such as the Lord's Supper.

In BEM, we are confronted with nothing better than an accumulation of incompatible beliefs. Why have we not been presented with the committee's own struggle to find a better understanding of the Bible, to confess one's own and not the fellow Christian's obvious deviations from the Gospel, and perhaps even to sing a new song to the Lord concerning baptism and eucharist? The authors might have taken into consideration, for example, a growing consensus among serious recent students of New Testament eucharistic texts, according to which the medieval understanding of the transformation of bread and wine has nothing at all to do with the sense of the biblical wording. Instead of the vapid references to the "ethical implications" of baptism and eucharist, we might have found some strong and clear statements about the failure

497 - BEM: Questions and Considerations

and the calling of the church in the light of the crying physical and spiritual, communal and personal, needs inside and outside the church.

The way BEM is structured and formulated gives the impression of a church that thinks itself rich and sure, faithful and pious. The many references to the Trinity and the corresponding triadic structure of the sub-sections surely reveal the attempt to engage in centripetal theology and to propose the use of beautiful old liturgies. But it is strange that these references, this structure, and this intention do not lead to the insight and repentance referred to in Rev. 3:17-l9: "You say, I am rich … not knowing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked." As if with just a little bit of tolerance and the use of enriched liturgies, a mighty ecumenical advance could be achieved.

POSTSCRIPT

Among the undeniably important, sometimes even beautiful and clear things one can find in BEM, in spite of its drawbacks, are the frequent references to the divine promises which will be fulfilled only after the end of the present time. BEM's doctrine of the sacraments and ministry, in a word, of the church, differs from a triumphalism pure and simple insofar as it is restrained by the (eschatological) references to the return of Christ, the coming Kingdom, and the perfection still to come. And yet the eschatological allusions would have been more convincing if BEM had made very clear (with Eph. 4: l3) that the unity of the church, since it lies in God's hands, remains a promise for the future and can certainly not be advanced or produced through the combination of various riches or truths harvested from the past. BEM fails to make it unmistakably clear that the road to unity begins with repentance and that the attainment of the desired goal requires a renewed outpouring of the Holy Spirit, an unrestrained willingness to obey and follow the Lord alone, and the final coming and revelation of Jesus Christ himself. Neither theological nor liturgical manipulation can replace this repentance and openness to Christ and his Spirit.

Because BEM contains an excess of statements that lay claim to an ecclesiastical sacramental mediation of salvation, to an official authority guaranteed by God, and to well preserved old traditions, I cannot see what use the document might have for inner-church or missionary purposes. As is the case with individual Christians, according to Luther, congregations and churches must also confess that they are themselves beggars and have contributed and still contribute to the disunity among the churches and among human groups and nations. It is a pity that BEM confirms the churches and their members in the illusion that the solution will come from themselves. It is not clear to me what purpose it serves or what help, what consolation, what faith, what hope hungry and oppressed people, who live in fear of persecution and war and despair for their very existence, could receive from a document in which the church

498 - BEM: Questions and Considerations

thinks of itself and presents itself before the whole world as rich, satiated, and secure.

In a speech about BEM, delivered at Temple University in Philadelphia, one of the BEM promoters has stated that its authors expect the following response to their work: the churches are to "receive" the document the way the ancient churches of East and West, North and South "received" the New Testament Canon and the Creeds formulated by the great Ecumenical Councils. Yet even before BEM is received in this or any other way by the churches who contributed to its birth, the Preface of this document announces that it is a beginning and a preview of that statement of faith which Faith and Order will produce in the coming years or decades under the title "Towards the Common Expression of the Apostolic Faith Today." As is said in Ecumenical Perspectives (p. 9) with reference to BEM, "That agreement is already a first common expression of the apostolic faith." Is this a reason for joy and confidence? I think it is necessary to pray to God and to request from responsible church authorities that we do not proceed in the direction taken so far, but rather return and start once more from the beginning.

This calls for a very qualified "reception"--perhaps following the precedent of many a Parliament or other solemn assembly which "receives" (and sometimes lays aside) a sub-committee report. Since BEM is in its own way a unified, impressive, perhaps classical work, we should refrain from any attempt at picking it to pieces or tinkering with the text. Because neither criticism nor amendment are expected but only an act of reception, the document should in fact be "received" just as it is. It deserves to be thoroughly discussed. But then, with expressions of thanks for services rendered, it should be packed away behind glass and carefully preserved in a safe place.