The Sharing of Faith, the Sharing of Resources

The Sharing of Faith, the Sharing of Resources

Michael Kinnamon

I must admit that my first reaction, upon being asked to explore the relationship between the sharing of bread and wine in the eucharist and the mutual sharing of our resources as parts of the global church, was to say: “That has already been done - many times! What purpose can be served by reiterating this relationship?’

To take one example, the firsr principle expressed in the booklet “Towards an Ecumenical Commitment for Resource Sharing” reads as follows:

Sharing is deeply rooted in the Eucharist and is at the heart of the Pauline image of the Church as the Body of Christ. In the Eucharist we celebrate the self-giving of Christ and we share in the life God has offered in him. In Saint Paul’s familiar image of the body, the Church exists through the sharing and mutual support among its diverse parts. This sharing is not only for or among the churches, but in and for the world. It goes beyond giving and receiving to mutuality and equality. It is a continuous act of love and justice in community. Ecumenical sharing is thus the mark of a community rooted in the Eucharist which confesses Jesus Christ as the life of the world.’

It is hard not to agree with Philip Potter when he argues that the real debate today over the ecumenical sharing of resources (ESR) is not theological. “The nerve of what we have to do lies in the structure of relationships, not in the theology of relationships.”’ Churches in the ecumenical movement have agreed that their reality as eucharistic fellowship calls them to a life of sharing. The question now is simply how to get on with it. How can we overcome the forces that keep us from becoming what we know we are called to be as followers of Christ whose body and blood we share in the central act of Christian worship?

The Rev. Dr Michael Kinnamon, assistant professor of theology at the Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis, Indiana. USA, was formerly executive secretary of the WCC’s Faith and Order Commission. ‘Geneva, WCC, 1984, p.4. A WCC publication devoted entirely to this theme is Sharing One Ereud. Sharing One Mission: the Eucharist as Missionary Event (1983). ’Empty Hands, Geneva, WCC. 1980, p.56.

370

THE SHARING OF FAITH, THE SHARING OF RESOURCES

Still, despite all of this work and apparent agreement, there is a tendency - unfortunately widespread - to play off parts of the ecumenical movement against each other. How could Faith and Order spend one year, let alone fifty, I am sometimes asked, inching its way towards convergence on such arcane issues as baptism, eucharist and ministry at a time when hundreds of millions of people lack the basic necessities of life? How is this theological reconciliation going to help us deal with the massive disparity in the distribution of the world’s resources, including the disparity that exists between the various parts of Christ’s one body?

It is this question which prompts me to offer these thoughts on the eucharist and resource sharing. In the first part of this paper, I will turn to the Faith and Order document, “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” (BEM), lifting up four themes in the eucharist section that bear on our topic. I am convinced that this most significant milestone in the search for visible church unity can deepen our understanding of - and, perhaps, our commitment to - the church as a community of sharing. Then, in the second part of the paper, I will suggest how the intersection of BEM and ESR can also deepen our understanding of the future ecumenical agenda.

Before proceeding, however, I want to anticipate two possible reservations. First, the argument that follows is decidedly more prescriptive than descriptive. Despite general enthusiasm for BEM’s mission orientation, the eucharist is still frequently understood by communities around the world as a time for individualistic communing with God, quite divorced from the church’s mission in and for the world. More will be said about this tension in the second part.

Second, any prescriptive discussion of our sacramental life must, of course, ultimately rest on the normative sources of Christian faith, must be rooted in the “Tradition of the Gospel” as it is testified in scripture and transmitted in and by the church through the power of the Holy Spirit.3

BEM is not, in itself, such a normative authority; but it is the result of a painstaking attempt - involving dialogue among leading Protestant, Orthodox and Roman‘ Catholic scholars - to express the Tradition of the gospel more fully than in any of our separated traditions. I look to BEM, then, not because current ecumenical documents are as authoritative as Scripture and Tradition, but because there is no need “to reinvent the wheel” each time we are faced with such an assignment.

A more biblical understanding of “memorial” Nearly all commentators on BEM have observed that the heart of the eucharist

section is a more biblical understanding of amrnnesis or “memorial”. The sterile impasse over whether the eucharist is a sacrament of Christ’s real presence (“this is my body”) or a memorial of his death and resurrection (“do this in remembrance of me”) has been overcome, at least to a great extent, through this scholarship. Most traditions now affirm4 that memorial - when set in the context of proclamation, thanksgiving, and invocation of the Holy Spirit - is not to be understood as a pleasant recollection

’This language is borrowed from the well-known statement on “Scripture, Tradition and Traditions” produced by the Montreal World Conference on Faith and Order in 1963. See P.C. Rodger and M a s Vixher, eds., The Fourth World Conference on Faith nnd Order, New York, Association R e s s , 1964,

‘ b e “official responses’’ to BEM now coming in to Geneva support this assertion. See Max Thurian, ed., Churches Respond ro BEM, Vol. 1, Geneva, WCC, 1986.

52.

37 1

THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

of something that happened “back then” or “over there”, but as a way of making the reality of God’s saving act in Christ newly present for each generation.

The biblical idea of memorial as applied to the eucharist refers to this present efficacy of God’s work when it is celebrated by God’s people in a liturgy (par.5). Christ himself with all that he has accomplished for us and for all creation ... is present in this anumnesis, granting us communion with himself (par.6).

It is not eitherlor; “memorial” and “real presence” go hand in hand. This, however, is where our discussion needs to push further. The BEM presenta-

tion of anurnnesis makes at least two points that bear directly on the issue of sharing. a) BEM understands Christ, whose presence we encounter in the eucharist, as the

servant who went out to publicans and sinners during his earthly ministry (par.24), and who gave himself on the cross for the sake of the world. The cucharist, according to the text, recalls “Christ’s own testimony as a servant, in whose servanthood Christians themselves participate” (par.21). The memorial we celebrate, in other words, is precisely of One whose life was a total self-giving, of One who emptied himself in the ultimate expression of human sharing.

b) In a significant, but often overlooked, passage, BEM claims that “the anurnnesis in which Christ acts through the joyful celebration of his church is both representation and anticipation” (par.7). This important tension permeates this section of the document. Paragraph 3, for example, notes that the eucharist is an offering of thanks “for everything accomplished by God” and “for everything that God will accomplish”. This same tension is found, of course, in the institution narratives themselves. We eat and drink in remembrance of Christ and in anticipation of the day when we will feast with him in his kingdom. We celebrate that Jesus is Lord; but our celebration is tinged with restlessness: Come, Lord Jesus! There is too much injustice! There is too much hatred! There is too little sharing! Therefore, come in the fullness of your reign! I t is this tension which gives the eucharist much of its prophetic, ethical thrust.

The double meaning of “communion”

Christian life are fully intertwined. BEM is clear that at the Lord’s table the “vertical” and “horizontal” dimensions of

The eucharistic communion with Christ who nourishes the life of the Church is at the same time communion within the body of Christ which is thc Church. Thc sharing of one bread and the common cup in a given place demonstrates and effects the oneness of the sharers with Christ and with their fellow sharers in all times and placcs (par.19).

To be united with Christ in this meal is to be united with the members of his body. In one sense, such unity is a divine gift. In another, however, such talk is nothing but empty rhetoric unless it results in committed opposition to those things that disrupt Christian community. Thus, in the next paragraph (one of the most frequently quoted in commentaries on the document), BEM contends:

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. All kinds of injustice, racism, separation and lack of freedom are radically challenged when we share in the body and blood of Christ (par.20).

372

THE SHARlNG OF FAITH, THE SHARING OF RESOURCES

Unity, this implies, is not only a matter of overcoming barriers, but also of confronting, with God’s help and in response to God’s lead, the human barriers which split our communities. The eucharist is a summons to a more inclusive, sharing community; it opens us to the model and power of the cross and invokes the Spirit that we may be enabled to tear down the “dividing walls of hostility” in the church.

The concept of koinoniu, so central to Pauline thought, is instructive of the biblical perspective. As used by the apostle, koinoniu has two particular meanings: (a) participation in (fellowship or communion with) Christ, and (b) mutual participation in (fellowship or communion with) the community of believers. Such fellowship with Christ, says Paul, is experienced most directly in the sacramental life of the church, and especially in the eucharist. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a sharing (communion, participation, koinonia) in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). This well-known passage goes on to affirm that common participation in the eucharistic loaf (the body of Christ) unites the many who partake into one body (the body of Christ). And because of this we dare not say to one another “I have no need of you” or “I will not care for your needs” ( 1 Cor. 12:21).

The entire New Testament (e.g. 1 John 1:3-7) reinforces this idea that our sacramental sharing in Christ should ufwuys lead to mutual sharing with members of the community. Such koinonia is not simply a matter of “being interested in” others, or even of philanthropy. It means a sharing in one another’s suffering (Col. 1:24) and tribulations (Phil. 4:14), a sharing in times of consolation (2 Cor. 1:7), an offering of active assistance in times of need (2 Cor. 8 and 9), a community of mutual service (1 Pet. 4:lO) and of loving participation in the life of others (Acts 2:42-47). This connection between “the sacrament of the altar and the sacrament of the brother”, to use a phrase of Constantine Patelos,’ is inescapable, a fact that Paul underlines by using the same word (koinonia) to explain the meaning of the eucharist (1 Cor. 10: 16) and to describe the significance of aiding the church in Jerusalem (Rom. 15:26). The members of the Christian family around the world and throughout history are literally related to each other by blood - the blood of Jesus Christ which was shed for us all and which courses through our common body as we join together around our family table. Indeed, so foundational is our sharing with Christian brothers and sisters that it is presented in Matthew 25 as the basis of judgment upon our history.

This double meaning of “communion” is also expressed in BEM’s unusually strong emphasis (at least for the Western church) on the activity of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit

who makes the historical words of Jesus present and alive. Being assured by Jesus’ promise in the words of institution that it will be answered, the Church prays to the Father for the gift of the Holy Spirit in order that the eucharistic event may be a reality (par. 14).

The point, of course, is that the eucharist is not a magical act (something we do) but an expression of faith that God, through the Spirit, will act to answer our prayer for the fellowship promised by Christ.6

’ Empry H a d , op. cir., p.39. 6Thus, while the eucharist does not depend on faith (which would again make us the primary actors), faith is certainly required to discern the presence of Christ (see par. 13).

373


Crucial for our discussion is BEM’s acknowledgment that the prayer of epiclesis (invocation) in the eucharistic liturgy is not only concerned with the bread and the cup but is an invocation that the faithful may be transformed by the Spirit. “The Church, as the community of the new covenant, confidently invokes the Spirit, in order that it may be sanctified and renewed, led into all justice, truth and unity, and empowered to fulfill its mission in the world” (par.17). In other words, our prayer, in line with the previous discussion of koinonia is (a) that we may have communion with the crucified Lord, and (b) that we may become more truly what we eat - the body of Christ broken and given for each other and the world.’

A basis for mutual sharing - and for sharing with humankind

BEM does not stop with internal Christian relations. This last claim moves us in a new (and, for some, more controversial) direction:

The eucharist involves the believer in the central event of the world‘s history. As participants in the eucharist, therefore, we prove inconsistent if we are not actively participating in this ongoing restoration of the world’s situation and the human condition (par.20, emphasis added).

Since Christ died for all humanity, since “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself’ (2 Cor. 5:19), our eucharistic experience of Christ’s real presence should move us, says BEM, to “responsible care ... for one another and the world” (par.21). Indeed, we are placed under judgment by the persistence of injustice and division in both society and church (par.20).

Nearly all traditions, at one time or another, have allowed the eucharist to be seen as a private, individualistic act, as an affair “between me and God” that has little to do with the person in the next pew, let alone those outside the sanctuary. This is most definitely not the spirit of BEM. It regards the eucharist as a bond of unity among Christians (i.e. as a basis for our mutual sharing) and as a commission to social engagement beyond the church (i.e. as a basis for our sharing with humankind). Participation in the eucharist signifies the obligation to live, and the possibility of living, in a new way.

There are, of course, those who are impatient with the effort expended on reaching a deeper, common understanding of the Lord’s supper at a time when so many are hungry and homeless and the world lives with the threat of nuclear cataclysm. BEM’s response is not to ignore these realities but to call us back to the source of effective opposition to them. Christianity has always known that, given the overwhelming reality of sin, a purely human struggle against evil would ultimately be doomed to frustration. But that is where the good news comes in: through faith we know that we do not struggle alone. The primary activity for our salvation, and for the renewal of the human community, is God’s - a fact which we recall and for which we give thanks around the Lord’s table. Yes, active participation in God’s mission is the ultimate test of the faithfulness of the church to its life of sacramental celebration; but the proclamation of Christ in word and and sacrament is the cornerstone of Christian mission. “The eucharist is precious food for missionaries.. .” (par.26). Having tasted

’The “passing of the peace”, lifted up by BEM as a normal part of the euchanstic liturgy (par.27). IS also a sign of human reconciliation in response to (or anticipation of) communion wlth Christ.

374


God’s reconciling love, we are encouraged and empowered to be “servants of reconciliation among men and women” (par.24).

The problem, therefore, is not that we fiddle with dogma while the world bums but that we fail to live out the implications of our sacramental life in the world. We so often fail, in the words of the Vancouver Assembly, to live ‘‘a eucharist way of life” that gives thanks (eucharisriu) for what God has done, is doing, and will do on our behalf through acts of joyous self-offering.

BEM develops this theme in a variety of ways. I will briefly mention two others. a) The Faith and Order document insists not only that we are sent from the table

nourished for mission but that “the very celebration of the eucharist is an instance of the church’s participation in God’s mission to the world” (par.25). In its liturgy, the church gives thanks to God on behalf of the whole creation and intercedes through Christ for the world’s restoration. Prayer for the world is not a substitute for bread for the world, but it is an important, even indispensable, complement.

b) BEM emphasizes the significance of “meals” (see par. 1). of eating together such common substances as wheat and grapes. Theologically, this reminds us that the material creation, and our everyday interactions within it. have (from Genesis on) been the scene and vehicle of our communion with God. Beyond that, as John Poulton makes clear in The Feusr of Life,

in a world where so many starve. the very act of eating and drinking at all is today disclosing meanings not seen before. We can only dare to partake in the spirit of commitment to action whereby men and women and children everywhere shall have more hope of “daily bread“.*

Anticipation of the kingdom Finally, BEM is noteworthy for its strong emphasis on the kingdom of God. The

eucharist, it contends, signifies and anticipates “what the world is to become ... a kingdom of justice, love and peace in the Holy Spirit” (par.4). The most explicit statement is found in paragraph 22:

The eucharist opens up the vision of the divine rule which has been promised as the final renewal of creation, and is a foretaste of it. Signs of this renewal are present in the world wherever the grace of God is manifest and human beings (of whatever religion or ideology) work for justice, love and peace. The eucharist is the feast at which the church gives thanks 10 God for these signs and joyfully celebrates and anticipates the coming kingdom in Christ.

The church is not a cult for promoting the personal salvation of its members but a community formed in response to the good news that God is sovereign lord of all life, a community which lives in the promise that life in rhis world can and will be transformed.’ The central tradition of the church avoids the extremes of, on the one hand, attempting to build the kingdom on our own (following the model of the Great Teacher) and, on the other, leaving everything to God. Geoffrey Wainwright, a scholar deeply involved in the writing of BEM, puts it nicely in his book, Eucharist and Eschatology:

‘Geneva. WCC, 1982. p.12. ‘A fine development of this idea IS found in Lesslie Newbigin. The Other Side 01 1984, Geneva, WCC. I984

375


The eucharistic community will act in the world in such ways as to display the righteousness, pcace and joy of the kingdom, and so it will bear witness to the giver of these gifts, cooperating in the establishment of the kingdom without ever a thought of denying that thc work is entircly God’s and will be drastically completed by Him.’”

“Foretaste” is a word used often in this section of BEM (e.g. par.6 and 18). Since believers of all races, classes and cultures are invited to this common table (at least when the eucharist is properly celebrated) and share in the fruits of Christ’s sacrifice, it is a foretaste of divine justice. Since believers exchange words and gestures of peace as they approach holy communion and are there at peace with God, it is a foretaste of God’s shalom. Since at this table we remember God’s love for us in Christ and experience Christ’s presence through the Spirit, it is a foretaste of the day when this love will be universal.

All of this means, of course, that the eucharist is inevitably a threat to the world as it is. As a word of promise, it is also a word of judgment on our present idolatries. The gathered community - breaking one loaf, sharing one cup - is a “sign” (another frequently used word in BEM) of this judgment and promise. But how much truer and more effective a sign we would be if our fellowship were not visibly divided (par.26)!

Sacrament and service: towards an undivided agenda The preceding discussion leads to one obvious conclusion: It is time to stop splitting

the ecumenical agenda! I long for the day when we will not need to write essays defending the relationship of eucharistic sharing to the sharing of our resources because the link will once again be self-evident.

As 1 understand it, the basic question behind the ecumenical movement is not: How do we reconcile doctrinal differences? nor: How do we cooperate more effectively in Christian service? but: What does it mean to be the church, the whole church, living in obedience to the will of God? At its best, the ecumenical movement - stemming from its roots in Faith and Order, Life and Work, and the International Missionary Council - bears witness that the search for committed eucharistic fellowship, active engagement for peace and justice, and joyful proclamation of Christ are not competing priorities but authentic, complementary responses to the one gospel. ESR and BEM belong together as we attempt both to recover and envision the church God calls us to be.

Another way of saying this is that Christian life is lived at the intersection of (for want of better language) the “vertical” and the “horizontal”, an intersection marked for us by the two great commandments of our Lord. Those who stress that we are saved by God’s grace through faith must add that we are saved for a life of obedient service. Those who emphasize the life of service must identify its roots in God’s gracious love which we recall and celebrate in a focused way at the Lord’s table.

I have already talked about the social, service-oriented character of the eucharist, but it is important to add that service (diakonia), including the sharing of one’s resources, can also be “sacramental”. Insofar as service reveals God’s presence or points towards the living reality of Christ the servant, it is a direct extension of the church’s sacramental life. Insofar as it glorifies God and gives thanks for what God has done and is doing on behalf of the world, it may be called “eucharistic”. Service is

‘“New York, Oxford University Press, 1981, p.148.

376


sacramental, in short, when the work God is doing becomes visible through it. It is sacramental when people are served, not when we try to serve them. The emphasis is not on our effort or generosity but on our effort succeeding beyond itself.

To put it another way, diakonia is not simply a matter of using our personal skills and institutional power to rearrange the pattern of human resources; it is fundamentally a matter of individual and corporate self-emptying in imitation of the One “who emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, ... and becoming obedient unto death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:7-8) - the One we remember and encounter in the eucharistic feast. Service, as understood in scripture, is not just the accomplishment of “good deeds” but an outward sign that one’s life has been completely reoriented to acknowledge, as Luke puts it (Luke 22:26), that those who wait on tables are exalted above those who are served. We believe this (even if we so often fail to live it) not only because Jesus taught a reordering of values but because he lived it. There should be no thought of works righteousness or pride in our service or sharing; such service should simply be a natural consequence of following Jesus Christ.

But, having said all this, we are still left with agonizing questions. How is it possible, asks Tissa Balasuriya in his book The Eucharist and Human Liberation,

that societies calling themselves Christian can offer the Eucharist weekly, for years, without improving the relationships among persons in it ... Why is it that in spite of hundreds of thousands of eucharistic celebrations, Christians continue as selfish as before?”

There are indeed serious issues to be faced in our common struggle (through the power of the Spirit) to be more truly the church God wills. The point, however, is not that BEM is wrong but that it is a starting point for renewal of sacramental life as part of a committed, mutually-sharing fellowship. After centuries of hostility and division over questions of “real presence”, “memorial”, and “sacrifice”, churches involved in the ecumenical conversations are now able to say: “Many of these disputes can be put behind us.” And, thus, we are in a position to address together the questions Balasuriya poses, questions relating not to divisions between churches but to renewal within them. BEM and ESR can be most important partners in that effort.

‘I Maryknoll, NY, Orbis Books, 1979, pp.21 and xi.

377

Documents

The Sharing of Faith, the Sharing of Resources