Last Sunday afternoon, I served as a panelist for the retrospective on Vatican II and its 1964 landmark Decree on Ecumenism. The Capital Region (NY) Ecumenical Organization (CREO) hosted this event as part of its mission to build Christian ecumenical community and collaboration between Roman Catholics and Protestants. For many years, CREO has provided a significant ecumenical witness in the Capital Region, which includes includes the Capital Area Baptist Association (CABA), one of the sixteen associations of the American Baptist Churches of New York State. In speaking in an ecumenical forum such as this, I opted to share some of the story about how Baptists and Catholics, particularly through the international Baptist World Alliance had slow yet growing dialogue opportunities in the years after the Second Vatican Council convened. It is a story that speaks well to the reticence of one era and the hopeful spirit of another.
I was joined on the panel by three other participants: Bishop Marie Jerge, Bishop (ECLA--Upstate NY Synod); Rev. Dr. Allan Janssen (Professor at New Brunswick Theological Seminary/Reformed Church in America and Theologian in Residence at the First Church of Albany, NY, and the Rev. James Kane, Ecumenical and Interfaith Officer, Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany.
REFLECTIONS ON VATICAN II AND BAPTIST/CATHOLIC DIALOGUE
You might wonder what a Baptist is doing
at a workshop on Vatican II. You looked at your program and wondered, “Did
he take the wrong exit while looking for a church potluck?”, or “Is this the
Baptist version of ‘joyriding’?” To
which I reply, “I’m hoping finally to experience having a wine list at
communion. All these years, and I’ve had
only Welch’s....”
I
suggest that as a Baptist, and especially as a member of the American Baptist
Churches/USA, of course somebody from my tradition would be here today. If time allowed, I would gladly speak of the
deep value of American Baptists place on ecumenical and interfaith dialogue. The
ABC/USA is a founding member of the WCC, the BWA and the NCC. Particularly regarding the National Council
of Churches, three NCC presidents have been American Baptist clergy, including
the current presiding officer, the Rev. Roy Medley who is the General Secretary
of the American Baptist Churches/USA and a strong advocate of Baptist/Muslim
dialogue. We are engaged in ecumenical
efforts, not only because of our interest in Christian Unity. We are being faithful alongside all other
Christians to heed Christ’s call to be one (John 17:21).
The Second
Vatican Council (colloquially “Vatican II”) is rightfully hailed as a great
moment in church history. Fifty years
later, Christians of varying traditions still find themselves pondering the
fruitful insights into doctrine, liturgics, mission and ecclesial structures
brought about by St. John XXIII’s decision to convene such a Council.
In the midst of the ecumenical decree,
the spirit of charitable dialogue with other Christians is boldly proclaimed
and offers a legacy (so far) of improved relations, if not full unity, with the
“separated brethren”. The Decree
acknowledges the harm and division religious differences have created and calls
for future encounters to be made with more intention and with an awareness of
grace prevailing. This charitable
openness to dialogue is heard in such passages as follows:
We [Roman Catholics] must get to know
the outlook of our separated brethren. To achieve this purpose, study is of
necessity required, and this must be pursued with a sense of realism and good
will. Catholics, who already have a proper grounding, need to acquire a more
adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren,
their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology
and general background.
In this aspect
of the Council’s legacy, I believe Vatican II generated a great deal of capital
in the form of goodwill, warm relations (even if still “separated brethren” as
the Decree terms Christians not in full ecclesial communion) and partnerships
where we have realized gradually and delightfully more fruitful ways of
co-existing, if not overcoming the religious divisions past and present. As evidenced by the open hands and willing
spirit of its Bishops, especially Howard Hubbard, the Diocese of Albany has
offered a genuine welcome and friendship to the other Christians and
non-Christians of this area, embodying the spirit of Vatican II and the vision
of St. John XIII. At Bishop
Scharfenberger’s recent episcopal ordination service, I sat in a pew with three
Episcopal priests and a couple representing the Hindu community. (I’m telling you, did St. John XIII ever
foresee the day when a Baptist helped a Hindu navigate the bulletin of a
Catholic liturgy? By the grace of Albany
bishops, it was indeed so!)
I celebrate the desire for relationship
evident in Vatican II’s 1964 ecumenical decree, especially in light of the
Baptist response at the time. In looking back at the Baptists responding to Vatican
II’s convening, let alone any eventual decrees or outcomes, I regret to note the
initial hesitance quite evident among Baptist groups. Regarding the Baptist World Alliance, the
largest gathering of Baptist conventions and denominations from around the
world, the Vatican’s call for observers merited a reticent response:
In August 1962 the BWA Executive Committee spent one whole day
considering an inquiry from the Vatican as to whether the BWA would favourably
receive a formal invitation to send observers to Vatican Council II. Strong if
honest differences of conviction divided the committee which replied: ‘It is
not agreed it would be desirable for the Baptist World Alliance to encourage a
formal invitation to the forthcoming Second Vatican Council’.
The BWA was the only world confessional body not to accept the invitation,
and the BWA executive resolved to exclude the discussion of the pros and cons
from the minutes. Still, as Dr [James Leo] Garrett observed, ‘the fact of such
deliberations is important’.
Curiously, while the minutes were not retained in the official record,
the BWA’s centennial retrospective book notes an interesting division among the
Baptists making the decision.
Support for having a BWA observer came chiefly from the unions and
conventions that belonged to the WCC, while representatives of U.S. groups who
had no formal ecumenical links and of the predominately Roman Catholic Latin
American countries expressed opposition.
In the end, only “a few Baptists were actually present at various
sessions of the Council”. I note with some gratitude that among those
few were included Dr. Stanley Stuber, an American Baptist minister and
ecumenicist, whose legacy is celebrated annually at Colgate Rochester Crozier
Divinity School with a memorial lectureship. Further, the National Baptist Convention, the
largest African American Baptist denomination, sent their President, the Rev.
Dr. Joseph Jackson, who was invited by the Vatican Secretariat. Other U.S. Baptist observers would follow,
though often with their own initiative rather than a denomination or academic
institution officially sending them, including persons related to the Southern
Baptist Convention.
Stuber attended a number of sessions and later co-authored a manual for
Protestant congregations to explore Vatican II documents. Stuber was said to
get along quite well with a Paulist priest Fr. Thomas Stransky, who recounted
how his first introduction to Stuber came by way of being asked years before to
issue a refutation of Stuber’s earlier work A
Protestant Primer on Roman Catholicism. Despite
a ripe opportunity for interchurch tension, Stransky and Stuber embodied the
best of the hope found in the Decree on Ecumenism through their friendship and collegiality.
One would think Baptists and Catholics have very little agreement. In some ways, it is a strange pairing for
dialogue opportunities. Baptists are so
named due to our historic affirmation of believer’s baptism and stressing the
need for full immersion. We are part of
a Free Church polity, stressing the liberty of conscience and the primacy of
local churches over ecclesial structures (if a given Baptist church belongs to
a denomination). Even as one serving in
a Baptist denominational capacity, I have very little power or authority
similar to an episcopal form of church governance. My primary role is to foster common ground and
collaboration between congregations who are free to choose when and how they
opt in and opt out of denominational relationships. (Oft invoked is the analogy of leading
Baptists is similar to herding cats.)
Many Baptists in the United States would gladly agree with the
historical ecumenical creeds, yet we would shy from being overtly creedal. Our sense of sacrament differs to the point
of many of us averring the use of the word. I
can discuss at length the debates and divisions that have shaped (or stymied?)
the four hundred years since Baptists emerged out of the “radical”
Reformation. Even organizations like the
Baptist World Alliance may foster global relationships among Baptists, yet it
is a very voluntary and therefore storm-tested relationship. We may be a global faith tradition within
Christianity, however, we look very much like very distant cousins when
compared to the Roman Catholic Church.
Yet, the call to be at the table in
dialogue has not been forgotten. After the Second Vatican Council concluded,
seeds sown in these tentative ecumenical overtures began to take root. By 1967, delegations from the ABC/USA and the
US Catholic’s Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs
began seven years of annual meetings.
Baptist scholar Curtis Freeman observes, “Rather than being polar
opposites it became clear that Baptists and Catholics have much in common.” Terming the result “a differentiated
consensus”, Freeman notes areas of shared affirmation in “faith in the triune
God as a source of authority and in God’s unique self-revelation in the
Scriptures”. Whole-world
evangelization, salvation by grace through faith and a mutual respect for the
freedom of conscience and religious liberty soon followed in these
meetings. While Vatican II did not gain
a great deal of immediate opportunity for Baptist and Roman Catholic scholars
to be in dialogue, it paved the way for some remarkable dialogues forty years
ago between US Baptists and Catholics.
Eventually, the Baptist World Alliance
would find its membership more receptive to dialogue. From 1984-1988, the BWA engaged in dialogue
with Vatican-appointed scholars. More
recently (and some would say more fruitfully), the BWA joined with Roman
Catholic counterparts from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
for a five year period (2006-2010), resulting in the remarkable document
entitled “Baptists and Catholics Together: The Word of God in the Life of the
Church”.
At the start of this endeavor, the two
dialogue partners stated their intention:
The goal of these conversations is to
respond to the prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ to his Father for his disciples
‘that they may all be one … that the world may believe’ (John 17:21). Facing
the challenges of our world today, we believe this means that we should
continue to explore our common ground in biblical teaching, apostolic faith and
practical Christian living, as well as areas that still divide us, in order to:
1. Increase our mutual understanding,
appreciation of each other and Christian charity towards each other;
2. Foster a shared life of discipleship
within the communion of the triune God;
3. Develop and extend a common witness
to Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world and the Lord of all life;
4. Encourage further action together on
ethical issues, including justice, peace and the sanctity of life, in accord
with God’s purpose and to the praise of God’s glory.
We envisage that we can move towards the
fulfilment of these aims by focusing on the theme: ‘The Word of God in the Life
of the Church: Scripture, Tradition and Koinonia.’
The Joint International Commission met
for four successive Decembers between 2006 and 2009. Each meeting offered opportunities for
exploring areas of mutual agreement and opportunities to hear from scholars
about areas of difference in teachings and traditions. Session I explored “The Authority of Christ
in Scripture and Tradition”, Meeting II explored “Baptism and Lord’s
Supper/Eucharist as Visible Word of God in the Koinonia of the Church”, Meeting
III explored the role of “Mary in the Communion of the Church” and Meeting IV
dealt with issues of “Oversight and Primacy in the Ministry of the Church”.
The report of the proceedings was
offered in a unique manner, using typeface (bold or regular fonts) to highlight
areas of agreement and divergence. The
co-chairs note,
It has been in setting our beliefs side
by side in a thorough way that we have come to understand both them and each
other more deeply, so that we have been able to move further towards the goal
set by our Teacher and Master Jesus Christ, ‘that they all may be one’. While
we do not expect our readers to be surprised by differences that remain, we
think they will be surprised by the extent of the common mind that has
been revealed. We hope that readers may be helped here by the typographical
convention we have adopted, placing a summary of our convergence in paragraphs
in bold type. Here we simply set out what we can say together, without
explicitly making the point each time that we are in agreement. The
passages in regular type are a kind of commentary on the statements in bold,
either expanding on our agreement, or explaining the divergences that remain.
In his appreciative critique of the
summary report, British Baptist historical theologian Stephen Holmes observes:
Where there has been mutual suspicion
and incomprehension, the report can offer a resource to help promote
understanding; where the overwhelming feature of the context is urgent
missional needs, the report might help Baptists and Catholics to recognize that
they share enough common gospel themes that they might work together, not
apart, in mission.
Further, Holmes offers a cautionary
word:
That said, these advantages can only
come if the report is read, or at least its conclusions are transmitted, at
very local levels….We have been given a great resource; the process of
reception is now vital.
All conversation about Christian
unity is essential, yet it is only fragmentary if left to the scholars and
church authorities to debate and seek areas of concurrence. The fruitfulness of our mutual calling to be
One in Christ is found in our everyday ways of being obedient to Christ
together. While we speak with the
particulars of tradition, formed as much by one another, more than we are
sometimes willing to admit, our mutual desire to be in fidelity to Christ
should help us arise together in mutual discipleship wherever the Gospel is
needed.
Fifty years after Vatican II,
Baptists and Catholics are more able to be in dialogue in the spirit of Vatican
II. We are still “separated brethren” in
many ways. A Vatican II observer from
the Church of Scotland observed in 1965 that the Council did not necessarily
accomplish much unity in the Church. The
one-liner still stings: “The glaciers
are melting, the Alps remain”. Yet in the history of two Christian
traditions post-Vatican II, there is an increasing sense of mutuality, even if
differences still mark us, likely until Christ makes all things new.
I close with the good word of the North
American Protestant ecumenist the Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon:
At the heart
of the ecumenical movement is the conviction that there is one church
and that its members, however fragmented they may seem, are deeply related to
one another, thanks to what God has done in Jesus Christ. The ecumenical task,
therefore, is not to create unity, but to address divisions of human origin in
order that the unity God has given may be visible to the world.
