Full Text for Evangelical Unity in the Light of Contemporary Orthodox Eastern - Roman Catholic - Protestant Ecumenicity (Text)

Christian Burial We hereal-itiz present an article on CHRI\;IAN BURIAL by Ur- batzus Rhegius, i:icd 1541. Rhegias, n yopziila reacher at A~gs- burg, sided witii Luther against Xolne and ogainst Zwingli. He fostered the refornzation in Lueneburg, Ha~rlover and other cities. We enclose this little treatise not only because of the piety expressed therein and becizzise of the scholarly efforts of l'clstor Poellot, but also because of the fact that as we near the epzd of the Church Year we are mindful once more of the end of life and of the glorious promises of Everlasting !,ire which God has given us in His Word avhich this ancient C?zii;.clz father so beautifully r~otrd in his dissertation. During the pa:,t yeai-s several of our professr;i.s have fallen asleep in the Lord, and ns ave colne to the eizd of thc ?,ear and think of the approach of cleat;? and judgment for all of :rs 7iie are minded of the passing of I'rofc-.sor Alexander Mon!o ~vho fo;. many years was pro- fessor of Fi~zni:l~ and Natural Science on 07:;- campus and also of Professor Frede~iclz S. Wenger ~ilho for a gi-cat nunzber of years served as yrofe5~or in the area of Exegesis. Both of these men died in tlze Loud alil! were gathered to their fathc7.s. May the hope of the blessed rcsziri-rction colafort those who litour71 and th.ose who look for thc co~rriilg of our Lord Jeslls Christ. 7.A.O.P. T EIE CHIEF IRTICLE of our faith teaches that this same flesh wllicla we now have is to be glorified on the Last Day and will be raised to life eternal. For just as Christ rose and will no more die, so, says Ati~~lnasius in [his] creed, must d!I Christians rise with their bodies. Therefore, burial is to be perfor1:led piously by Chris- tians, bccause oC the sure hope of our resurrection. The remains are to be taken ~ut to thc grave by the pious, and while the body is bcing intcrrecl, tile pastor, or minister of the Word, should com- fort the people it11 a bricf address, so that me be mindful, first, that in rldarn n c are all dead and worthy o: condemnation; then, on the otllcr hCli~d, that we are all made ali\(. in Christ, who has restored all thi;ii:\ which Adam of old corrupted and lost. For He himsclF diet1 bLcc!use of our sins; by His death He cxpiated them all and abolishccl our dcath. And lie was ~nacle the resurrection and the lire fo~ ersonal, dynamic, living conir~~itment to Christ and resultant pro- by the interconfes- jional A111erica11 experience of the frontier revivals, evangelicals in this country l?;.ve found it very difficult to push other evangelical believers bcyoncl the pale, regardless of the "aberrational') views they ;:lay entertain c;;l rninor doctrines or the par~icular denonlinational ~&liations the)- ?!la): hold. The tulcntieth century has accelerated the teinpo of evan l-clicall~r ecumenical contacts : the communications revolution has brought geographically insulated evacgelical denomi- nations into cl(:~? proxinlity-and has made Consultations such as this, involving j1:lrticjpants from all over Ameiica, readily feasible; .\merica's "c.om:t:g of age" has reduced almo:; to nil the isolated I inguistic-cultu:.!: pockets of nineteenth-century evangelical ortho- doxy; the growti: and organization of Americar: denominations have put evangelicals of various confessional persuasions into each others' back vari!s fror?! suburbia to the foreign mission field; and the in- crc~sing pressures of secularism and unbelief in the mid-twentieth century have ac:i.d as a strong incentive tc uvangelicals to draw closer together k3 : r 111utual support and more effective witness. The present-day spi!.li of evallgelicalism was well voiced in a 196 1 edi- torial in Clzristit!:!ity Today (itself a powerful evidence of the trans- denominational p~rspective of today's evangelical cause); under the rubric, "A Plea for Evangelical Unity," readers were reminded in the strongest terins that " '13e of the same mind one toward another' is the direction of the inerrant and infallible T5'0rd.')~ But ~vhile t vangelicals have more and 111ore been discovering that- to use E,JI qlish littkrateur Charles Willi'~ms' moving phrase- their lifc and ~.(~,lth is with their neighbor,"- other religious unity :uovcments ha\ c been gaining ascendancy in Christendom. Here wc refer not prii;i,~rilv to the "objective') an~algamations of Protestant denominations :o the twentieth century, but more especially to what M. Paul Douglas< has called "those deep undercurrents of Christian unitv ~111ich arc cmotionallv or mystically realized"ll--chief of which, in the yrxceding lustrum, has uilquestionably been the ecu- ~rlenical relatioll. among Orthodos Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodic. As Handspicker rightly stated in the conclusion io his recent ''SLI: ;.ey of Church Union Negotiations, 196 1-1 963": 111 tl-,~ realm of Christian unity "emotionally or mystically realized" ~t-c must . . . note the impetus toward Christian concord arl~i unity in two recent developrnents: the ecumenical Evangelical Unity -- - .- - .. -. 11 inipetus gii :::\ to the Roman Catholic Church through the work of Pope Jol:r: XXIII, and the increasing and deepening partici- pation of th~ Orthodox Churches in thc vork of the World Council. Iiithin the Second Vatican Council the most widely known esp:-t:.rsions of this first development have occurred, but of at lesst ccjual importance is the attendant phenomenon of increzsing clialogue betweell Roman Catholic, Anglican, Or- thodox, and Protestant clergy and laity both in internationa) conferences 2nd in local dioceses and parishes. Increased Or- thodox partjcipation in the work of the ri-orld Couilcil is not merely ill tc:.;ns of numbers, but in additi;,!~ through a change in role fro^:?. "observer and adviser" in ecu~nenical conferences to fully con:n:itted participant. l2 Faced with this present climate of ever-cizepening Orthodox Eastern-Roman C:i tholic-"maii~line" Protestzn t ecumenical rela- tions, the evangeilcal churchman finds hinlself reacting ambivalently. On the one ham!. he recognizes with thanltsgii-jng to God that the Roman Catholic cl;urch and the Orthodox Ezstern churches have neve:. ceaseci to sta~id uncomproinisingly for the Trinitarian core of the Christian faith. as set forth in the Ecumerical creeds;I3 in this regard, the evangelical sees these great churchcs as a healthy cor- rective to the unitarianizing of the faith which has occurred in more than a few maiillirle Protestant bodies under the impact of social- gospel liberalism and current demythologization. of Christianity. '" On the other hal!:!, even the most ui~sophisticnted evangelical is at least intuitivelv asr-are of the gulf that historic:illy separates hjnl froin Roman Catl-r:'licism and the Eastern churc::es in respect to the other major eler~cnts of evangelical belief: Sola scriptura, sola gratia & sola fidc. personal commitment & personal witness (in opposition to the cjj::~~ operaturn in all its forms:. and a moment-by- nlomcnt cschatolo,~ical orientation. The ques:ion of evangelical stance vis-A-vis Pro:estant dialogue with Romalr Catholicism and Eastern Orthodos; becomes especially acute w-?:en we reflect that evangelicals (as r5is writer is using the terln) exist in all main- line Protestant df.:;:omications; therefore Protes:snt movements to- ward cooperation cr unity with Romanism and Orthodoxy can hard]! help but alter th~ perspective of general Pro:ectantism and thus indirectly affect e-.-ctngelical unity itself. Thus the o\~t?:arching question to be poied in this paper: Where is cvangelic~ljsrn to stand as relatioils g;..i.~w closer between World Couiicil P:-iitestantislm on the one hand and Eastern Ortho- doxy and Roman C-atholicisn~ on the other? Mcire concretely, (1) &re: evangelicals to incourage or discourage their respective denomi- nations in these ecumenical efforts? (2) Should c\ angelicals, through the National Asscciation of Evangelicals or by vay of independent evangelically-sponsored efforts, carry on their own .dialogue with Roman Catholicisii? and with the Orthodox Easteril churches? (3) What can be gainc.2 for evangelical unity from Orthodox Eastern- Roman Catholic-?cotestant ecunlenical discussio!?~? Urgent as these questions are, virtually no attempt has been mde heretofore to an- swer them in clc;th;''j and I confess that on;:. the overwhelming importance of the subject gives me the temerity ro enter this tangled thicket in which rthjective fact and subjective Interest are so closely i~itertv~ined. I iiieve that the questions herc posed can be satis- f ac torily answer :: L!- -but only against the backzound of more rigor- ous thinking on he nature of the present the;;cgical situation than is ~~s~lnll~ met wi:h in ecumenical discussion. If we are re pared for some extencisd "depth analysis," then Tvr ;nay find that solid Allsrvers await u5 .. t the end of the path. Thc Cruciality of Theological Motif-Research In matters E. cumenical, evangelicals are universally convinced that cons id era tic!;:^ of truth must precede considerations of union, unity, worship, :.;, fellowship. Granted that among evangelicals there is diversit\ rif viewpoint as to how much doctrinal truth must 1)e agreed to foi 1-1:mrnon action, and as to whether a Christian can iegitimately be 2 ~neniber of a body that in practice permits error or unbclief to e?.i\r alongside of truth, nevertheilcss it would be diffi- cult to find an): c::angellcal who would engag;, in common worship where the esser~ti.!ls of the Gospel (as stated, fcr example, in I Cor. 15: 1-3) were l::cking, or who would enter a church union without clear guarantee ;':;~t the fundamentals of eva;igelical belief (as set fort11 in the precciling section of this essay) v-ould be allowed him. Thus whether a ">eparationistM or a "non-separationist," the evangeli- cal is perforcc ~,:,mnlitted to a stand on propositional theological :ruth which npp~>.rs hopelessly rigid to contemporary secularists and broad-church Pro!estants alike. \Vhcn cor;li?,~red with the "tender-rnindecl" approach of the "ecun~ai~iac" ("ci1;:rches that commune together stay together," etc.), ihe evangelical .:;titudc toward doctrinal matters is highly com- r~lendatorv, for i r .7 110th takes the Great Co1nmirr;ion seriously ("teach thein to observe L.li things whatsoever I have commanded you"--Mt. 2 8 : 2 0) and n~,:.i; ifests a properly "tough-mindsd" appreciation for the law of con t ~,:itiction. "ut the evangelical concern with doc- trinai diEcrencrs is nct without its dangers-tilough these are not the ones upon ~:.hich religious .liberals are wont to ring the changes ::lack of love, etc.1. Trouble arises when, in concentrating on par- ticular doctrinai lx-oblcms, evangelicals neglect to penetrate behind the surface issues to the basic theological motifs that give the specific doctrines their io1.c~. The trouble is not that evangelicals are too xcupied with 6;'ctrinal truth, but that they >.re too ready to skim the surface of Ll~ctrinal issues! Here we can learn much from Lundensian hfoti!-;orskilzg ("motif research"), which is described as fnllo~vs by one cf its foremost practitioners, Anders Nygren: The !::~tst important task of those engaged in the modern scientific st~~iljr of religion and theological research is to reach an inner uiitlerstanding of the different forms of religion in Evangelical Unity 3 3 the light c :heir different fundamental 11:otifs. . . . We must try to see sl :lat is the basic idea or the driving power of the religion c~:~;erned, or what it is that git es it its character as a whole arc! communicates to all its parts their special content and colour -. Etelatikely seld~~-~ in illterconfessiollal dialoguc do we cut to the level of "the basi; :dea or the driving powerJ' wi~lsh gives significance and impact to t::c particular doctrines under discussion. In con- sequence, we grL:crally experience bewildermzilt at the obtuseness of the other par:\ -and create for ourselves r -dblocks which pre- vent potentially fruitful discussioll at depth 1el sl. Consider a:: zxample apart from the 0rt:ic;dox Eastern-Roman Catholic scene- 1:1 exarnple which, beczuse cf its familiarity, will serve as a paradizrli for our later discussion. ri-,\jrn the Reformation period to the pr;s;nt, Lutherans and Calvinists have attempted to convince each 0tirc.r that the Verba in the Lo::il's Supper passages are to be understoad literally (Lutheranism) or ~~letaphorically (Cal- vinism). To an adherent of either position, t?ic exegetical force of his particular interpetation is overwhelming-dil d neither can com- prehend why the (:[her insists upon retaining his obtuse view of the scriptural texts. Xow although the Lord's Supper problem does significantly deprr?d upon the exegesis of the 1-erba, this exegesis fits within a larcer context in the case of 5cth Calvinism and Lutheranism. FtTr Lutherans, the Verba must he understood literal- ly, for otherwise L? "spiritual" Christ could exist apart from the now eternally-incarnatf Christ; for Calvinists, the Vesba have to be taken metaphoricaIlv and "la vertu secrkte et admirabl? du Saint-Esprit"18 has to be introducd to raise the believers' spirits on high to com- mune with the asc~nded Christ, for otherwise the normal human body of our Lord :~.:~uld be divinized and the ''rn~l~olly other" charac- ter of the eternal C-d violated. Striking even deeper, we see that the issue reaIly focuses on the qustion of the "co~~~municatio idioma- turn"-whether dix-ine attributes can be communicated to human nature; and the answer to this larger question del;t.nds upon the even more basic issue ?f theological starting-point or motif in the two systems: the incarr~ztion (Lutheranism) or the sovereignty of God (Calvinism). For Lutherans, the incarnation must be unqualified, and the sovereignt~. of God has to be qualified El. it; for Calvinists, God's sovereignty is unqualified, and the incarnation must be viewed in light of it. Thus the particular doctrinal question of the Lord's Supper becomes a manifestation of the fundame?tal motifs of the two theological systems under discussion : Calvin ism, with the First Person of the Trini~ as its starting-point, and Lutheranism, with its focus on the Second Person of the Trinity. Once discussion has reached the level of root motifs, the really important questions can be asked. Are the varimt motifs biblical? (In the case of motifs lying at the center of the creat confessional streams of Christendom, the answer nil1 almost always be a quali- tied 'Yes"; in tlienlo y as in politics, the del-ii finds it difficult to fool "all of the prop 'i e all of the time.") Are the motifs equally satisfactory for interpreting the doctrine(s) at issue? (Here the sensitivity of thi theologian to the total impzct of the scriptural message will k, ~articularly tested.) Can o biblically-grounded calculus be dcvii:,ped to i~lterrclate properly the several genuinely scriptural motifs underlying the confessiollal p~sitions of Christian churches? (For example, the Calvinist "First Person" inotif might be established as fundamental in the realm of creation, the Lutheran "Second Person" noti if as basic in matters of "new creation," i.e., redemption. ) In general. it appears to me that problenls of Christian unity, as seen from the evangelical perspective of objective theological truth, reqnire ;! rigorous "motif-level" exami~;i?tion of corifessional ~riei~tations-n.i:!i a view toward the ultimate building of a meta- theological calc~ilzs for the proper interrelating of those motifs that survive the scri;.r~~ral test. Such a metatheolo-,ical calculus would theoretically pro~ide what evangelicals have longed for since the days of Calixtus' commendable but question-be$sing consensus quin- yuesaecularis: '\a fully realistic map for Christian cooperation, fellowship, unit:.- and even organic union. The develo~~ment of a metatheological calculus would require the concentrated labors of evangelicalism's most devoted scholars and churchmen; here we can only point to the ovcr~vhelming need, both theoretical and i-iiactical, for it. Our specific concern at this point IS the inore mcL:.>t one of orientating evangelical thinking to motif issues, so that , mature evaluation can be made of Protestant- 01.thodox ecumi :!:city and Roillan Catholic re5:lrgence in our time. - - 1 1ze "Geist" of Eastern Orthodoxy Protestant> in general-and perhaps evangelicals in particular --arc reinarkabl~. vague in their knowledge of the Orthodox Eastern churches. For i:;any Protestants, "Eastern Orthodoxy" is a mono- lithic entity; wllereas in fact it collsists of Byz:ir?tine, Syrian, Armen- ian, and LllexanLirian (Coptic) traditions, and within the Byzantine tradition done ,::e must think in terms of Greek, Russian, Serbian, Ukrainian, Bul;.~!-ian, Albanian, and Rumanian churches, as well 2s Arabic-languL:ce churches under j~~risclictioz of the Alexandrian, lntiochan, and lerusalern patriarchates. If pressed to characterize the his tory and ti is tinctive position of the Orthodox churches, the most knowlcdgc:.!~le Protestant clergy would prr'r~aps dredge up from seminary days til- judgment that "in A.D. 12 51 the split between the Eastern anc! Western church took place over the iconoclastic issue and the fi!:.-,?are clause in the Nicene Creed"; beyond this, little would ordinaril! be ventured other than the common opinion that "Eastern Ortho iicj~y is practically the same as Roman Catholicism except that the i'grnler will not accept the authority of the pope." Upon such framlentary and superficial knoiriedge naive opinions are readily voicid concerning Orthodoxy's growing participation in Evangelical Unity ---- 15 .- Protestant ecumel;ical discussions; e.g., "The presence of Orthodox churches in the l\.orld Council is tantamount to a Romanizing of Protestantisin," cr :conversely), "The presence of Orthodoxy in the World Council is to be encouraged as a counterpoise to the exclu- sivistic historical clainls of Rome." in point of :act, we shall forever remain on the periphery of the Eastern Orthcdox questioi~ if we do not pe:;etrate beyond super- ficial genera1izat:sns to the heart motifs of Orthodoxy. To focus attention on the \ ear 1054 is like endeavoring to discover the essence of the Arnerican character by referring to Columbus' discovery of America in 1492: as historians and specialisrs in the history of dogma have beer L!i pains to emphasize, the di: .>ion date 1054 does no more than m?: ,-by way of political conflict and diplomatic in- eptitude-a bre,:ri: which had been widenil?, for centuries and which reflected t:yo distinctive approaches to the Christian faith2(' The question as r : whether the Holy Spirit proc-eds from the Father "and from the S\:T;'' (filioque-in the \Yestern form of the Creed; or froin the Father througlz the Son (the Easter;] doctrine) parallels the Lord's Suppcr issue in Lutheranism-Calvinism: it is not a root problem pel- sc, hut a clear manifestation of a conflict over funda- mental motifs. L-xtil we penetrate to this basic motif-level we shall neither be able to rid ourselves of the fallac;: that the Orthodox Eastern churches nre really "Roman Catholic bcdies without a pope," ?lor be in a position adequately to evaluate Orthodoxy's significance for evangelical unity. \Vhat is the central key that unlocks the exotic treasure house of Orthodox Eastern doctrine? This is by no means an easy ques- tion; witness the :xiation of opinion among Orthodox theologians themselves who have wrestled with the problem! Within the ex- tensive modern literature of Orthodo~y,~~ one Ends three especially persuasive interpr~tations of the Geist of the Eastern church. Pro- fessor George Florovsky of Harvard sees the heart of Orthodoxy in its "Christian Helleni~m"~~-in its preservaticn of the Phronema or mind of the Patristic church.23 Evidently, however, this inter- pretation is at least in part a petitio principii (2s Florovsky would of course admit); on:. must still ask: Of what spec15 and uniquely callh does the "mind" of the Hellenistic Fathers consiht? le classic an- swer was given b~ the pre-eminent lay theologian A. S. Khomiakov ( 1 804-1 8 60) in his concept Sobornost. This term can be regarded as a slavonic equi~alent of "catholicity", but not with the Roman connotation of cei~tralized magisterial authorit1 . ?4 Like the Hol~. Trinity, multiple in persons but one in sub stance, it [the Church] unites the living and the dead in a living organism, the "Sobornost", where revealed truth is en- trusted to their mutual love; alone among L.. all societies it pos- sesses truth 2nd unity at the same time--outside of it one can have neither the one nor the other.26 Khomiakov I~ad especially developed the jiiva of a community. of all the faithful of one mind (in Russi~in: sobornost). Ac- cording to him Catholicism possesses ui:ity without liberty; Protestantisix, liberty without unity; while Oriental Orthodoxy would realize liberty and unity in love.2r Sobornost is the statement that the Chris t-Event has created and placed in the stream of history the event of the Christ- bearing cor~imur~ity. This Christ-bearing conlmunity is a free union of ixtn, brought about by the reception of the Holy Spirit. 27 Here we see that the Sobornost concept points 'czvond itself to a kind of mystical relation between earth and heavex, the living and the deed, and that this organic union is g~ounded in Trinitarian love and more especid:ly in the Holy Spir~t. Thus the contemporary Orthodox theoloi,i..ns Schmemann and Bobrinsi~oy find in the divine life of the Trinit!- the spirit of the Eastern church. In defense of conciliar (vs. ;i;lal) theory, Schmemann rites: "The Church is in deed a counci f ii; the deepest meaning of this ~vord, because she is primarily the re:~elation of the Blessed Trinity, of God and of Divine Life as essential!! a perfect council."28 For Bobrinskoy, "the very structures of thc Church reflect the ineffabie TAXIS [order] of the trinitarian hiirarchy"; and the Eucharistic mystery, being "the sacraine~lt of thi. Sew Covenant between the EJoly Trinity and the human race, . . . constitutes the culminati:i!!s-point of the whole life of the Church."" Particular stress is plzced upon the Holy Spirit in connec~i,.n with the Eucharist, for not the Verba but the Flpiclesis (the ii~: (,king of the Spirit so that the elements "may be- come the Body the Lord and His precious Blood") effects the Eucharistic consecration. It is in the Orthodox emphasis upon the divine life of the Trinity and in T' liat illy former professor Roger Mehl of Strasbourg well calls the "~triousness with which Orthoticlxy has always con- sidered the docir~ne of the Holy Spirit"" ttlxt we shall find the Ini?damental m( ilf of the Eastern churches. This motif can be summed up in ;I single word: Mystery. The entire theology and church alfc of r ?.tern Christendom is an effrrt to give organic ex- pression to the ai~fathonlable, mysteriotis life of the Godhead, par- ticularly as reflected in the Third Person of t?:? Trinity-of whom II it is written, To jlnezima hoyou thelei pnei." 'ln. 3 : S). Space forb:ds us from drawing connectio:~~ between the motif of Mystery and all the variegated aspects of Orthox Eastern belief and practice;" '2 few basic illustrations will have to suffice. Doc- trinally, we have a!ready had occasion to mention the filioque contro- versy. IYhy thc Eastern resistance to the procession of the Spirit from the Father irnd from the Son-in spite of powerful biblical testimony in supp3rt of the filioque position?:' Because the West- ern doctrine seems to subordinate the free'^. "mysterious" Third Person of the Trinity to the concrete, historically-revealed Second Person; and bec 3u;e the filioque appears at the .ame time to elevate - - Evangelical Unity - 17 the historical, objective Christ to a status colnparable with that of the Father-vvii!?m no man has seen and lit-ed-and to give the Spirit, the wc::ce of divine mystery, a place inferior to both. Archi- tecturally, wi-1::; is the almost universal impact of Eastern church construction, as displayed, for example, in such monuments as Hagia Sophia in Constrlntinople? When that edifice was still new, Pro- copius of Caesarea (4th Century) mote of the lofty dome, built so that it appears to have no earthly support: It Is "as if suspended by a chain from heaven."33 A milleilium and 3 half later, the con- temporary 1Romi.n Catholic historian Christopher Dawson described S. Sophia in like terms : When we look at the Byzantine church as a whole, with its polychrorr?.= adornment of mosaic anci coloured marbles, its antique c ~iurnns, its carved capitals, oriental in richness and varietj-, r , , Hellenic in proportion al; ti grace, above all the crownin~ miracle of the dome of S:.:;ta Sophia, in which architect L:: e transcends its limitations and becomes impalpa- ble and l~nmaterial as the vault of the sky itself, we must admit thqt never has man succeeded more perfectly in mould- ing mattc>i. to become the vehicle and expression of the spirit.34 "Heavenly", " :;anscendentU, "impalpable", I Anmaterial", "spiritual" -these 2re .accurate descriptions both of- Eastern church archi- tecture and c+ the theological motif that ii~fuses it: the motif of Mystery. Eiii!:gically, one can enter into the Geist of Orthodoxy in virtuaUy anT; Easter rite church in the world. The sense of won- der and exalt~t~on, conveyed both by music and text, surpasses even the most elcv,~red moments of the Roman Hish Mass. " One seems almost to be transported into the courts of heaven when, for ex- ample, in TI-.e Great Entrance of the Armenian Liturgy of the -. Faithful, the lci agiology is delivered in meli~nlatic solo : "With ,~ngelic order Thou hast filled. 0 God, Thine Holy Church. Thousands of thousands of xchangels stand before Thee a;ld myriads of myriads of angels minister unto Thee, 0 Lord: ;et Thou art well-pleased to accept praises from men in the 1:;- stical song: 'Holy, holy, hoi\., Lord of host^'."^" The Belgian Jesuit theologian G. Dejaifve, in an extraordi- narily penetr, 1 article, has well captured the coiltrastin motif character of Eastern and Western theology by the fol owing scheme: f Orthod o 1 Theology Lntin Theologjl Mystical Rational Negati~, e Positive Experien tial-existen tial E csentialistic Triniterlan C hristological FOCUS on heaven & future Focus on earth & present The Orthodox Eastern churches are mystical, "seeing all things in God and God in all things"; the Western church is rational, "pro- ceeding from the known to the unknown." Orthodoxy is negative, "CO~SC~OUS of Gcd's transcendence vis-a-vis 21: human intelligence"; the Latin church is positive, "establishing i:>elf on what God re- veals." lijhere, s the Eastern church concei; ~r~tes on existential ex- perielzce of GG~J, the Western church is coi cnrned with the esselz- tialistic "how" nt the mysteries; it "seeks to >plain them." Ortho- doxy's "beginning, middle, and end is the mystery of the Holy Trinity"; the Ti .st's theology is Christoce~zt;!c, "that is, a theology of God made :: -11, 'revealed', visible." Thus ;he heavenly, futuristic orientation of ;-stern theology, as compared nith the earthly, pres- ent perspective -e the Western theological in: 34. Dejaifve's 2rticulation of the Mystery s. Revelatory contrast between Eastern and Wcstern theology at n~o:if level leaves us in bewilderment ;:r the accelerating ecunlenicai dialogue between Or- thodoxy on the ;.;;le hand and Konian Catholicism and Protestantism on the other. 'iT7ith root-level differences so sreat, how could ecu- menical relatiori s be cons tan tly growing closer ': Yet such is precisely the case. Ror,?:;) Catholic journals devoted to Eastern Orthodoxy (e.g., It.knikon ': are an evidence of the trecii; Pope John XXIII's contacts with ci3.e East anci concern for diL~logue with Orthodox Christendom ir; .i matter of record;" Janua~:-, 1964 marked the first time in ovtr five centuries that a Hornan pope (Paul VI) met an Orthodox ecuinenica1 patriarch (Athenagiras I of Constantin- ople) face to fat:; and the latest issue of thi. .American Review of Eastcrlz 0rtholZ.j~~ informs us that, as a result of the recent Third Pan-Orthodox C1-111ference at Rhodes, represil~tatives of the Ecu- menical Patriarch ate of Constantinople met L: t Rome in February with officials of the Vatican Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity in order ti) draft "positive programs for future 'unity talks'."3B As for 0rthodor:-Protestant relations, it is well known that in 1961 the Orthodox ch:~rches of Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, and Rumania became members of the World Council of churches, thus taking a step previously i::~;.de by the Greek church anci by the Eucmenical Patriarch's jurjscliction, the Grcat church of Constantinople; since that date, the 0::hodox Eastern theological position has been more and more actively represented in World Council discussions, e.g., at the consultatioli ncbveen Orthodox and non-Orthodox theologians held in co11nectio:i with the Fourth World Conference on Faith and Order at Ailol~tre~li in July, 1963.40 How diffcrLi:t from Refomlation times, ~rhen in the late six- teenth, early seveii teenth century, the herculean efforts of Martin Crusius and the 1 utheran theologians at Tiibinzen to establish ecu- menical relatiom bvith the East were summaril1- rejected by Jere- mias 11, patriarch of Con~tantinople;~~ and n hen Patriarch Cyril Lucnr of Consta~~:nople, having accepted Cal!lnist teaching, was hounded onmerc~ i ,.lly and eventually martyred - Evidently a sig- nifican t change h~> occurred or is now occurring in the motif struc- ture of Wester11 theology, Catholic and Protestant, so as to encourage Evangelical Unity ----- - - .- 19 an ecumenical ..:;nosphere hospitable to the 1::s sticism of Orthodoxy. To this new 6\'L -rcrn theological Zeitgeist we ilow turn our attention. i .' id7 Catl~olicisrn arzd a Neo-P citestantism The distiLL,uished Orthodox theologian iohn Meyendorff, pro- fessor at St. T :. jfnlir's Seminary, has astute.;- pinpointed the epis- temological g~ _ that has yawned between rhe theological motifs of Eastern an .A \Vestern Christendom : [The - lack, in Orthodox ecclesiolc;~, of a clearly defined, precise, a,: ;i:gesis discovers more and rnc~i-as for instance the works of O~car Cullmann, or Joachim Je~emias, have shown- that esse::tial Christian truths, such 2.s the doctrine of the Sncra1ner.-;. not treated directly by the inspired authors, are considercii by then1 as self-evident. . . . This makes it quite clear that Scripture, while conlplete in i:jelf, presupposes Tra- dition, n:lt as an addition, but as a mil._:[ in which it becomes understand~ble and meaningful. . . . Revelation, in fact, is not a i- ,:ma1 dictation of certain fcrnially definable truths to the h~man mind: Revelation in Jesus Christ is a new fel- lowship teiween God and man, establlsiled once and for all, a particip,.::on of man in divine life. Such an Orthc,lx statement as this is at the sJmc time an accurate depiction of the current Protestant attitude LO Scripture. World Council Protest ,:its at the Montreal Faith ar:i Order Conference in 1963 characte;.l~rically spoke not in terms of i~nqualified Sola Scrip- tura, but in t€::;;~ of "Scripture, Tradition, 2nd traditions"; Metho- dist Robert A. -.part from the Word made flesh we 1. ,uld be woefully ignorant cf the Father's heart and of the Spirit - procession. Thus our the ! )gy, as long as we remain undcr thc Cross, must be at center C1-7 Istological; and the only reliable pict~ , : of the Christ is imparted t\ thc written Word. Herman11 Sassc 1 nell located the contempc . ry "inability to ex- press doctrinal c i scnsus" in "the tragic facr :hat modern Prot- estantism has 10s: . . . the ability to think ci q-~~atically, that is, to think in terms a trans-subjective truth wl Lh is given to us in the revelation of C-O~."~~ Allay the Lord grart that in our efforts to achieve evangc, Lal unity, in our posture to11 rd the ecumenical movements of ouL iiay, 2nd in our witness to a 1 1st world, we evan- gelicals map holc -hat revelatory truth so high that none on our account shall mi.. its unambiguous claims. NOTES 1. An invitational ,-aper presented at the Consultat! 7 on Evangelical Con- cerns (Clyde IS Taylor, chairman; Carl F. H I-Ienry, co-chairman), held in Color< : Springs, Colorado, May 17-2C 1965. 2. John Warwick Montgomery, "Renewal and Cl - temporary Theology," United Evarzg '. 'a1 Action, XXIV (April, 1965' 13. 3. "Church for I : '~elievers?" Newsweek, April 26 :965, p. 62. 4. Our trans1a:im here combines elements of ti!e German and the Latin texts of the -4ugustana. Cf. Willard Dow AliF;:ck, Studies in the Luth- eran Confc , r ions (Philadelphia : Muhlenberg Press, 19 52 ), pp. 78-82. 5. See Arno!d Theodore Olson, Believers Only: -.i;: Outline of the History attd Pri~rci~.?~~ of the Free Evangelical Movi 7;jent (Minneapolis : Free Church Pu!L:,i'-ations, 1964), passim. 6. I look nitl; .. jaundiced eye on endeavors to persuade evangelicals that one particci:: confessional orientation conveys the "true" nature of evan- gelicalism; t::r a recent example of such an arg-ment from the Calvinist standpoint, Fred H. Klooster, "The He:lclberg Cathechism-An Ecumenical Creed?" Evnngelical Thcologic.ri Society Bulletin, VIII (Winter, 19 6 5), 23-33. Lutherans, I hasten ro add, are not above this sort of thic; cither; cf. G. H. Gerberding's once popular book, The Way of Salt7atio:: :+L the Lutheran Church (Phila(.:elphia: General Council Publicatioc Iiouse, 19 18). 7. My good fri:nd Dr. Donald Masters, F.R.S.C. .. professor of history at Bishop's U -: i:.ersity, Lennoxville, Quebec, di 5:inguishcs conservative'^ and "libera. ' evangelicals-the former holdin;: :Q the inerrancy of Scrip ture, the 1a:::r not (The Rise of Evangelicalisn:: Lectzrres Deliz~ered at the JVycliffe Cr;i;i,ge Alumni hlcetings in 1960 [Tcronto: Evangelical Pub- lishers, 190 1 :). Though this is a sold disti.:~tion historically, Profes- sor blaster. rightly refuses to give it n~mzat;i.~~ status; he is quick to identify himrlf with those who believe that ''i2ith in the divine inspira- tion of Scriyturc is necessary if Evangelicalisn is to regain its old power" (p. 15). \I:reover I myself have argued i~i cxtenso elsewhere that a non-inerrar ; 1. view of biblical inspiration is hth philosophically and theologicall~. "meaningless" (in the strict analytical sense of the tern), and thcrefcri constitutes at best an inconsistent evangelicalism; see my article, "1~. I- !ration and Inerrancy : A Nev. Depart~re," Evangelical Theological' Sqciety Bulletin, VIII, No. 2, (S;>ring, 1 965). 8. Cf. Frederl:, Jackson Turner's epochal "Fr';~;tier Thesis7'-that the frontier has F,-en the single most important facr:'r in shaping the Ameri- can charact rr. 9. Christialrit? 7-oday, March 13, 1961, p. 24. 10. Cf. Montg~!;-.~ry, The Shape of the Past ("Hi-tcry in Christian Perspec- tive," 1; An;. Arbor, Michigan: Edwards Br~:~crs, 1963), pp. 150-51. 11. H. Paul D;~:las, A Decade of Objective P~.~r Francois Wendel's Calvin: Sourc~ et kvolution de sa penske religilir!se ("Etudes d'histoire et de phi1osop::i.: religieuses, publikes par la FacaltC de ThCoIogie Prot- estante de IfU,r::i:-crsiti: de Strasbourg," No. 41; Paris: Presses Univer- sitaires de Fr:.i:ce, 1950), P. 270. Dean Wendel's book has recently appeared in ErsIish translahon. I am firmly crjzvinced that the ecumenical eEo:ts of Georg Calixtus ( 1586-1 6 5 6) i: .:ve been unjustly maligned; see my Strasbourg Univer- sity dissertation 'or the degree of Docteur de I'L~iversitk, mention ThC- ologie Protcsta:?tL : "Cross and Crucible" (3 vols.: 1964), I, 283-86. See Yves &I.-]. Congar, "Neuf cents ans aprks: Notes sur le 'Schisme oriental'," and 'inton hlichel, "Schisma und Kaiserhof in1 Jahre 1054," both in 1054- 1 5 54: LJEglise et les tglises . . . Etubs et trclvaux sur 1'Unitc' chrktit.:::~ oferts a Dom Lambert BeazrErtilz (2 vols.; Gembloux [Belgiuinl : Ecii clans de Chevetogne, 1954), I, ;if., 351ff. In English, scc Congar's :i.t2:lc, "Eccle~iolo~ical Awareness in the East and in the West from thc Sixth to Eleventh Century," in Thc Unity of the Churches of God, ed. arc!! trans. Polycarp Sherwood (Ba1tiir;orc: Helicon, 1963), pp. 161-63; i:r:.i AI.-J. Le Guillou, The Spirit fif Eastern Orthodoxy, trans. Donald .ltt\i7atcr ("Twentieth Century E~cyclopedia of Catholic- ism," 135; Nc:. I'ork: Hawthorn Books, 1962'. pp. 90ff. One of thc nlr,:: hclpful guides through this bibliographical thicket has been provided 1 :.- my good friend and Orthodox believer Ray R. Suput, formerly hcad Ijjrarian of the Garrett TI~eologjc~.l Seminary and pres- ently assistant iibrarian at Western Reserve Uni\.~rsity: "Eastern Ortho- doxy in a DesLi-iptire and Bibliographical Outli~:~." American Thcologi- cal Lihmr3.. As,;ciation Proceedings, XVI (19621. 116-35. It will be noted from this bibliography that of the qualit!- literature in western languages, a li.-g.: proportion is in French; this is explained by the fact that with the .c:, sing down of Orthodox seminar1is in Russia following the Commu~is~ 1:cvolution in 19 17, dmigrks four:ded the great Institut St. Serge in IJiris, which (together with the more recently established St. Vladimir S:n;inar in New York and the Hal>- Cross Greek Orthodox Theological Sc>(;c~l in Brookline, Mass.) constitutes a focal center for present-day Or:::?do?r theological activity. Florovsky's mi ::-mental work setting forth this :heme is his Puti russ- kago bogoslov::.~ (Paris, 1937). Interestingly, Florovsky's contention that in New I-c\tament study Hellcnistic e1eme:-tl must not be invidi- ously set agai:-.-: Hcbrcw characteristics (as T::~rlief Boman and the Protestant Net -Orthodox "biblical theology mov:ment" have done) has rcceivcd compci iing support from philologist Jam: c Barr (The Semantics of Biblical 1.a:r ;:rage [London: Oxford Universi:!. Press, 1961 I). Cf. my Shape of t;:- Past (op. cit. in n. lo), pp. 43. 50. See Florovsky's <.rticlc, "The Ethos of the Orthc2ox Church," Ecumeni- cal Review, XI! : 1960), 189, 192. Cf. Vasil T. Istavridis, "Orthodox and Lesser E;. - :rn Churches," in Twentieth C; :: tury Christianity, ed. Stephen Ncill 1-ondon: Collins, 1961), pp. 92 -5 1. Vitaly Borovo)-. ' The Mcaning of Catholicity," E,.:!menical Review, XVI (Octobcr, 196:. . 31-32. Cldment Lialirc. "La Position spCciale de I'Orthcr!,~xie dans le problhme oecumknique,' i:~ 1054-1 954: L'Eglise et les &g!i ces, 11, 396. Bernard Schulcze, "Latin Theology and Or-ier,:cl Theology," in The Unity of tlze C;l?!rches of God, p. 199. Charlcs B. Ashznin, "Eastern Orthodoxy As a Ti:eological Task," The- ology Today, ST\'I (January, 1960), 490. A. Schmemanx. "Towards a Theology of Council.." St. Vhdimir's Sem- inary Quarterl:? . TI (1 9621, 17 3. Ecumenical Rc- !-i;w, XVI, 5 14-1 5. Roger h! L 3, "The Ecumenical Situation, ' Ecumenical Review, XVI (October. i963), 9. For an e\Lcllent treatment alone these line<, see Le Guillou, The Spirit of Eastel:; Orthodoxy (op. cit. k n. 20). Scripture ialls the Holy Spirit not only the Spirit of the Father (Mt. 10:20) il.:t also the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6); in Jn. 20:22 Christ breathed .::I His disciples and said, "Receii-c. the Holy Spirit"; and the sending cr the Spirit to the New Testament Church is ascribed both to the Fathi:. :Jn. 14: 16) and to the Son (Jn. i 5:26; 16:7, 13-14). The fact that ri;? filioquc was added to the Niccri-Constantinopolitan Creed by the S:. :.:d of Toledo (589) must not bc ciivorced from these biblical considcri r: ns. Quoted i.! 'ir Banister Fletcher, A History o;' .-lrchitecture on the Com- pamtivc ' I, thod (1 5th ed.; London: B. T. Ijktsford, 1950), p. 24 5. Christopl.~r H. Dawson, The Making of Eu;.- :)e: An Introduction to the EIistoqJ C' European Unity (London, 193; , p. 120. I was pr:. ..:egcd to study representative EL. -:.:rn liturgies textually and rnusico1o:i; ~lly under the sensitive direction r' Professor H. Grady Davis at Chica::! Lutheran Theological Seminary ::.:ring the summcr of 1962. For the .;:.qcnian, with parallel English tlut, see The Divine Liturgy (h'cw Ycrl: : Delphic Press, 1950). G. Dejai;<-;. "Orient et Occident chrktien: :;t.ux thkologies?" Nouvelle Re~~zre Ti.& logique, LXXXII (Janvier, 196C . 3-19. I have altered the author's ;L: .uinology where the literal Englisk cognates of French terms ~vould mi?:,: 1c1 the reader. Cf. Gust;.;; Weigel, Catholic Theology in D;.r!~gue (New York: Harper, 1961), p?. 125-26. Americal: ';et.iezv of Eastern Orthodoxy, XI :March, 1965), 5. A brief 1.;-ort of this consultalion appcars i:: the Ecu~~zenictil Review, XVI (Oc; -.xr, 1963), 109-1 1. Sce Gcor 4; Elins Zachariades, Tiibingen u::.: Ko~zstnntinopel. Martin C?-ztsins I! ;: .: s. 'lrcrhandlungen mit d. griech.- '*.:hod. Kirche (G6ttingen : Dictcricli. i MI), and cf. Montgomery, "C: ij and Crucible" (op. cit. in n. 19, I, 105-106. Sce Gcor:. A. I-Iadjiantoniou, Protestatzt PL::?-iarch: The Life of Cyril Lzrcal-is (, ; -2-1 638) (London: Epworth Pr-:~j, 1961). John Meyen- dorff, in : .- essay, "The Significance of the 1:rformation in the History of Cllristc ; .~jon~" (Eczlnle~?icnl Review, XVI :!~nuary, 19641, 175-76), argucs th, : I.ucar really suffered at the han.is of a corrupt, "latinizing tcl~dcncy" i.1 seventeenth-century Eastern C!: chodoxy; obviously, how- ever, the - : flict c11t deeper than this, and R l.! endorff makes rather too nluch of cfrort to pass over the dislinct.~.; motif-contrasts between Orthotlos! :. r~d I~istnric Protestantism. Joiln hlcj.. . lorff, "The Meaning of Traditir-7. ." in Scripture and Ecti- i.: . trstal.lt, Ca~holic, Orthodox at:.-' Jewish, ed. Leonard J. Swidlcr ( 3 xqucsne Studies. Thcological E :r:es," 3 ; Pittsburgh: Du- q~~csi:c U:: ! ~rsity Press, 1965), p. 51 (M.-: LndorEs italics). Along the same 1:- , Professor Panagiotis Bratsiotis i'i the University of Athens speaks aprr :iztivcly of "le pieux agnosticis:-n- des Pkrcs grecs" ("La Significatic :- clu clogme dans la thkologie cr~~~odose," in 1054-1954: 1,'Eglise ct - ; c'gliscs Lop. cit. in n. 201, 11, 21 3). For mater:.: to follow (though not for the or -r-all interpretation of it!) I am niucl! indebted to Dr. George Lindbeck c: Yale, an official observer at the Scc :1,1 1,'stican Council, under whosr sxcellent tutelage I was piil : study contemporary Roman Ca::l. Jlic theolom during the summer ot 1961. Cf. with the ensuing dis.:;:jsion, G. C. Berltouwer, Tlzc Scco7.1.; Vatican Cozl77cil awd the New C..:.:olicisrn, trans. Lewis B. Smcdcs (C-r ! 1c1 Rapids, Michigan: Eerdman;. 1965), which offers an interpretat: . intermediate between Lindbecl;'. and mine. Rogcr Auk i. has stotcd that Catholic exegct i could theoretically on this basis :- . . .ain in full fellowship with the ;lurch while denying all Evangelical Unity 2 9 biblical miraclcs but the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. If it is argued that tl:e encyclical Hzrlnani generis (19512) seems to restrict the liberty permi::, by Divino afpa~zte Spiritu, 9::e need only consider Jesuit Gustavc ILambert's well-received interpretayi: n that Humani generis does not functi~n in this manner (a conclus;~:~ likewise reached by Count Begourn. the eminent French anthropolcgist-see James M. Con- nolly, The V:itcs of France; a Survey of Co:;:c.nzporary Theology in France [New I-3rk: Macmillan, 19611, pp. 169-90), and at the same time observe ..u;h recent Roman Catholic biblic. 1 scholarship as Miles RI. Bourke's >.:per, "The Literary Genus of ?,i,~tthew 1-2" (Catholic Biblical Qzrar:-, ly, XXII [19601, 160-75), whcl-i. in a manner strongly reminiscent oi Loisy, Bourke uses the fact tl~t the infancy narrative parallels in li.~:ary genre a haggadic comment'ry to dispense with the historicity of :::Any details of the biblical acccunt. How different in approach and :ne is this New Shape biblical rc.5.-arch from the uncom- premising old. r Catholic scholarship-which e: ?:I prohibited unauthor- ized reading r: boolts claiming that the inspiraticx of Scripture extends onlv to faith :;.d morals (Casus Conscientiae, pr-l7ositi a Card. de Lug0 [2 vols., 6th :.i.; Iiomae: Typographia Pontif.;.~ in Instituto Pii IX, 19131, 11, 4-3-12, casus 171 bis)! 46. James Rll. Rc-.;:-lson, "Interprctation of Scripi~::e in Biblical Studies Today," in Ec -::,zenicnl Dialogue at Harvard: T::: Roma~z Catholic-Prot- estant Culloqz:i::,n, edd. Samuel H. Miller and G. Ernest Wright (Carn- bridge, h4ass.: 3elknap Prcss of Harvard Uni~.rrsity Press, 1964), p. 105. 47. Father Tavar6.s Floly Writ or Holy Church (NcTi- York: Harper, 1959) opposes the o'<;ctive "Old Shape" Roman Cathc.!ic" "two source theory," which regards Scripture and tradition as eqz-ily valid but distinct sources of the church's doctrine. 48. George Tavard. "The hileaning of Scripture," in Scripture and Ecumen- ism (021. cit. i:: n. 43), pp. 70, 72-73. Intcxitingly, Tavard relates his position tc Calvin's doctrine of the "interior testimony of the Spirit" -a considera: ii n that should perhaps offer Cali inists a sleepless night or two! 49. See Vcrnon Cirrunds' recent analyses of the i2s:ability of the Roman Catholic docr:.::..ial and magisterial authority: "Rome's Tempest in Thcology," C-:. . stinn Heritage, XXVI (April, 1 9 55), 6-7, 13-1 5, and "The Ironical i',Aradox in Catholic Theology," ibi.<., XXVI (May, 1965), 6-7, 3 1-32. 50. h'leyendorff, "The Meaning of Tradition," op. cit. 'in n. 43), pp. 45-46. 51. Robert A. Nc'sl n, "Scripture, Tradition, and trcditions: Some Reflec- tions on the : .< ntreal Discussion," Ecumenical 2 :view, XVI (January, 1964), 158-5" 52. We have alre, 117.- cited the most sig~lificant of these to appear in 1964 (n. 46) and 1'65 (n. 43). In the former, J-xes M. Robinson, one of the leading .American advocates of the post-Ecltmannian "New Her- meneutic," ties radical Protestant biblical criticis:;., to New Shape Catho- lic development., and Krister Stendahl of Har: ;rd hits the "Western interpretation" 'lf Paul's "introspective conscie~ce"--an interpretation that falsely(!; Jraws Luther and Paul together by stressing the neces- sity for radic~!. conscious conversion from conc:iqus sin. In the 1965 Duquesne vol:.r:.c, Albert C. Outler and Markcs Barth hit the "tradi- tional" Protcs:;nt doctrines of Sola Scriptura ;nd biblical inerrancy ("It is un\visc. i-~ any form whatsoever to speak ?f the 'absolute author- ity of the Bib:?.' For the Bible is in no wise in absolute. . . . It is relative to th: Holy Spiritp'--M. Barth), and Robert McAfee Brown points out thr-.: Karl Rarth "delivers us from .c~.hat can be a very per- verse notion ci :ola Scriptura that would assert tht we go to the Bible and to the Bit !c alone, as though in the process .ve could really bypass tradition. He delivers us from a kind of Eihlicism that is content to rest simpl:: ::,ith a parroting of the vindicatim, 'the Bible says . . . , the Bible sz:.s . . . , ,) Irrefutable decimations of the analytically meaningless existential- encounter :heologies have been ~rovided by Frederick Ferrk, in his Lan- guage, Log:: and God (New York: Harper, 1951), pp. 94-104, and by C. B. Martin, in his paper, "A Religious W.i> of Knowing," contained in ATew E>;LI::s in Philosophical Theology, erid. Antony Flew and Mas- dair hlacix:;y:e (London: SCM Press, 1955). pp. 76-95. Rolf Hochi,u:h, lho Depzity, trans. Richard a;?d Clara Winston, intro. Albert Sch7.:-iitzer (New York: Grove Press, 1964). Some, of c.:;rse, have; see The Storm over TI:? Deputy, ed. Eric Bentley (New York : Grove Press, 1964). Cf. my S?:L:j-~ of the Past (op. cit. in n. lo:, pp. 76-78. Solovyov's :.r:zlarkable tale was recently print:: in an abridged version in Christia,. .~j Today, IX (January 29, 1965 ';, 21-27. Another super- lativc litcrzr!. portrait of runaway spiritual p~;~:er is contained in C. S. Lewis' novc:, That Hideous Strength; a Mod--?: Fairy-Tale for Grown- Ups (New c fact of the persecution of the Jews.' The Roman church, as a well-organized, supranational power, was C: least in a theoretical position to bring pressure on the Third ReicE . It is notew rihy that the Roman church and the Protestant Episcopal church havc ?-en able most effectively to brinz their Southern constitu- encies into I .PC with Christian desegregation rr c: sures. I have devc:c,r.ed this point in extenso in my i~vitational paper, "The Theologian'. Craft: A Discussion of Theory Forination and Theory Test- ing in Thco!c~;y," which will be delivered (D.!'.) at the 20th Annual. Convention 2; the American Scientific AfElizCon, to be convened at King's Col1e;e. Briarcliff Manor, New York, Aurust 23, 1965. Hermann S:sse, "Crisis of the Ecumenical 3Iovement," Christianity Today, 17 (~'.y:iI 10, 1961)) 6.