Robert McAfee Brown
PROFESSOR, UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
1 I y hop es for the emerging r eligious dialogue in America outbal a nce my misgivings, but both th e hopes and th e mi sgivings must b e seen in relation to one another.
1[y immediate hope is that th e give-and-take of th e emerging dialogue can d es troy some of the caricatures we have of one another. lf nothing more should happ e n than that we ca m e to disagree about the right things, this would be clear gain. The clearing up of misunderstandings will not come about as insulated Protes,tants talk about Catholicism to one another, and vice versa. 1t wi ll come about on ly as Protes tants and Catholics tal k to one another, and listen to one another.
There are two particular stereotypes of Catholicism that ex ist in th e Protestant mind-set. and both of them need to b e laid to r est. One of th ese is the persistent image most Protestan ts l1ave of CathoH cism as monolithic. A fuller exposure of legitimate diff e re nces of opinion among Catholics will b e most beneficial in any dialogue. (The whole Burry over th e Pu e rto Ri can bishops will in th e long run hav e a b e n eficial impac t on th e Protestant image of Catholicism, for , whatever e lse the eve nt showed , it indicated that Catholics were not of one mind on th e wisdom of th e bishops' action.) Th e other image is a co n viction that somehow Roman Catholics clo not really believe in religious liberty. Anyon e who ex poses him self to Catholic lite rature on th e subject cannot h elp discovering that th e re is a wide spectrum of opinion on it. Th e width of that sp ec trum needs to b e made mor e apparent to Protes tants, whose fi e ld of v ision is st ill very narrow.
T have a secon~l hop e for the e m e rging dialogu e. lt is a hop e that th e re can b e serious th eological inte rchange between American Protestants and American Catholi cs. Protestant theology can lea rn a great d ea l from Catholicism in s uc h areas as the meaning of tradition, th e life of th e early Church and the relationship of th e C hurc h to th e world. Some Catholi c theologians w ilJ now co ncede that emp hases in Protestant thought are important em phases that have b ee n s lighte d in th e pol emicall y oriented Catholic apo logetics of another clay. Furthe r theol ogical exc h ange ma y appear un sp ec tacular to th e outsider, but it can build a firm foundation for increased und e r stand ing.
My main misgiving about th e dialogue is that peo pl e w ill expect too mu c h from it. We are now able to say: "Dialogue has b eg un." But we must not begin to say: " llow soon will somet hin g happen?" The minute we start pressing for t angib le results, we will be throwing up needless roadblocks. Cod's tim e is not the same as our tim e, and l have a feeling that ri e is going to be much more patie nt about th ese things than many of I lis activistically inclined American chi ldre n. \ Ve ca n , of co urse, hope and pray that dialogue wi ll lead to a lesse ning of ce rtain kinds of te nsions, to the opening up of n ew and warm r elationships, to the recognition of th e tr eas ures inherent in our total Chri s tian witness. But we
cannot assume that the blast of our dialogical trumpets is about to redu ce th e Jericho of our divisions to dust and ashes.
I cannot speak for Catholics in this matter, but 1 know some Protestants who will get impatient at th e l ack of immediate results. Some of th e m are already impatient. They airil y refer to the dialogu e as "phon y," or th ey a ngrily insist that a concern for Christian unity is a "sellout" to the "monolith" conception of th e Church as opposed to the "free church" co n cep tion. They are unimpressed by th e deeper measures of understanding the di alogue produces, b ecause they insist th a t it must produce a Catholic d e nial of infallibility or a Catholic admi ssion that other ch ur c h es are just as riO'ht as the Catholi c Church. Th ey are not co n ce rn ed , in°other words, to e nte r into dia logue. All they reall y want to do is win a d ebate.
It is at this point that Protestants and Catholics must refuse to l e t th e strident voices around th e m deflect th e m from th e ir concern for one another. W e have no way of knowing wh ere our di a logue is going to lead. W e ca nnot lay down conditions in advance. W e sim ply enter into it in trust. Our hopes are greater than our misgivings , for we believe that it is th e will of God that we come to know one another b e tte r. What God will do with th e fact that we com e to know one another better, we can safely leave to Him. But we can be sure that tl1e seed w ill b ear fruit as He sees fit.
John Courtney Murray EDITOR, THEOLOGICAL STUDIESTh e r e are two possible areas of dialogue. In th e first area th e genera l issue wou ld b e th e bea ring of re ligious faith on " publi c affairs" in the widest sense-the matters that co ncern the commonwea lt h , wh ethe r as problems in public policy or as more theoretical probl ems in th e public philosophy. In the second area th e general issu e wou ld b e the analogous relationship b etween th e religious fa iths themselves, to b e dis ce rned through dir ect confrontation on th e properly theological level. In both a reas th e re are grave diffi cu lties.
In th e second area th e major difficulty has long b een known. Th e re is not mu c h us e in arguing th e qu es tion of whethe r Protestant and Catholic hold in co mmon certain articles of th e traditional Christian creed , at l eas t in some ana logous fashion, when both parti es to th e dialogue must admit that they diffe r radicall y about the meaning of th e word with which th e traditional creed begins , "C redo," "I believe." On this antecedent issue the two universes of th eological discourse part company. each to assume its own irreducibly different style and content. At that, th e re would be value in having it made cl e ar. in a r gument, that the tw o universes do thus diHer. This achievement wo uld at least eliminate one of the poss ibl e dangers-that of a false irenicism.
For the res t , th e re might be some hope of rec,procally useful confrontation , if th e issues on the table concerned biblical themes, to b e dis c ussed under strict r egard both
for th e ir properly exegetical content and for th e distinctively bibli cal mode of conception and statement in which th e th emes are cast. It is sufficiently eviden t today th a t in th e fi eld of biblical sch ola rship th e p ossibilities of agreement b etween Protes tant and Catholic are cons id e rab le. The two ro ads diverge in th e yellow wood only when th e question ri ses as to whether it b e legi timate to transpose the "func ti o nal th eology" of Scripture ( as it is sometimes called today) into the con ciliar " met a ph ys ical" mode of con ception and statement.
The Catholic moves eas il y from th e New Testame nt t o icaea and Chalcedon , knowing that he has not added to his faith, but onl y altered a nd improved his mode of und e rstanding it. To th e Protes tant, howe ver, icaea and Chalce don are still at bottom " Helle nizati on ," a d eformati on of th e Chris ti an faith itself, whose final mod e of st at ement must always r emain scriptural. In this divergence of view the ancient-and to th e Catholic-false dilem ma, "Holy Writ or Holy Church ," m akes itsel f mos t sharply fe lt today. At that, there wou ld be value in e>.'})e ri e ncing, in argument, th e sharpness of the divergence.
In th e first area of p oss ible dialogue, mentioned above, the difficulties are likewise formidabl e. One mi ght p erhaps bes t plumb th e ir d e pths by contrasting, in co nte nt and es p ecially in style of construction, all that a Catholi c means b y a rati o nal e thi c and all that a Protestant means by a bibli cal ethi c. The r eal argum e nt h e re co ncern s th e value of reason, and its limits, as th e force direc tive of public affairs. The Catholic assumes th a t " re ligion," for all its indispensability as the basic e nergy of civilization , is not a force directive o f publi c affairs, except in so far as its truths and imperatives are transmitted to society and to th e state thr oug h the m edium of th e public philosophy that has b ee n e laborated b y human reaso n over centuri es of reflection and experience. The Pro t estant does n ot seem to share th is assum pti on. or d oes he seem to regard th e concept of th e public philosophy as even th eo retically valid. Thus , in th e a b sen ce o f common premises, di alogue on the d eep e r as pects of public affairs proves desultory
W illia m Lee Miller
CO NSU LTAN T , THE F UND FOR THE RE PUBLlC
The emerging dialogue among th e re ligious communities in the Uni t ed States ca n make great gains b ecause th e level o f the relationship am ong th e reli gious communiti es in th e United States hithe rto has b ee n p oor. One is s truck by th e shee r ignoran ce that Am e ri can Pro tes ta nts, Catholics and J ews hav e of each othe r. This is a n ignorance not onJ y of the b e lie fs and practi ces of the o th e r com munions, but of th eir concr e te life. The di a logue makes us aware of the other communions, n ot as powe r groups and strangers, but as living co mmunities. Th e dialogue m ay have th e positive effect within each co mmunity of introducing an e lement of s elf-criticism and illumin a ti o n C onfrontation with differing views may make us more rigid in holding to
our own; it may also, however , if d eeply and seriously e nte r ed into, give n ew light upon our own.
The misgivings one would have about th e dialogue wou ld b e, first, th at it has b een participate d in almost exclusively at a l evel of th e religio us professionals a nd inte llec tu als , without r eaching ve ry d eep ly into th e lay co mmunities; and, second, that it may sometimes b e accompanied by unrealistic exp ectations that reaso n and discussion al one can deal with root ed diffe r e nces of per spective, val ue, and even of inte res t. Some tim es one detects a t e nd e ncy to avoid and dismiss th e socialp oliti cal co nflicts that arise from th e exis t e nce of diffe ring r eligious communities; p e rhaps in the initial stages of a dialogue these must b e avoided. In th e e nd, however , they too shou ld b e faced.
Also, th e re is a t e nd e ncy for eac h communion unconsciously to conceive the "dial ogue" in a way that r efl ec ts its own und e r standi n g and exp e ri e nce. For a re al dial ogue th e r e must b e an initial realization that our differ e nces have to do not on ly with the content of credos but also with th e whole styl e and m e thod of discourse and r eligious life. If "dialogu e" implies a r ationalistic view, for examp le, th e n it will b e more congenial to some groups than to others. The encounter finally is not b e tween id eas and pos itions, but b e tween p e rsons , with uniqu e chara cteristics and perspectives.
Kenneth Underwood
I have two ma in concerns with th e nature of the prese nt di a logue b e tween Protes tants and Roman Catholics. Firs t , I am concerned that it has largely b ee n confine d thus far to dis c ussion betwee n scholars, intellectuals and journalists and that Christians hav e not found th e places, th e reso urces and th e morale for e nough ri gorous and sustained dis c ussions on a local or parish level.
My second concern is t hat most of th e dialogu e has not move d b eyond broad generalizations or d e bate on traditiona l "r eligious or church issues" to exploration of th e significance of chur ch practice and religious-moral principle for the r es p onsibilities of me n in a whole range of urgent political , economic and communication problems scarcely tou ch ed in l ocal church discussions.
What is n eed e d are not conve rsations b e hv een cle rgy o r la ym e n trying to arrive at some common creed which will p e r suad e Protestants and Catholics of th e ir basic harmon y, but the fost e ring of situations in whi ch judgme nts about real public problems are e>-'Pressed frankly , not to co nceal , but to bring out diffe r e nces. The re should b e no attempt to by-pass or ignore th e contribution which do ctrin e or r eligious b elie f can make to und erstanding a sp ecific situation, as if th ese were matters that b e long in some p e rsonal or separate realm of life, or were th e province only of th e cl e rgy But rather th eological and social thought should b e concrete and r e levant; it should speak to th e prob lem und e r discussion, whether it is th e improvem e nt of public schools, .. I
