Reardon on the Manhattan Declaration and its critics

Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon laments the sorry state of Christian unity reflected in the attitudes of sectarian objectors to the Manhattan Declaration and looks to biblical history for a solution.

I weigh these sad assessments, not only from my interest in the Manhattan Declaration, but also because they touch a larger preoccupation that might be called "ecumenical." Using this expression, I have in mind a sympathetic interest in brethren who are separated from me — and from one another — through various tragedies suffered throughout Christian history.

In approaching this res ecumenica I have long been inspired by biblical history, particularly the tragic departure of Israel's northern tribes at the time of Jeroboam's revolt.

Although St. Augustine regarded that separation as "not religious but political" (The City of God 17.21), his assessment strikes me as overly simplified. The ancient alienation of the north involved at least two theological problems: a repudiation of God's covenant with the house of David and the establishment of other shrines as rivals to the temple at Jerusalem.

Now it is plain that both those institutions — the Davidic covenant and the Solomonic temple — pertained to the very content of divine revelation. Their repudiation in the north, consequently, was not only schismatic but also heretical. This is surely the reason the Chronicler refuses even to mention the Northern Kingdom until that historical period when it no longer existed!

Still, even in schism and heresy, the people of those northern tribes remained a special object of the Bible's sympathetic interest and concern. During the two centuries of the Northern Kingdom's existence (922-722), the Lord sent them such prophets as Elijah, Elisha, Amos, and Hosea. In fact, He dispatched one of those prophets to anoint them a king! Although Holy Scripture pronounces a harsh judgment on those responsible for the separation of the northern tribes, it contains no criticism of those whose sole offense was that they happened to be born on the wrong side of the border.

The Bible's solicitude for those "separated brethren" provides, I believe, a workable model for analogous situations today. Some believers, in short, were just born on the far side of a border, but, as far as I can tell, they love and trust Jesus as much as I do. Now then, friends, how should I regard them?