Perspectief 2016-34

Perspectief 20 Prof. dr. Gabriel Monet especially in the context of ecumenical dialogue and meetings. I want to base this idea on Martin Buber. In his book I and Thou , he convincingly showed that relationship can be of two types: The “I-it” relationship or the “I-thou”. Martin Buber states: “In the beginning is relation – as category of being, readiness, grasping form, mould for the soul; it is the a priori of relation, the inborn Thou” 2 . For Martin Buber, in the I-It relation, the other is not a real person but he is considered for what he represents, for the external aspects of his being, his clothes, his physical appearance, etc. However, the I-Thou relationship enables true encounter with the other and involves the entire presence. For this relationship to happen, it is important to show openness, availability. It requires both spontaneity and commitment. The meeting can then arise. The question therefore arises whether the “other instance” in ecumenical recognition is to be considered as “something” or as “someone”. Without denying the value of a quite accepted definition of recognition, it seems to go in the sense of the former and therefore to tend to the I-it mode of relation: “Ecumenical recognition is an application of the general form of the act of recognition, consisting of three instances where (1) A takes (2) B as (3) “something” (X)” 3 . It is clear that at some point, and in certain contexts, this objectification of the other may be needed, but shouldn’t it be preceded by the I-Thou kind of relationship? The I-Thou relationship cannot be explained; it simply is. Nothing can intervene in the I- Thou encounter. I-Thou is not a means to some object or goal, but a definitive relationship involving the whole being of each subject. Therefore, somehow the de-cognition of recognition is an invitation to give priority to personal encounter and human relationships over institutional formal agreements. This recognition as relationship can be lived both at the high level between leaders and theologians, but also of course between all believers. This accent on relationship offers the option to appreciate possible encounters as significant in the ecumenical process even though there is no theoretical prior agreement. 2 Martin Buber, I and thou , translated by Ronald Gregor Smith (Edinburgh: T. & T. CLARK, 1937), p. 27. 3 Minna Hietamäki, “"Ecumenical Recognition" in the Faith and Order Movement”, Open Theology 2015/1, p. 205.