Contents

The Catholic Presbyterian (1879-1883) The Quarterly Register(1886-1936) The Presbyterian Register (1937-1948) ThePresbyterian World (1949-1955) The Reformed and PresbyterianWorld (1956-1970) Reformed World (1971)

Volume 55 (1)March 2005

EditorOdair Pedroso Mateus

Reformed World is published quarterly by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches150, route de Ferney, PO Box 2100 - 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland

www.warc.ch

President Rev. Dr. Clifton KirkpatrickVice-Presidents Mr. Helis H. Barraza Díaz, Rev. Dr. Henriette Hutabarat-Lebang,

Rev. Dr. Gottfried W. Locher, Mrs. Marcelle Orange-Mafi,Rev. Dr. Ofelia Ortega, Rev. Prof. Lilia Rafalimanana

Geneva Secretariat Rev. Dr. Setri Nyomi - General SecretaryMs. Yueh-Wen Lu - YouthRev. Patricia Sheerattan-Bisnauth - Partnership of Women and MenMs. Jet den Hollander - John Knox-WARC Mission in Unity ProjectMrs. Renate Herdrich - FinancesMr. John Asling - CommunicationsRev. Dr. Seong-Won Park - Cooperation and WitnessRev. Dr. Odair Pedroso Mateus - Theology

© Copyright by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, Geneva. Except where otherwise stated,the writers of articles are alone responsible for the opinions expressed.No article may be reproduced in whole or in part without permission.Layout: emblema idéias visuais São Paulo Brasil emblemaideias@aol.com

Editorial..………………………………………………………………………………......The Economic and Social Witness of Calvin for Christian Life Today ....................….The Oriental Orthodox-Reformed International Dialogue ..........................................The Adventist-Reformed International Dialogue ...............……………………….…..The African Independent Churches-Reformed Dialogue ...............………………......Towards an Alliance of Protestant Churches? The Confessional and theEcumenical in the WARC Constitutions (I), Odair Pedroso Mateus ...........……….....Pilate, the Empire, and the Confession of the Church, Lukas Vischer ........................

0103082838

5571

1

Editorial

The refugees and the pastor - They were thousands fleeing persecution because of

their faith. One of them was a widow “still stunned by the murder of her husband and

anxious about providing for their three small children”. The pastor not only prayed for

them and offered them the strong hand of solidarity. He also wrote letters and made a long

journey to seek diplomatic intercession for them. They were French Protestants. He was

John Calvin. As churches around the world prepare themselves to celebrate the 500th

anniversary of Calvin’s birth in 2009, an international consultation on Calvin’s economic

and social witness, held in Geneva late in 2004, urges the Reformed family to rediscover

Calvin beyond the tenacious stereotypes of Calvin. The statement adopted at that

consultation is published in the present issue.

Break the wall! - The Scottish theologian William Blaikie wrote about the Alliance in

1884 that “if we get our hearts large enough to embrace all our Presbyterian brethren, the

proofs of enlargement will go on, and we shall begin to long earnestly for wider fellowship”.

Blaikie would probably be surprised to learn that more than one century later the Alliance

would be not only alive and active but also fully committed to the spiritual and ecumenical

vision of seeking “wider fellowship” that he had put forward. In the past thirty-five years

WARC has been involved in ecumenical dialogue with a wide range of Christian churches

and Christian world communions. This issue of Reformed World includes the reports of

several years of theological and ecumenical conversations that the Alliance has had with

the Oriental family of Orthodox Churches, with the Organisation of African Independent

Churches as well as with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Christianity in the African

context, the service of women in the church as well as the mission of Reformation churches

in a world of widespread injustice and environmental destruction are some of the themes

addressed by these ecumenical conversations.

2

Crossing ten seas - Blaikie’s words about the Alliance’s ecumenical vision and

engagement are quoted at the beginning of the article “Towards an Alliance of Protestant

Churches? The Confessional and the Ecumenical in the WARC Constitutions (I)”. At a time

when the ecumenical goals as well as the structural means to achieve them clearly suffer

from a limited degree of consensus within organised ecumenism, different Christian families

recognise the need to contribute towards a new ecumenical spring. The old questions of

the ecumenical self-understanding of the Christian world communions and that of the

relations between them and the organised forms of the ecumenical movement thus

appear in a new light. The article published in this issue of Reformed World attempts to

contribute to this discussion by taking the détour of history. It addresses to the 1875

constitution of the Alliance of Presbyterian Churches the issue of the interplay between

confessionality and ecumenicity.

Pilate and Iraq - “At that time there were some present who told him about the

Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices…” At the closing worship of

the Calvin conference which I mentioned at the beginning of this editorial, Lukas Vischer,

the well-known Reformed theologian and ecumenist, reflected on Luke 13.1-5. He concluded

his meditation by challenging us to overcome our indifference to the demolition of

Palestinian houses or to the bombs falling on the population of Fallujah in Iraq.

Odair Pedroso Mateus

3

The Economic and Social Witness ofCalvin for Christian Life Today

Laity and pastors, women and men, scholars from north and south, east andwest, gathered for a consultation of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, theJohn Knox International Reformed Center, and the Faculty of Theology of theUniversity of Geneva, which took place in Geneva from 3 to 6 November 2004. Thepurpose was to rediscover Calvin’s witness for the commitment of Reformed Christiansin the economic and social realities of our time.

The pastor, an exile and resident alien,

reached out to offer the strong hand of

fellowship to a flock of refugees. This group

spoke a language he knew, others later

would speak different ones, but all shared

the condition of having been uprooted from

home and everything familiar. The young

man remembered that from his own

experience. Thankful to have been received

into this community, these new exiles asked

for prayers for the friends they had left far

away, and help for themselves, in the name

of the one Lord Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Sometimes refugees might be able to bring

with them the means to set up a new life,

but not this group. Some of these were able

and willing to work but needed jobs. Others

brought little more than their faith and their

shattered lives: a widow still stunned by the

murder of her husband and anxious about

providing for their three small children, a

man who had been crippled by torture

wondering if he could bear to be dependent

even on these generous unknown

neighbours.

The pastor’s name was John Calvin. Many

prayers were already being offered; the new

names of these refugees from Provence

would be added to the intercessions. Calvin

himself wrote letters and made a long

journey to seek diplomatic intercession for

those still being persecuted. Meanwhile the

varied circumstances of each refugee would

be taken into account. The able-bodied

would be introduced to the appropriate

authorities so they could seek residence and

work and permission to establish

themselves. Those in need would be given

the practical resources to begin a new life,

with dignity, and education for the future if

they could not return home.

This scene would be repeated many

times over the years. The languages would

change, the varied cultures and nationalities

would multiply, but the network of solidarity

in faith and in mutual communication in

social and material ways would grow and

spread. Refugees would worship, live, and

work in Geneva, or would be helped on their

way; some would return home, others would

4

come. Visitors and students and citizens

crossed paths, built ties of friendship,

fellowship, common purpose – across the

bounds of geography and rank, of political

situation, of wealth and poverty, of custom

and gender.

This picture of Calvin may come as a

surprise to the twenty-first century, but

the members of our consultation believe

that Calv in has been of ten

misrepresented. We believe that the

rediscovery of Calvin has something

relevant to contribute to the witness of

Reformed people and churches today with

regard to social and economic issues.

Calvin was certainly no stranger to

challenges in these aspects of life, but he

met them with a biblical vision of the

spiritual and practical coherence of God’s

world. Calvin did not compartmentalize

any dimension of human life or separate

it from al l the others . He was ful ly

convinced that both earthly life and the

life to come were created and redeemed

by God. Every aspect of life, therefore, is

integrated with every other, and every

person truly l ives only in koinonia ,

fellowship, solidarity, with all the rest of

God’s creation.

One might ask whether this picture of

Calvin is justified. Current opinion claims

that “everyone knows that Calvin is the

father of capitalism”… but was he really?

This “Weber thes is” i tse l f i s of ten

misunderstood; careful readers of the

sociologist point out that Weber claimed

that some Calvinists were responsible for

“the spirit” of capitalism. In fact, since the

sources of Calvinism which Weber studied

come from the 17th and 18th centuries,

and one of his examples is Benjamin

Franklin (!), it is obvious that his “spirit of

capitalism” is related to some strands of

later Calv inism and does not have

anything to do with Calvin himself. On

the other hand, many heirs of Calvin have

found in this heritage an inspiration for

liberation and devotion to justice and the

common good – at whatever cost.

It remains clear that in public opinion

and often even in the churches, Calvin is

certainly misunderstood. This is not

surprising since, like every historical figure

who has made a decisive impact, Calvin

has been adapted and appropriated in

many ways . Calv inism is a dynamic

tradition, prizing its self-critical creed

(ecclesia reformata semper reformanda

secundum verbum Dei), though honest

followers of Calvin are among the first to

admit that they have not always lived up

to this goal. Over time Calvinists have

developed some aspects of Calvin’s

teaching or practice, neglected others, and

reinterpreted still more. Selective memory

inevitably distorts. And in some cases there

has been deliberate distortion of Calvin’s

teaching. Deliberate or at least practical

denial of Calvin’s inconvenient insistence

that Christians must do for their neighbours

what they would have their neighbours do

for them, even to the point of expending

their lives, honour, and possessions.

Deliberate or practical denial of Calvin’s clear

5

demand that the reckoning of sin and active

repentance begins with ourselves. No doubt

Calvin, like the originator of any historical

movement, would be utterly amazed by

many of the things ascribed to him today

Today. When the world is so different.

When Christians and churches are

challenged in countless and varied ways.

Economic injustice is evident on every hand.

The global market appears to be the one

law of commercial exchange – a kind of

hegemonic control once associated with

political empires. Rampant consumerism

fuels a life of ease for those at the top who

profit from the limitless growth, while debt

crushes the vast majority. The means of

production are subordinated to the

unregulated accumulation of wealth. Even

if that makes human beings cogs in an

economic machine. Even if it means natural

resources are appropriated by a minority or

altered beyond all recognition. Even if that

abuse of power and natural wealth reduces

already marginal populations (especially

women, children, the elderly) to abject

poverty. Even if the next generations

(including the grandchildren of those who

now conspicuously use more than their fair

share) may come into a world which can no

longer sustain life in any worthwhile form.

Destruction leads to violence, conditions of

violence multiply conflicts. In the midst of

this Christians and churches themselves

are divided: Christians divided within

themselves and over against each other,

divisive struggle within and between

churches or communities of faith. What is

right? What is my mission, our mission? Can

we speak of “our” at all?

As we anticipate the five hundredth

anniversary of Calvin’s birth in 2009, the

findings of this consultation challenge

Reformed people and all churches to

reconsider whether Calvin might offer

some insights into new or better ways to

view social and economic issues. We are

prompted to speak at this t ime by

considering the various writings of André

Biéler which have been concerned with

rediscovering Calvin for our day. We

celebrate the work of Prof. Biéler, who has

acted in accord with what he has studied,

and the forthcoming (2005) English

translation of his book, “Calvin’s Economic

and Social Thought” (first published in

1959). We believe that rediscovering

Calvin can help members of the World

Alliance of Reformed Churches to take up

the challenge of the 2004 Accra general

council which, in the face of the financial

and economic powers, called churches to

covenant on matters of economic injustice

and environmental destruction. In Accra,

in addition to confessing the guilt of those

of us who benefit from complicity in these

systems of destruction, we affirmed “that

God is a God of justice… and in a special

way the God of the destitute, the poor,

the exploited, the wronged, and the

abused”. We rejected “any ideology or

economic regime that puts profits before

people, does not care for all creation, and

privatizes those gifts of God meant for all”.

Calvin was absolutely convinced that

6

“the earth is the Lord’s” and that this earth

is a marvellous abundance of gifts entrusted

to human beings for their delight and their

use. “Entrusted” means that everything,

whether natural resource or human ability,

is held in trust. Material things are not

personal possessions but means to serve

the common good; individual talents of mind

or physical skill or artistic creation find their

right purpose in mutual support within the

whole society. The Creator intended every

human being to know that because she or

he is a member of the global human family

by birth, each one must recognize every

other person as his or her “own flesh and

bone”. Human society is held together by

the diversity of individual gifts and varied

vocations, since no one can be truly human

alone and everyone needs what others

bring to the common table. Living together

in justice and peace requires that everyone

accept communal limitations and training

or discipline; living together in harmony and

grace requires self-discipline and respect for

others.

Life together is intended to be the arena

in which sinful and broken people are

restored, to reflect clearly the image of God,

to conform to the likeness of Jesus Christ; it

is to be the place where the earth and the

oikoumene , the human family, are

transformed into what they were meant to

be. In faith, Calvin the biblical preacher

affirms that this process cannot fail; in

practice, Calvin the realist recognizes that

the process is begun but not fully visible.

However, by the power of the Holy Spirit,

this process of re-creation is also a task

committed to the people of God, who are

challenged by seeing how much there is to

do, who find strength and energy because

they know that they are never alone: they

always work with God and with each other.

Daily working towards the renewal of all

life is each Christian’s calling, responsibility,

and privilege. However, for Calvin, working

together to renew the social and economic

world is also the common responsibility of

the church as church, both in local situations

and international contexts, acting both with

those of the same confession and with all

followers of the gospel – the ecumenical

church. The rediscovered Calvin is a person

working with other church and civil leaders.

Eminently practical, Calvin knew that “what

is everyone’s job is no one’s job”, which is

one compelling reason to have specific

offices leading the church or community to

be actively engaged. Each office or “standing

committee” also provides a structure for

ecumenical cooperation, across national and

cultural and geographic lines. Calvin’s

teaching on the ministries of the church

placed great emphasis on the corporate

character of leadership and introduced “lay”

church offices alongside “clerical” ones.

Pastors proclaim and explain God’s gospel

and law, they encourage those committed

to their care, they challenge them to be

faithful children of God and responsible

stewards. Lay elders and pastors together

train and reprove those who harm each

other, and reconcile those who repent. Lay

deacons lead the church in corporate

7

Names and origin of all invited participants

response to the situation of the poor and

afflicted, caring for each according to her or

his need, with cheerful assistance and

respectful care. Teachers are charged with

educating all God’s people, contributing

significantly to the international character

of Christian social and ethical consciousness

– as Calvin’s own example demonstrates:

besides refugees, many students came to

Geneva and returned home to build a

network of ecumenical leaders across

Europe.

Every Christian is expected to learn God’s

will and teach it to others according to her

or his vocation. Every Christian is

responsible for mutual reproof and

forgiveness and reconciliation in her or his

own place. All Christians are obligated to

serve the poor, needy, and afflicted –

recognizing that these brothers and sisters

are their equals in God’s sight, they embody

Christ. All Christians are also part of the

larger church, and the church as church is

called to fulfil these ministries and so it

establishes structures of leadership to

enable corporate witness. In the present

day, churches and Christians are invited to

take seriously the corporate and personal

character of their commitment to social and

economic justice, finding for themselves the

right forms to insure that the common calling

to love the neighbour as oneself actually is

implemented. “Who will do it?” is not a

rhetorical question!

Who has the energy or vision to respond

to the needs of this day? We believe that

the rediscovered Calvin can offer some

suggestions for both vision and resources.

Calvin was deeply and personally convinced

that stewardship of all earthly gifts for the

common good, and justice and love in all

human relationships, are not optional for

any human being. Addressing Christians, he

insisted that love for neighbours – “all people

who dwell on earth” – is often the clearest

evidence for the true worship of God, and

the Spirit of God is the source of power for

working towards life abundant for all God’s

creation.

Bishop Gusztáv Bölcskei, HungaryProf. Dr. James D. Bratt, USAProf. Dr. Eberhard Busch, Germany/SwitzerlandProf. Dr. François Dermange, SwitzerlandProf. Dr. Edward Dommen, SwitzerlandProf. Dr. Jane Dempsey Douglass, USAProf. Dr. Margit Ernst, GermanyRev. Prof. Eduardo Galasso Faria, BrazilProf. Dr. Robert M. Kingdon, USADr. Odair Pedroso Mateus, Brazil

Prof. Dr. Dennis McCann, USAProf. Dr. Elsie McKee, USAProf. Dr. Peter Opitz, SwitzerlandProf. Dr. Seong-Won Park, KoreaProf. Dr. Dirk Smit, Republic of SouthAfricaProf. Dr. Christoph Stückelberger,SwitzerlandRev. Dr. Jean-Pierre Thévenaz,SwitzerlandProf. Dr. Lukas Vischer, Switzerland

8

Report of the International TheologicalDialogue between the OrientalOrthodox Family of Churchesand the World Alliance of ReformedChurches (1993-2001)

Adopted at theArmenian Catholicosate of Cilicia in Antelias, LebanonJanuary 23-28, 2001

I. INTRODUCTION1.Impelled by the prayer of our Lord “that

all may be one” (Jn 17.21) and helped by the

Holy Spirit, we, the participants in the

Oriental Orthodox-Reformed dialogue, seek

to understand each other’s traditions and

grow together towards holistic Christian

fellowship and visible unity.

2.Reformed Churches and the Oriental

Orthodox family of Churches live side by

side in several countries. However, decades

of separate existence have caused them to

drift apart , resulting in little or no

relationship between the Churches. In

general, biases about each other have kept

the contact between these two

communions to a minimum in spite of the

inherited Christian faith expressed in the

Nicene Creed.

3.The Oriental Orthodox Churches are

living Christian communities in Egypt, Syria,

Armenia, Lebanon, Ethiopia, India and

Eritrea, and in lands of immigration. They

are ancient Apostolic Traditional Churches

in the East which believe in the Creed

composed at the Holy Ecumenical Council

at Nicea in 325, and completed at the Second

Holy Ecumenical Council at Constantinople

in 381. They also follow the teaching of the

Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431.

As such they believe in the Holy Trinity and

in the divine incarnation of the Son of God.

They follow the teaching of St. Cyril of

Alexandria about one incarnate nature of

the Word of God. They reject both the

teaching of Nestorius and Eutyches. The one

incarnate nature of Jesus Christ to them

does not mean that the humanity of Jesus

Christ was absorbed in His divinity and thus

ceased to exist, but that they were united

without separation and without change and

continued to exist in the union.

4.During and after the Council of

Chalcedon in 451, the Oriental Orthodox

9

Churches formed a family of Churches since

they did not accept the condemnation at

this Council of their Saint Dioscorus, the

successor of St. Cyril of Alexandria, and due

to difference in expressing the mystery of

incarnation of the Son of God. Now the

misunderstanding that happened during the

Council of Chalcedon is being removed and

Christological agreements are being

reached among Chalcedonian and non-

Chalcedonian Churches.

5.The World Alliance of Reformed

Churches has been involved for about four

decades in bilateral theological dialogues

with several other world Christian

communions.1 In 1992 the World Alliance

of Reformed Churches evaluated the results

of bilateral dialogues and reaffirmed the

significance of such dialogues for the future

relationship of Christian Churches in the

world.

6.The Oriental Orthodox family of

Churches has been in recent years in

theological dialogue with the Eastern

Orthodox family of Churches, the Roman

Catholic Church, the Lutheran and Anglican

Churches. The unofficial dialogue with the

Eastern Orthodox started in 1964 and

became official in 1985.

7.Informal conversations and contacts

among the Reformed and Oriental

Orthodox Churches during earlier

ecumenical gatherings eventually paved the

way for officially organising such dialogues

between these two Christian communions.

Unlike the Reformed Churches, which have

the World Alliance of Reformed Churches

as a structure to promote international

fellowship, the autocephalous Oriental

Orthodox Churches participating in this

dialogue (namely, the Coptic Orthodox

Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church of

Antioch, the Armenian Apostolic Church

[Catholicosate of All Armenians in Holy

Etchmiadzin and Catholicosate of Cilicia in

Antelias], the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo

Church and the Malankara Orthodox Syrian

Church) do not have such a central structure,

hence the decision to engage in

conversations with the Reformed Christians

had to be agreed to by each of the Oriental

Orthodox Churches. After an informal

assurance that these Churches were open

to dialogue with the Reformed family, a

formal letter of invitation was sent out by

the General Secretary of the World Alliance

of Reformed Churches to the Head of each

of the Churches in November 1991. In his

letter the General Secretary indicated that

Reformed Christians were engaged in

several other bilateral dialogues and that

they were committed to work for Christian

unity.

8.Such contacts and conversations led

to a first meeting on 27 August 1992 among

a group of authorised representatives of the

Oriental Orthodox Churches and

representatives of the World Alliance of

Reformed Churches at the Ecumenical

Centre, Geneva, Switzerland, on the

occasion of the Central Committee meeting

of the World Council of Churches. This

meeting was co-chaired by His Holiness

Pope Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and

10

Patriarch of the See of St. Mark, and Dr.

Milan Opocenský, then General Secretary

of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches.

9.The representatives of both families

were of the opinion that they and their

respective Churches were enthusiastic about

the possibility of engaging in dialogue and

were committed to pursuing it with all

sincerity and prayer so that these two

families could move towards greater

Christian fellowship. An invitation graciously

extended by His Holiness Pope Shenouda

III to hold the first meeting at Anba Bishoy

Monastery, Wadi-EI-Natroun, Egypt, from 2

to 5 May 1993 was accepted, and the meeting

was held accordingly.

10.Subsequent meetings were held at

“Kerk en Wereld”, Driebergen, The

Netherlands from 10 to 15 September 1994,

at the invitation of the Netherlands

Reformed Church; at the Sophia Centre,

Orthodox Theological Seminary, Kottayam,

India from 10 to 15 January 1997, at the

invitation of His Holiness the Catholicos

Moran Mar Baselios Mar Thoma Matthews

II of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church;

and at Union Theological Seminary and the

Presbyterian School of Christian Education,

Richmond, Virginia, USA from 10 to 15

January 1998, at the invitation of the

Presbyterian Church (USA) and UTS/PSCE;

at St. Ephrem Syrian Orthodox Seminary,

Ma’arat Saydnaya, Syria from 10 to 15

January 1999, at the invitation of His

Holiness Moran Mar Ignatius Zakka I, Syrian

Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the

East, at the Carberry Tower Conference

Centre, Musselburgh, Scotland from 11 to

15 January 2000, at the invitation of the

Church of Scotland, and at the Armenian

Catholicosate of Cilicia, Antelias, Lebanon

from 23 to 28 January 2001, at the invitation

of His Holiness Catholicos Aram I, where

this report was presented and discussed and

then submitted for consideration, as the

result of the seven sessions of the dialogue,

to the Churches represented on both sides

of the dialogue. During these conversations

both families were informed and challenged

in the process of mutual understanding and

listening to each other.

11.The Oriental Orthodox Churches,

living in the Eastern tradition, and the

Reformed Churches, originating from the

Western Latin tradition, have inherited

different doctrinal approaches to the mystery

of God, accompanied by differences and

some misunderstandings of each other’s

positions. Therefore, the objective of the

dialogue has been to create an atmosphere

of openness and sincerity in order to

facilitate our witness to the Lord Jesus

Christ, in accordance with the Apostolic

Faith in the face of contemporary realities.

So the dialogue started by dealing with the

understanding of Scripture and Tradition in

each other’s Churches. But such a search

was connected to the mission and ministry

of the Church today. Needless to say, the

progress has been slow, but also productive.

12.One of the highlights of these

dialogues has been the adoption, at the

session in Driebergen, The Netherlands, on

13 September 1994, of the Agreed

11

Statement on Christology emerging from

the biblical teaching and the patristic roots

to which both the partners in dialogue owe

their allegiance. This statement is

reproduced below:

II. AGREED STATEMENT ONCHRISTOLOGYIntroduction

13.In our search for a common

understanding of differences in Christology

that have existed between us, we have

thought it appropriate to focus upon the

Formula of Union, AD 433. This formula

represents an agreement reached by

Antioch and Alexandria following the Third

Ecumenical Council in 431, and as such,

provides a common point of departure for

both parties. We find the interpretations in

this agreement to be in accord with the

Christological doctrines in both of our

traditions

Agreed Statement14. “We confess our Lord Jesus Christ,

the only-begotten Son of God, perfect in

divinity and perfect in humanity consisting

of a rational soul and a body, begotten of

the Father before the ages according to His

divinity, the Same, in fullness of time, for us

and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary,

according to His humanity; the Same,

consubstantial with the Father, according

to His divinity. For a union had been made

of two natures. For this cause we confess

one Christ, one Son, one Lord.

15. “In accordance with this sense of the

unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin

to be Theotokos, because God the Word

became incarnate and was made human,

and from the very conception united to

Himself the temple taken from her. As to

the expressions concerning the Lord in the

Gospels and Epistles, we are aware that

theologians understand some as common,

as relating to one Person, and others they

distinguish, as relating to two natures,

explaining those that befit the divine nature

according to the divinity of Christ, and those

of a humble sort according to His humanity.”

[Based on the Formula of Union, AD 433]

16.The four adverbs used to qualify the

mystery of the hypostatic union belong to

our common Christological tradition:

“without commingling” (or confusion)

(asyngchytos), “without change” (atreptos),

“without separation” (achoristos),and

“without division” (adiairetos). Those among

us who speak of two natures in Christ are

justified in doing so since they do not

thereby deny their inseparable, indivisible

union; similarly, those among us who speak

of one united divine-human nature in Christ

are justified in doing so since they do not

thereby deny the continuing dynamic

presence in Christ of the divine and the

human, without change, without confusion.

17.Both sides agree in rejecting the

teaching which separates or divides the

human nature, both soul and body in Christ,

from His divine nature or reduces the union

of the natures to the level of conjoining.

Both sides also agree in rejecting the

teaching which confuses the human nature

12

III.1 Tradition and Holy Scripture22.The understanding of Tradition and

Holy Scripture by the two families was

extensively discussed during the first, second

and third sessions of the dialogue.

Oriental Orthodox View23.The Oriental Orthodox distinguish

the Tradition of the entire Church regarding

matters of faith from local traditions of the

various Churches. They understand both

Tradition and Holy Scripture as constituting

one reality emerging from the continuing

life of the Church. Tradition must be

essentially in agreement with the intention

of Holy Scripture, and the authority of the

in Christ with the divine nature so that the

former is absorbed in the latter and thus

ceases to exist.

18.The perfect union of divinity and of

humanity in the incarnate Word is

essential for the salvation of the human

race. “For God so loved the world, that he

gave his only Son, that whosoever

believeth in him should not perish, but

have everlasting life” (Jn 3.16 KJV).

Conclusion19. In of fer ing this statement , we

recognise the mystery of God’s act in Christ

and seek to express that we have shared

the same authentic Christological faith

in the one incarnate Lord.

20.We submit this statement to the

authorities of the Oriental Orthodox

Churches and to the Executive Committee

of the World Al l iance of Reformed

Churches for their consideration and

action.

Signatures of Co-Chairmen onbehalf of the representatives ofthe two Church families:His Grace Metropolitan Bishoy

General Secretary of the Holy Synod of

the Coptic Orthodox Church

The Rev. Dr. Milan Opocenský

General Secretary of the World Alliance of

Reformed Churches

III.CONVERGENCES ANDDIVERGENCES ON TRADITIONAND HOLY SCRIPTURE,THEOLOGY, CHURCH ANDMISSION, PRIESTHOOD/MINISTRY AND SACRAMENTS

21.The particularity of the various

dialogue sessions has been retained in the

presentation of the third part of this report.

This third part is organised on the basis of

the themes addressed during these

sessions. Thirty papers were presented,

commented upon, discussed and analysed.

Despite a variety of differences in the views

of the two sides, areas of convergence have

emerged.

13

fathers of the Church is recognised from

their acceptance by the Church as a whole.

Reformed View24.While the Reformed Churches respect

the position of the Oriental Orthodox

Churches, they affirm the normative

character of Holy Scripture, which itself

embodies the “Tradition”, in the sense of

what was received and handed down by the

Apostles (Apostolic testimony). The

Reformed Churches affirm a critical distance

of Holy Scripture in relation to “traditions”,

in the sense of teachings, practices, customs

and interpretations of or alongside the one

scriptural Tradition. Hence, the Church must

always examine and reform its traditions in

the light of Holy Scripture.

Areas of Emerging Convergence25.Both sides acknowledge the deep

relationship between the early traditions

(the total life) of the Church, as guided by

the Holy Spirit, and the emergence of Holy

Scripture. The incarnate Word of God is both

the source and the judge of the Tradition

and the Holy Scripture of the Church which

bear witness to Him.

26.Both sides agreed on the normative

function of Holy Scripture for the life of the

Church. The Word incarnate makes use of

human means, including human language

and culture. So Holy Scripture and its correct

interpretation, guided by Tradition,

witnesses to the Word of God in our different

contexts.

27. Areas that Need Further Clarification

• Concepts of history and revelation, with

special attention to the 18th and 19th

centuries historical-critical Bible Study in

the Reformed understanding

• Methods of interpreting Holy Scripture

and evaluating Tradition

• How our historical contexts affect our

understanding of Holy Scripture

• The question of canonical books in our

respective traditions

• Understanding of the Holy Scripture:

its authority and its inspiration

III.2 The Role of the Theologian inthe Christian Community

28.The role and function of theology and

the theologian in the community was

discussed at the third session. The two

families affirm that

• Almighty God’s Eternal Divine Essence

cannot be comprehended. Human reason

can approach God only when illumined by

the Holy Spirit, through prayers and Holy

Scripture.

• Theology is not only an act of thinking

but should be practically related to life and

to our salvation.

• A Christian theologian is one who is

rooted in the faith community and nurtured

by it.

• Theologians are called upon to express

the beauty and splendour of the divine

presence in their theological work. Story and

poetry, music and iconography, art and

architecture, rites and rituals have been

used in various Christian traditions precisely

14

to bring out this aesthetic dimension of

theology.

• Our ultimate goal to reach a common

theological understanding which is rooted

in our Lord Jesus Christ, is based on the

Holy Scriptures, and is related to the needs

and sufferings of humanity at large.

III.3 The Nature of the Church andher Mission

29.The nature of the Church and her

Mission were among the themes discussed

in the first and the fourth sessions. The

Oriental Orthodox and the Reformed

participants prepared statements

expressing their views regarding this topic.

The Oriental Orthodox View30.Regarding the Church, the Oriental

Orthodox affirm that the Church is built on

the foundation of the apostles and prophets,

and Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone.

We believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and

Apostolic Church. Many names have been

given to the Church to describe her nature

and mission. Some of these names are:

• The people of God (1 Pet 2.9)

• The mother of the believers (Gal 4.31)

• The body of Christ (l Cor 12.27)

·• The new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5.17)

• The bride of Christ (Rev 19.7; Mt 9.14-

15)

• The dwelling place of Christ (Eph 2.21)

• The house of faith and salvation (2 Pet

3.20-21)

• The community of love and joy (I Jn

3.14,16; 4.7,8)

• The communion of saints (Heb 12.1)

• The temple of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor

6.19)

• The Church of the first-born (Heb 12.23)

• The Icon of Heaven (Heb 8.5-6)

31.Unity is a natural characteristic of the

Church which reflects her unity with the

Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

There is one Body, one Spirit, one Lord,

one Faith, and one Baptism.

32.Unity in Christ harmonises the

diverse gifts of the Holy Spirit in our different

contexts. The continuity of the Church in

Christ is maintained and guided by the Holy

Spirit through the Holy Tradition and the

Apostolic Succession. The renewal of the

Church is a constant growth and joy in this

new life.

33.Regarding mission, the Oriental

Orthodox affirm that the Church, as the

living Body of Christ, constantly called

together and renewed by the Holy Spirit,

worships the Triune God on behalf of all

God’s creation. This is mission in its totality.

The Good News (Gospel) of Jesus Christ

crucified and risen is the heart of the

worshipping community. The Church

announces the Gospel of life in diverse ways,

always respecting the norm of God’s love

and compassion for the world. Proclamation

of the Word of God is directed to bring about

and foster the signs of the Rule of God in

human history. The Good News of the

redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ is

proclaimed with the aim of bringing

salvation to those who believe in Him and

are baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity.

15

The Church’s prayer and pastoral care,

struggle for justice and search for

communion are all vital expressions of her

participation in the mission of Jesus Christ,

her Lord and Saviour. This redeeming

mission calls upon members of the Body of

Christ, to refrain from all forms of aggression

and cultural domination in the name of

Christ, and instead, to encourage healing

and forgiveness, justice and human dignity,

peace and mutual respect among all the

peoples on earth. Our freedom in Christ as

children of God enjoins us to be

compassionately open to all human

initiatives for realising God’s will for the

created world. The ultimate form of the

Church’s mission is to carry the whole

creation in all its brokenness and misery

before the transforming presence of the

Triune God in a perpetual act of praise and

thanksgiving.

Reformed View34.According to the Reformed tradition

the Church is called together by Jesus Christ

to be His body in the world through worship,

service and witness. Together with believers

through the ages, the Reformed confess that

Jesus Christ is Lord, and in Him is their hope

and peace. United by the Spirit to the risen

Christ, our participation in the mission of

the Triune God flows out in service and

witness to the world. Confessing the lordship

of Jesus Christ over the Church and the

whole world, we affirm that we are called

not for our benefit alone but for mission

and service in the ministry of reconciliation.

In response to that call we participate in

the mission of the Triune God, through

which God is at work redeeming and

perfecting the whole of creation. As we grow

into the likeness of the Triune God, we are

conscious that we are called to grow in

fellowship with those who confess the name

of Christ, and also to join and welcome those

of other faiths and worldviews who work in

God’s mission. In order to communicate the

Christian faith, we have the task of

translating the message in different cultural

contexts, in ways which are both appropriate

and authentic. This is an on-going task

which involves both teaching and listening,

a task done in obedience to Christ who draws

everything together in Him.

35.We are aware that we have sinned

and fallen short of all that God calls us to do

and to be. However, recognising the power

of God’s forgiveness, and confident that God

will reconcile all things in heaven and earth,

we press on in hope towards the goal where

every tear will be wiped from every eye and

God will be all in all (Rev 21.4; 1 Cor 15.28).

Areas of Emerging Convergence36.Both sides agree in acknowledging

that the Church has an existence that

transcends any attempt to describe it in

purely historical or sociological terms.

Biblical teachings, and titles and images of

the Church contained therein, testify to the

Church’s origin in the eternal purpose of

God. Participating in the mission of Christ,

the Church announces the Gospel of life for

the healing and redemption of all humanity.

16

III.4 Priesthood/Ministry37. The fifth session of the dialogue was

devoted to discussion of priesthood/ministry.

It included papers and discussion on the

understanding of this topic as well as the

identification of points of agreement and

disagreement on this matter.

The Oriental Orthodox Understanding38.The Oriental Orthodox Churches

understand priesthood to be one of the seven

sacraments of the Church. It is a divine order

and calling instituted by the Lord Jesus

Christ when He ordained His twelve

Apostles: “Then Jesus said to them again:

Peace be with you! As the Father has sent

Me, I also send you. And when He had said

this, He breathed on them, and said to them,

receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins

of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the

sins of any, they are retained” (John 20.21-

23). Also, during the Last Supper the Lord

Jesus Christ gave His Body and Blood to the

Apostles and ordered them “do this in

remembrance of me” (1 Cor 11.24). This

divine command of celebrating the Holy

Eucharist with bread and wine links our

priesthood to the Priesthood of Melchizedek

through Christ who is the High Priest forever

after the order of Melchizedek (Heb 6.20).

39.Priesthood in the Old Testament –

The early Patriarchs such as Noah,

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob offered sacrifices

as the priests of the Lord. Their priesthood

was exercised in a clear way. This same

priesthood of the Old Testament was

developed in an organised way through the

Mosaic priesthood. It begins with the divine

orders revealed to Moses after which he

organised the priesthood of Aaron. Aaron’s

descendents were chosen from among the

male Levites to serve as priests.

40.Priesthood in the New Testament –

In the New Testament priesthood was not

cancelled but changed from the Levites

priesthood to the priesthood after the order

of Melchizedek: “For when there is a change

of the priesthood, there must be also a

change of the law” (Heb 7.12).

41.The Lord chose a special group of

believers. He ordained them and called them

His Apostles (Luke 6.13, John 15.16). He

entrusted to them the responsibility of

leading His Church. He appointed them to

tend to His flock, leading them into the path

of truth and salvation (Matthew 28.20). He

gave them the power to hold and absolve

sins (Matthew 18.18), and to administer the

sacraments for the believers.

42.The Apostles in turn gave these gifts

to their successors, the bishops, by the laying

on of hands (Acts 20.28). They charged them

to instruct and teach the faithful and to

ordain presbyters and deacons: “For this

reason I left you in Crete, that you should

set in order the things that are lacking, and

appoint elders in every city as I commanded

you” (Titus 1.5). See also 1 Tim 6.2.

43 .The Apost les understood

themselves to be priests, and as such,

ministers of the sacraments of God: “To

be a minister of Christ Jesus to the

Gent i les wi th the pr iest ly duty of

proclaiming the Gospel of God, so that the

17

Genti les might become an of fer ing

acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy

Spirit” (Rom 15.16).

44.The covenant of the New Testament

is based on the sacrificial death of Jesus

Christ on the Cross, not as separate from

the Holy Eucharist, but indeed shown and

expressed in the Holy Eucharist. The Lord

Jesus Christ said regarding the Eucharistic

cup: “This cup is the New Testament in

my blood” (Luke 22.20 and 1 Cor 11.25).

St. Paul also writes the following: “For as

often as you eat this bread, and drink this

cup, you do show the Lord’s death till He

comes” (1 Cor 11.26).

45.If Jesus Christ is the High Priest after

the order of Malchizedek, who used bread

and wine for his offering, i t fol lows

necessarily that the priesthood of the New

Testament is an office to celebrate the

Holy Eucharist by offering bread and wine.

This Eucharistic offering is not a repetition

of the sacrifice of the Cross, but is the

sacrifice of the Cross present in the Church

everywhere and in all generations, beyond

time and space limitations.

46.The Lord Jesus Christ commanded

His Apostles: “Go and make disciples of

all nations, baptising them in the name

of the Father and of the Son and of the

Holy Spirit” (Mat 28.19). The Apostles were

able to ordain baptised believers as

bishops, priests and deacons even out of

Gent i les wi thout being necessar i ly

descendents of the people of Israel. This

was prophetically mentioned in the Old

Testament: “And they shall declare my

glory among the Gentiles. And they shall

bring all your brethren for an offering unto

the Lord out of all nations. …And I will also

take of them for priests and levites, says the

Lord” (Isaiah 66.19-21).

47.Spiritual Priesthood – Any believer

in Christ can offer up spiritual sacrifices to

God. This applies to both Old Testament

and New Testament, as is written: “Let my

prayer be set forth before You as incense;

and the lifting up of my hands as the evening

sacrifice” (Ps 141.2) and “By Him therefore,

let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God

continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving

thanks to His name” (Heb 13.15). But this

does not mean that those who are offering

spiritual sacrifices, like praying and praising

the Lord and helping the poor, are official

priests offering the Eucharistic sacrifice and

ministering in the Church.

48.A Kingdom of Priests – It was equally

mentioned in the Old Testament and the

New Testament that the people of God are

a kingdom of priests: “And you shall be unto

me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation”

(Exodus 19.6) and “But you are a chosen

generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,

a peculiar people” (1 Peter 2.9). This does

not imply at all that the whole people of

God are officially priests serving the altar in

the Church.

49.In view of the last two points we can

understand (1 Peter 2.5): “You also, as living

stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy

priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices

acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”

50.Threefold Priesthood – While we

18

acknowledge the spiritual priesthood of all

believers in Christ, three ranks of priesthood

– Episcopos, Presbyter and Deacon – were

instituted in the Holy Church through the

power of the Holy Spirit (1 Tim 3.5; Titus 1.5;

Acts 6.5-6).

51.The Role of Laity – The participation

and involvement of the faithful in the whole

liturgical and sacramental life of the Church

is very important and this is always affirmed

throughout the life and witness of the

Church.

52.The Dual Role of the Priesthood: In

offering the Holy Eucharist the priest acts

as the representative of the whole creation.

The priest represents the people of the

Church in front of God and represents God

in front of the people and he performs his

service by the power of the Holy Spirit.

53.Laying on of Hands and Apostolic

Succession : Laying on of hands was

practised by the Apostles for different

purposes. It is not used only for ordination,

but for many other purposes: for blessing

the people as Jesus has done with the

children (Mat. 19.13), for healing the sick

(Mark 15.18), for confirmation (Acts 8.15-17)

and for ordination (Acts 6.6; Acts 13.3; 1 Tim

4.14; 1 Tim 5.22).

54.The authority of laying on of hands

for ordination, consecration and

confirmation was confined to the Apostles

so that Philip, the ordained deacon and

preacher, after baptising the people of

Samaria could not lay hands on them to

grant them the gift of the Holy Spirit, and

the Church sent the Apostles St. Peter and

St. John especially to Samaria to pray and

lay hands upon the people in order to receive

the Holy Spirit (Acts 6.5; 8.5, 12, 14-17). The

Apostles passed on the authority of laying

on of hands to some of the presbyters whom

they have ordained by making them bishops

who were able to ordain presbyters (1 Tim

5.22; Titus 1.5).

55.This Apostolic succession remained

unbroken in the Church as the Lord has

promised: “You did not choose me, but I

chose you and appointed you to go and bear

fruit – fruit that will last” (John 15.16).

56.Service of Women in the Church –

Women are honoured in the Church and

can become saints who are venerated at all

levels. St. Mary is the most venerated saint

in the Church, but she was not a priest

serving the altar. They can serve as

deaconesses without having a priestly order.

They do not serve in the sanctuary or officiate

at the sacraments of the Church, but they

can help the bishop and the priest in many

pastoral offices. Women can be prophets,

but cannot be priests or teachers of the

Church.

57.The Church is following the teachings

of the Holy Scriptures which declare that

the man is the head of the woman although

they are equal in nature: “Now I want you to

realise that the head of every man is Christ,

and the head of the woman is man, and the

head of Christ is God” (1 Cor 11.3; see also

Eph 5.22, 23, 32). Also, the Holy Scriptures

tell us that women are not allowed to teach

men or have authority over them (1 Tim

2.11, 15; 1 Cor 14.33, 34-38).There were no

19

women priests in the Old Testament either.

The icon of Christ and the Church can be

seen in the relation of man and woman in

the Church.

The Reformed Understanding58.The Reformed understanding of

ministry begins with the ministry of the

whole people of God who, as the body of

Christ, continue Christ’s ministry to the

world. This ministry, empowered by the Holy

Spirit , follows the pattern of Christ’s

threefold ministry of prophet, priest and king

through the proclamation of the faith, the

practice of Christian love and the search for

justice and peace in the world. This ministry

is the privilege and responsibility of every

believer by virtue of their baptism into Christ.

In this context the Reformed tradition

speaks of the “priesthood of all believers”.

In addition to the general priesthood of all

believers the Reformed tradition also

maintains a ministry of elders. Elders are

chosen and appointed from the

congregation to form a conciliar body that is

responsible for spiritual discipline, the

exercise of public worship and the

governance of the life of the Church.

59.The Reformed tradition also

maintains a particular ministry of the Word

and Sacrament. This ministry is bestowed

on those who the Church recognises as

being called and empowered by God to be

set apart to this function. The minister of

Word and Sacrament is an elder with a

particular responsibility for teaching and the

celebration of the sacraments. There is

equality between teaching elders (Ministers

of Word and Sacrament) and the ruling

elders. The ministry of Word and Sacrament

is vital for the upbuilding of the Church and

the edification of God’s people. The

importance of this ministry can be

demonstrated by reference to the traditional

Reformed criteria for the recognition of a

true Church, namely a Church exists

wherever the Word of God is faithfully

preached and heard and the sacraments

administered according to the Word of God.2

60.Admittance to the ministry of Word

and Sacrament follows the preparation of

the candidate through a programme of

theological training and examination by the

Church. Ordination to the ministry of Word

and Sacrament requires the call of God’s

people and is administered by a prayer of

invocation of the Holy Spirit and the laying

on of hands by elders of the Church. In this

unrepeatable act of ordination the ministry

is formally entrusted to the ordinand and

the ordinand vows to be faithful to God in

their practice of ministry. Most Reformed

Churches ordain both women and men to

the ministry of Word and Sacrament. On

the basis of their one baptism and their

participation in the priesthood of all

believers women and men are called by the

Holy Spirit to the ordained ministry.

61.The Reformed tradition regards the

institutional expression of ministry as

belonging to the bene esse of the life of the

church rather than the esse. As such the

precise organisation and pattern of ministry

is in principle revisable as the church

20

responds, under the direction and guidance

of the Holy Spirit and in faithfulness to the

Scriptures, to changing historical

circumstances. Generally speaking, member

churches of the Reformed family do not have

a personal episcopate. The exercise of

episcope is vested in communal and conciliar

bodies where ruling elders and teaching

elders are represented on equal basis. The

Reformed tradition believes itself to be in

continuity with the faith of the Apostles as

evidenced by its proclamation of the Gospel,

its celebration of the sacraments, its

acceptance of the creeds and its service to

the world.

62. Points of Agreement

• Both Traditions acknowledge that the

Lord Jesus Christ is the foundation of all

ministry in the Church.

• The celebrant of the sacraments in the

Church should be an ordained priest/

minister who should have a special gift

through the power of the Holy Spirit.

• Baptism and Eucharist are accepted

sacraments in each tradition in spite of the

difference in understanding of the essence

and implications of these sacraments.

These differences require further discussion.

• Spiritual/Universal priesthood (as

distinct from official ordained priesthood in

the Oriental Orthodox understanding) is

granted to all who believe in Christ, including

men and women.

• Conciliarity of the Church and conciliar

forms of government are expressed and

practised in both traditions.

Points of Disagreement

63.Oriental Orthodox View

• The concept of priesthood in the

Oriental Orthodox differs from the Reformed

tradition. The Oriental Orthodox believe in

a clear distinction between the official

priesthood and the spiritual priesthood of

all believers in Christ in both the Old

Testament and the New Testament.

• The unbroken Apostolic Succession

by the laying on of hands is essential for

the continuity of priestly ministry in the

Church.

• The bishop is the successor of the

Apostles. Only the bishop is entitled to

perform ordination by the laying on of

hands.

• Three ranks of priesthood, namely

bishop, priest and deacon, are clear and

distinct in the Oriental Orthodox tradition

from the beginning of the early Church.

• In order that the Lord Jesus Christ

should be believed as the High Priest after

the order of Melchizedek, it fol lows

necessarily that there should be also

priests in the Church offering the Eucharist

using bread and wine.

• The priestly offering of the Eucharist

makes the sacrifice of the Cross present

everywhere and in every generation

beyond space and time limitations, and

as such is not understood as a repetition

of the sacrifice of the Lord on the Cross.

• The following seven sacraments are

recognised and practised in the life of the

Church: Bapt ism, Conf irmat ion,

Repentance and Confess ion , Holy

21

Eucharist, Matrimony, Anointing the Sick

and Priesthood.

• The ordination of women to priestly

ministry is unacceptable based on the

teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

Reformed View64. I t is a common Reformed

understanding that a uniform church order

which is universally applicable in all times

and all places cannot be found in the New

Testament. The Reformed understanding

of Holy Scripture does not necessarily

suggest the practice of a hierarchical

pattern of ministry . The Reformed

Churches assert that they are in

continuity with the succession of Apostolic

fa i th . The uninterrupted episcopal

succession does not in itself guarantee

the pure proclamation of the Gospel and

the proper administrat ion of the

sacraments.

65.In relation to the ministry of Word

and Sacrament, Reformed Churches

affirm that the ordained minister does not

differ from any other believer except in

function. The ordained minister does not

possess a distinct character or “imprint”.

The ordained ministry belongs to the

wellbeing of the Church (bene esse). Since

the priestly ministry has been fulfilled by

Christ, a minister of a Reformed Church

does not perform any special priestly

function. The Reformed tradition asserts

that the power to ordain is not vested in

an individual person or office but belongs

communally to the Church. The call of God,

adequate ministerial formation and the

invocation of the Holy Spirit are the

indispensable prerequisites for ordination.

The act of ordination does not simply

depend on the “laying on of hands”.

66.Most Reformed Churches do not

agree that the ordained ministry is

withheld from women. According to the

Reformed understanding there are no

biblical or theological reasons for denying

ordination to women.

III.5 Sacraments67.The last two sessions of the Oriental

Orthodox-Reformed dialogue discussed

extensively the doctrine, number and

practice of the sacraments in the two

famil ies . Variat ions and di f ferences

between the two traditions concerning the

nature and number of the sacraments were

openly expressed.

Oriental Orthodox View68.The Oriental Orthodox family of

Churches believes in seven sacraments:

namely , Bapt ism, Chrismat ion,

Repentance and Confession, Eucharist,

Priesthood, Marriage (Matrimony) and

Unction of the sick.

69 .A sacrament performed by a

canonically ordained priest in a concrete

form of a special material is an unseen

work of the Holy Spirit.

70.The role of the Holy Spirit in the

sacraments is essential because the gifts

of God are “from the Father through the

Son by the Holy Spirit”. (Saint Athanasius

22

wrote: “The Father does all things through

the Word in the Holy Spirit” First Letter

to Serapion, Chapter 28, “Concerning the

Holy Spirit”, Shapland p.134/135.)

71.The minister of the sacrament is the

steward of God as is written by St. Paul: “Let

a man so consider us, as servants of Christ

and stewards of the mysteries of God” (1

Cor 4.1), “For a bishop must be blameless,

as a steward of God” (Tit 1.7).

72.In the Oriental Orthodox

presentations, the role of the Holy Spirit in

the seven sacraments was clarified based

on the Holy Scripture. Therefore, the role of

the Holy Spirit cannot be divided from the

sacraments.

73.The sacraments of the Church are

experienced as a life that one lives inside

the Church and not as something that one

just hears about. One tastes its efficacy and

experiences its effect in his life, and the

more he experiences such effect the more

his belief in it increases.

Reformed View74.The two sacraments administered by

the Reformed Churches, Baptism and the

Eucharist, are always celebrated in the

context of worship. A major difference

between the two families is in the number

of sacraments observed. Although the

Reformed tradition does not recognise

marriage, ordination, confirmation,

confession and unction as sacraments, their

importance as religious ordinances is not

ignored. for example, our worship books

contain several different orders of worship

such as Morning Prayer, Sunday public

worship (including confession and

Eucharist), baptism, wedding, memorial

service, ordination, installation, healing, and

confirmation. These rich and varied liturgical

practices show that we have these rites in

common with the Oriental Orthodox family.

From the perspective of our lay people or

members, these ceremonies are very

important.

75.For the Reformed family of Churches,

two of these practices are dominical

sacraments, namely Baptism and Eucharist.

Based on the teaching of Our Lord Jesus

Christ (Matthew 26.26-28; 28.18-20), we

regard them as means of grace made

available by God to all people through the

Church. While affirming that Baptism and

the Eucharist are essential, we do not limit

God’s grace to these means. God’s power to

save is in God’s hands alone.

76.In which way are the sacraments

means of salvation? We understand grace

to be communicated by God, not in any

automatic way. We do not believe there is

anything mechanical about the process of

God’s salvation. In the final analysis, it is

God’s grace rather than human action and

it is normally a lifelong commitment.

77.Word and Sacrament are very closely

linked in the Reformed tradition: “It is the

efficacy of the Word that is brought to light

in a sacrament, for a sacrament is a

proclamation of the Gospel – different in

form, but not in function, from the preaching

of the word”.3

78.Reformed liturgies were developed in

23

the XVI century when the protestant

Reformers, confronted with worship

practices they considered unacceptable,

went back to the original sources of

Scriptures and worship practices of the early

Church. Over the centuries, there have been

renewed attempts to re-appropriate the

biblical meaning of worship. Such changes

are implemented by the highest synodal

levels of our churches. They involve lengthy

consultations with theological experts and

church members.

79.Reformed Churches regarded the full

participation of lay people as essential to

both sacraments. The administration

always includes lay and clergy participation.

They are in fact corporate acts of the

congregation. For instance, Baptism liturgies

commit parents and the congregation

equally to the Christian nurture and

development of a child. Lay people

participate together with the ministers in

the preparation for the sacraments. In the

Eucharist, this includes prayer, confession

and proclamation.

Emerging Convergence80.While differing on many points

concerning the number and nature of the

sacraments, both families affirm that the

sacraments are the gracious gifts of God for

nourishing and maintaining the life of the

Church and for strengthening her union with

Christ.

IV. CONCLUSION81.Our seven sessions of dialogue have

been only the beginning of a process of

acquaintance and mutual knowledge

between two Christian traditions that have

never officially engaged in dialogue with

each other before. Centuries of separation

and minimal or non-interaction on the

ecclesiastical, theological and spiritual levels

– but also on the cultural level – have made

our dialogue both exciting and slow. Exciting,

because we felt that we were breaking new

ground by simply getting to know each other

and how we understand and express our

Christian and ecclesial identities. Slow,

because we realised that we needed to catch

up with each other on many levels and

required much more time together to bear

lasting fruit in our encounters. Nevertheless,

the results we did achieve were quite

significant and certainly historic, e.g., the

Agreement on Christology that resolved a

centuries-old theological controversy. We

realise that there are many areas of

theological difference which still exist and

need further dialogue.

82.The Oriental Orthodox-Reformed

dialogue has already given the opportunity

to discuss issues of mutual concern. None

can foresee the results clearly today. Any

activity intending church unity is an answer

to the call of Jesus Christ that churches

exhibit Christian unity in order to bear

witness to His mission in the world. Who

knows how the Holy Spirit has led this

dialogue in planting unity among the

Reformed and the Oriental Orthodox

families of churches in generations to come?

Hope for Christian unity is both present and

24

future. We pray that God may use us for the

fulfilment of this hope.

83.We submit this Report to the

authorities of the Oriental Orthodox

Churches and to the Executive

Committee of the World Alliance of

Reformed Churches for their

consideration and action.

APPENDIXList of papers presented

First SessionAnba Bishoy Monastery, Wadi-ElNatroun (Egypt) 2-5 May 1993

Introduction to the Oriental Orthodox

Churches, Bishop Matta Roham Mar

Eustathius; The main characteristics of the

Reformed Churches, Dr. Karel Blei; Oriental

Orthodox view of tradition and scripture,

Pope Shenouda III; A Reformed view on

tradition and Scripture, Dr. Silke-Petra

Bergjan; The nature and the mission of the

Church: an Oriental Orthodox view, Prof.

Dr. Kondothra M. George; The nature and

the mission of the Church: a Reformed view,

Dr. Samuel Habib.

Second SessionDriebergen (The Netherlands)10-15 September 1994

Christological controversies of the fourth

and fifth centuries, Prof. Dr. George Sabra; A

survey of the recent bilateral agreements

between the Oriental (non-Chalcedonian)

Orthodox Churches and the Eastern

Orthodox Church and other Christian

communions, Metropolitan Bishoy; The

bilateral agreements between the Oriental

Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox: a

Reformed response, Dr. Silke-Petra Bergjan;

Tradition and its role in the Syrian Orthodox

Church, Bishop Matta Roham Mar

Eustathius; Holy Scripture and tradition: a

Reformed perspective, Prof. Dr. Rebecca

Weaver; Holy Scripture: its use and misuse

from an Oriental Orthodox perspective, Prof.

Dr. Kondothra M. George; The use and abuse

of the Scriptures in relation to mission,

evangelism and proselytism from a

Reformed perspective, Prof. Dr. Peter

McEnhill.

Third SessionSophia Centre, Kottayam (India)10-15 January 1997

Theology and Theologian: their Function

and Authority in the Orthodox Church, Prof.

Dr. Kondothra M. George; The Beauty and

Service of Theology, Dr. Milan Opocenský; A

25

Brief History of the Reformed Churches in

India, Dr. Franklyn J. Balasundaram; Holy

Scripture, its authority and its inspiration,

Dr. Karel Blei.

Fourth SessionRichmond, Virginia (USA)9-16 January 1998

Mission: An Oriental Orthodox

Perspective, Prof. Dr. Kondothra M. George;

The Nature of the Church from a Reformed

Perspective, Dr. Christopher B. Kaiser; Some

Key Issues in Contemporary Mission Debate,

Dr. H. S. Wilson.

Fifth SessionSt. Ephrem Syrian Orthodox Seminary,Ma’arat Saydnaya (Syria)10-15 January 1999

The Understanding of Ministry in the

Reformed Tradition, Prof. Dr. Peter McEnhill;

Ministry in the Orthodox Tradition, His Grace

Archbishop Aphrem Karim Mar Cyril; The

Link between Priesthood and Eucharist in

the New Testament, Metropolitan Bishoy.

Sixth SessionMusselburgh, Scotland11-16 January 2000

Introduction to the Sacraments of the

Church, Metropolitan Bishoy; The Mystery/

Sacrament of Baptism,Very Rev. Nareg

Alemezian; Introduction to the Sacrament

of Holy Liturgy/Eucharist, Geevarghese Mar

Coorilos; An Interrogation of the

Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist, Prof.

Dr. J. Jayakiran Sebastian; The Reformed

Understanding of the Sacraments, Prof. Dr.

George Sabra.

Seventh SessionCatholicosate of Cilicia in Antelias,Beirut (Lebanon) – 23-28 January 2001Introduction to the Sacraments: an

Oriental Orthodox Perspective,

Metropolitan Yohanna Ibrahim Mar

Gregorios.

Participants1. Oriental Orthodox

In the 1992 planning meeting

His Holiness Pope Shenouda III (Co-

chair), Patriarch of Alexandria, Coptic

Orthodox Church

His Grace Archbishop Aram Keshishian,

Armenian Apostolic Church

Prof. Dr. Kondothra M. George ,

Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church

His Grace Metropolitan Yohanna

Ibrahim Mar Gregorios, Syrian Orthodox

Church

His Grace Archbishop Timotheos,

Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church

In the dialogue sessions held between1993 and 2001

His Holiness Pope Shenouda III (Co-

chair), Patriarch of Alexandria, Coptic

Orthodox Church [1993, 1994]

His Grace Metropolitan Bishoy (Co-chair

from 1997), Coptic Orthodox Church [1993,

1994, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001]

Very Rev. Father Nareg Alemezian ,

Armenian Apostolic Church [1999, 2000,

2001]

26

His Grace Bishop Vicken Aykazian,

Armenian Apostolic Church [1993, 1997,

1998]

His Grace Bishop Dirayr Panossian,

Armenian Apostolic Church [1997, 1998,

1999, 2000, 2001]

His Grace Bishop Moussa, Coptic

Orthodox Church [1993, 1994, 1997]

His Grace Bishop Serapion, Coptic

Orthodox Church [1993]

His Grace Bishop Youssef , Coptic

Orthodox Church [1998]

His Grace Bishop Antony , Coptic

Orthodox Church [2000]

His Grace Archbishop Abuna Kerlos,

Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church

[2000]

Rev. Seife Selassie Yohannes, Ethiopian

Orthodox Tewahedo Church [1994, 2000]

His Grace Geevarghese Mar Coorilos,

Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church [1993,

1994, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001]

Prof. Dr. Kondothra M. George, Malankara

Orthodox Syrian Church [1993, 1994, 1997,

1998]

His Eminence Metropolitan Philipos Mar

Eusebius, Malankara Orthodox Syrian

Church [invited 1997]

Mr. P. C. Abraham, Malankara Orthodox

Syrian Church [invited 1997]

Mrs. P. Lukose, Malankara Orthodox

Syrian Church [invited 1997]

Father John Mathews, Malankara

Orthodox Syrian Church [invited 1997]

Father John Thomas, Malankara

Orthodox Syrian Church [invited 1997]

His Grace Archbishop Yohanna Ibrahim Mar

Gregorios, Syrian Orthodox Church [1998,

1999, 2000]

His Grace Archbishop Aphrem Karim

Mar Cyril, Syrian Orthodox Church [1998,

1999, 2000]

His Grace Bishop Matta Roham Mar

Eustathius, Syrian Orthodox Church [1993,

1994, 1999]

2. ReformedIn the 1992 planning meeting

Dr. Milan Opocenský (Co-chair) ,

Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren

Dr. Silke-Petra Bergjan, Evangelical-

Reformed Church, Germany

WARC Staff: Dr. H. S. Wilson, Church of

South India

In the dialogue sessions held between1993 and 2001

Dr. Milan Opocenský (Co-chair) ,

Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren [1993,

1994, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000]

Dr. Jana Opocenská, Evangelical Church

of Czech Brethren [1993]

Dr. Silke-Petra Bergjan, Evangelical-

Reformed Church, Germany [1993, 1994,

1999, 2000]

Rev. Dr. Karel Blei, The Netherlands

Reformed Church [1993, 1994, 1997]

Dr. Samuel Habib, Synod of the Nile of

the Evangelical Church, Egypt [1993]

Rev. Dr. Abdel Masih Istafanous, Synod

of the Nile of the Evangelical Church, Egypt

[1993]

Dr. Christopher Kaiser, Reformed Church

27

1 Roman Catholic-Reformed (since 1970), Lutheran-Reformed (since 1970), Baptist-Reformed(1973-1977), Anglican-Reformed (1981-1984), Mennonite-Reformed (1984), Disciples of Christ-Reformed (1984), Prague Consultations on the First, Radical and Second Reformations(since 1986), Methodist-Reformed (1987), Orthodox-Reformed (since 1988), Pentecostal-Reformed (1996-2000), African Instituted Churches-Reformed (since 1999), Adventist-Reformed (2001).2 The Augsburg Confession (1530) article 7; The Geneva Confession (1536) article 18; TheFirst Helvetic Confession (1536) article 14; The Confession of Faith Used in the EnglishCongregation at Geneva (1556) article 4; The French Confession (1559) article XXVIII; TheScottish Confession (1560) chapter XVIII; The Belgic Confession (1561) article 29; TheSecond Helvetic Confession (1566) chapter XVII.3 Brian A. Gerrish, Grace and Gratitude – The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin, Edinburgh,T & T Clark, 1998, p.108.

Notes

in America [1994, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,

Co-chair 2001]

Prof. Dr. Peter McEnhill, Church of

Scotland, U.K. [1994, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,

2001]

Prof. Dr. George Sabra, National

Evangelical Synod of Syria and Lebanon

[1993, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2001]

Prof. Dr. J. Jayakiran Sebastian, Church

of South India [1993, 1994, 1997, 1998, 2000,

2001]

Dr. Eugene Turner, Presbyterian Church

(USA) [1993, 1994, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,

2001]

Dr. Harold Vogelaar, Reformed Church in

America [1993]

Prof. Dr. Rebecca Weaver, Presbyterian

Church (USA) [1993, 1994, 1997, 1998, 1999]

Rev. Emile Zaki, Synod of the Nile of the

Evangelical Church, Egypt [1997, 2000]

Prof. Dr. H. S. Wilson [1999], Wartburg

Theological Seminary, USA

Consultant: Dr. Franklyn Balasundaram,

Church of South India [1997]

Visitors: Rev. Dr. C. S. Calian, Presbyterian

Church (USA) [1998]

Rev. Dr. Victor Makari, Presbyterian

Church (USA) [1998]

WARC Staff: Dr. H. S. Wilson, Church of

South India [1993, 1994, 1997, 1998]

Dr. Odair Pedroso Mateus, Independent

Presbyterian Church of Brazil [2000, 2001]

28

Report of the International TheologicalDialogue between the Seventh-dayAdventist Church and the WorldAlliance of Reformed Churches

Jongny sur Vevey, Switzerland, 1-7 April 2001

I. Preamble1.This document is a record of the

dialogue between representatives of the

General Conference of Seventh-day

Adventists and the World Alliance of

Reformed Churches held at Jongny sur Vevey,

Switzerland, 1-7 April 2001. The theme of

this dialogue was “The Church in the Setting

of the Reformation Heritage: its Mission in

a World of Widespread Injustice and

Ecological Destruction”.

2.Over many years frequent contact has

been made between representatives of the

two bodies at annual meetings of

Secretaries of Christian World Communions.

In addition, an exploratory meeting between

representatives of the two families was held

in Geneva, 28-29 November 1999. The

present dialogue arises from these contacts,

inspired by a desire to increase mutual

understanding, remove false stereotypes,

and on the basis of many commonly-held

beliefs, to address the question how we may

jointly respond to the claims of justice and

equity in a threatened, divided and broken

world.

3.We see the present discussion as part

of a wider programme of conversations in

which each party has separately been

engaged. On the Reformed side these

include dialogues with Classical Pentecostal

Churches and Leaders, the Roman Catholic

Church, the Organisation of African

Instituted Churches and the Oriental and

Eastern Orthodox Churches. On the

Adventist side, while the conversations have

been fewer and more recent, they have

included discussions with the Lutherans,

Orthodox, and the World Evangelical

Fellowship.

4.The churches of the Reformed tradition,

while rooted in Scripture, owe their more

immediate origins to the Swiss/French wing

of the Reformation. Their doctrines and

polity were fashioned by a variety of

theologians and, from the outset, were

29

subject to development, not least in relation

to the diverse socio-political environments

into which they moved. The family comprises

churches which espouse presbyterial or

congregational church order, together with

a number of united churches in which the

two polities have been blended (in some

cases with transconfessional ingredients as

well). Through colonisation and the modern

missionary movement, the Reformed have

spread to many parts of the world where

they have adapted themselves in various

ways to cultural and social contexts. The

World Alliance of Reformed Churches

(Presbyterian and Congregational), which

represents some 75 million members and

214 churches in 106 countries, was formed

in 1970 as a result of the coming together of

the World Presbyterian Alliance (1875) and

the International Congregational Council

(1891).

5.The Seventh-day Adventist Church is

a Scripture-based, Christ-centred church,

which was organised in 1863. It emerged

from the mid-century movement which

looked for the imminent return of Christ.

From a small beginning (3,500 members

when organised) the Church has now spread

to over 200 countries and has (in 2001) a

baptised membership of more than 12

million, representing a total Adventist

community of over 25 million people. The

Church is especially strong in some Latin

American countries, Africa, and the Far East.

Adventists operate a school system of some

6,000 institutions from primary to university

levels, comprising one million students, as

well as a large network of health institutions.

It is also well known for its Adventist

Development and Relief Agency (ADRA), and

organised support for religious liberty.

6.From the above brief descriptions it will

clearly be seen that the two communions

represented in this dialogue embrace people

of diverse cultural, linguistic, and national

origins. It should further be noted that the

preponderance of their members now reside

in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and

Australasia.

7.Every inter-church conversation has its

own ethos and agenda, specific to the parties

involved. Happily, Adventist-Reformed

relations have not been blighted by

anathemas, though they have been

inhibited by misunderstandings. In this

dialogue we sought to face and dispel some

of these, and to articulate the common

doctrinal ground on which we stand; and

this with a view to proclaiming the eternal

Gospel in today’s needy world.

II. Common Ground8.The Adventists and the Reformed

acknowledge as brothers and sisters all who

confess Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.

Among the many features we hold in

common are the following:

We accept the Bible as the rule of faith

and practice, the supreme witness to God’s

saving grace in Christ.

We believe in the triune God.

We believe that God became truly human

in Jesus Christ.

We believe that through the life, death,

30

and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God

reconciles the whole created order to

himself. By the work of Christ, God’s holiness

is honoured and our sins forgiven.

We believe that God calls all people to a

new and better life.

We believe that as followers of Jesus

Christ we are called to proclaim the Gospel

of salvation to all people.

We believe that Christ calls us to work to

bring hope, healing, and deliverance from

spiritual and economic poverty.

We believe we stand in the succession

of those who, through the ages, have

faithfully proclaimed the Gospel of Christ.

We believe that the Lord’s Supper is

integral to the church’s worship and witness.

We acknowledge our debt to the

Reformation with its biblical emphasis upon

salvation by grace alone (sola gratia) through

faith alone (sola fide) in Christ alone (solus

Christus).

We welcome conversations with other

Christian churches concerning doctrine and

mission.

III. Mutual Misunderstandings andClarifications

9.Despite the considerable degree of

common ground, the Reformed and the

Adventists have frequently misunderstood

one another and viewed each other with

suspicion. The mutual clarifications specified

below should help to clear the path to further

Adventist-Reformed mutual reflection. What

is clear is that both families have

experienced a degree of doctrinal

development as they have sought to bear

witness to the Gospel in ever-changing,

diverse socio-intellectual environments.

Adventist Clarifications10.Adventists have grown in their

understanding and articulation of doctrine.

Therefore, some expressions of their

teachings found in earlier publications do

not accurately represent their present

positions. However, some criticisms levelled

against them derive from misinformation

and have never been true. In each of the

following paragraphs, we express a

frequently-asked question (“Q”) followed by

a brief Adventist reply (“A”).

11.Q: Do Adventists set dates for the

second coming of Jesus?

A: The Seventh-day Adventist Church

was organised in 1863, and has never set

such dates. It has officially and publicly

rejected all such practices, as with attempts

to attach significance to the year 2000.

Occasionally, an Adventist preacher or

writer may have set or implied dates for the

second Advent, but they have acted without

official endorsement or authority.

12.Q: Do Adventists believe in Christ’s

complete atonement on the cross?

A: Adventists believe that the death of

Christ on the cross provided the once-for-all

atonement for sins, all-sufficient in its

efficacy. Their distinctive view of the high

priestly ministry of Christ in the heavenly

sanctuary teaches that he is applying the

ongoing benefits of his atonement, not

adding any value to it.

31

13.Q: Are Adventists legalists?

A: Adventists hold to the Reformation

principle of grace alone, faith alone and

Christ alone. They teach and preach that

as saved people the Lord calls all Christians

to holy living. This includes obedience to

the Ten Commandments, with Sabbath

observance; however, they understand

obedience to be the result, not the ground,

of salvation.

14.Q: Do Adventists add to the canon of

Scripture?

A: Adventists believe that the biblical

gift of prophecy was manifested in the life

and ministry of Ellen G. White. They

regard her writings highly as providing

ongoing counsel, devotional material, and

biblical reflection. However, they hold

firmly to the principle of sola scriptura,

teaching that the Bible is the rule of faith

and practice that tests all other writings,

including those by Ellen White.

15.Q: Do Adventists believe that they

are the only ones who will be saved?

A : No . Further , a l though they

understand themselves to be given a

particular mission, this is within the larger

context of God’s activity through many

agencies. Their Working Policy states: “We

recognise every agency that lifts up Christ

before man as a part of the divine plan for

the evangelisation of the world” (O100).

16.Q: Do Adventists neglect the social

implications of the Gospel?

A : Advent is ts have always been

engaged in social betterment as part of

their understanding of the Gospel. They

have been reluctant, however, to engage

politically in challenging societal structures.

Reformed Clarifications17.Understandably, the Adventists raised

the question of predestination. In some

cases the perplexity arises because

“predestination” is mistakenly confused with

“determinism”. The biblical doctrine of

predestination arises from Paul’s grateful,

retrospective confession that his standing

before God was not of his own doing, but

resulted from God’s gracious, prior call.

“Predestination” is thus a religious term

which is not to be elided with “determinism”

(as the latter term appears in, for example,

moral philosophy, where Reformed

participants may be found on both sides of

the determinist-libertarian debate).

18.As to the perplexity caused by “double

predestination,” it must be admitted that

this doctrine has given rise to a view of God

as determining the eternal fate of individuals

from the foundation of the world in

accordance with his “inscrutable will,” with

some destined for heaven, others for hell. It

should be remembered that Calvin and

others did not place election to salvation

on an equal footing with “preterition”

(“passing by”). Subsequently, there was a

hardening of this position whereby a

relentless logic was ill-advisedly applied to a

religious doctrine, to the extent that in some

circles mission was inhibited because the

free offer of the Gospel was proscribed. Under

the influence of the Evangelical Revival,

further modifications were made, to the

32

extent that some Reformed Christians can

nowadays not only envisage a

rapprochement with Arminians, but can

happily live with them in united churches.

There is thus a broad consensus to the effect

that God’s electing grace is not to be

construed fatalistically, but in the context of

God’s undiscriminating love whereby all are

called to salvation, to which call they may

make their own, enabled, response.

19.It became clear to the participants in

the Reformed-Methodist dialogue that the

historic dispute over Calvinism and

Arminianism need not be church-dividing.

This conclusion resulted from the

recognition that while Calvinists were

seeking to honour God’s sovereignty in

salvation, Arminians were no less concerned

to uphold human responsibility before God.

20.Adventists have queried the apparent

relative lack of interest in eschatology

(construed as the “doctrine of the last

things”) in Reformed theologies. While

Reformed theologians have, down the

centuries, written widely on this theme, it is

true to say that on the whole they have not,

traditionally , majored on it ; nor has

eschatology been central in the piety of

Reformed Christians. It may even be that

distaste for more excitable millenarian

claims has constituted an inhibiting factor

in this connection. Nevertheless,

eschatology is not to be played down – least

of all in the present dialogue in which we

are pondering our witness in relation to God’s

new heaven and earth.

21.Some Adventists challenge Reformed

Churches in certain regions to examine, and

where necessary to adjust, the balance of

Gospel proclamation and socio-ethical

witness, the latter being perceived as taking

precedence over the former instead of being

informed by it. While there are some

grounds for this challenge (which have been

shared for a long time by many Reformed

Churches), the Reformed respond by

underlining their conviction that since

salvation concerns the whole person, in the

whole of society, the proclamation of the

Word cannot be divorced from the practical

outworking of it in terms of the ideals of the

Kingdom of God.

IV. Mission22.As representatives of the Seventh-day

Adventist Church and the World Alliance of

Reformed Churches, we are called to bear

witness to the Gospel in a world

characterised by a diverse set of

opportunities, challenges, and problems.

Among the problems, we identify the

following: social and economic injustices;

ecological destruction; and racial, ethnic,

gender, and religious discrimination. We are

deeply aware that we have contributed both

directly and indirectly to these conditions.

We believe the Gospel compels us to

respond imaginatively and creatively to

these concerns both at a local and global

level.

23.We recognise that often there is a real

and serious danger that is created by our

tendency to dogmatise our perceptions of

what God would have us do and be in the

33

world in terms of certain experiences or

doctrinal positions. We realise the urgent

need for our theologies to go beyond

simplistic dichotomies of dividing human

experience into secular and spiritual; soul

and body; black and white; male and female;

rich and poor.

24.These dualities often manifest

themselves in setting one against the other

or glorifying one at the cost of vilifying the

other. For example, we have lived as though

nature has to be exploited because it is

material and temporal. This is the line of

thought that has resulted in a sharp divide

in the church’s participation in justice and

the mission of God in the world. The

Advent is t and the Reformed

representatives concur that such divides

are not justifiable, either on the basis of

biblical faith or our traditions. We have

found that the whole of life is a gift of God

that is to be enjoyed and nurtured through

fai thful s tewardship . Therefore , we

reaffirm our commitment to joining with

God and one another in the ministry of

reconciliation.

25.Our approach to the following issues

is grounded in our grateful response to

the grace of God who creates us, redeems

us, and calls us to stewardship. We seek

to embrace God’s mission in creative,

redemptive, and faithful obedience to our

call to discipleship. We engage these

matters not with the presumption that

there can be simple resolution to the

injustices that surround us, but with the

deep desire to be in solidarity with the

marginalised and hurting. We learn this

commitment from the incarnation itself;

God’s very entrance into and solidarity with

the human condition in the person of

Jesus Christ.

Socio-Economic Injustice26.We have become more aware of the

socio-economic challenges that face many

of our communities, particularly in the

southern hemisphere . The global

economy, dominated by multi-national

corporat ions and inst i tut ions that

reinforce the indebtedness of developing

nations to developed nations, exacerbates

the economic and socia l hardship

exper ienced by the major i ty of the

inhabitants of the world . This

phenomenon is manifest in the following

tragedies, among others:

27.Poverty - We acknowledge the

widespread poverty in the world, which is

manifest in the lack of access to basic

necessities (e.g., food, housing, water,

clothing) needed for sustaining a dignified

human existence. These consequences of

poverty are so egregious that the church

needs to become more assertive in

confronting these injustices. As Adventists

and members of the World Alliance, we

acknowledge that we are not as proactive

as we should be in addressing these

concerns. We see an urgent need and invite

our churches to work both individually and,

wherever possible, together in alleviating

and minimising the effects of this malady.

34

28. HIV/AIDS We painfully note the

devastating effects of HIV/AIDS in all parts

of the world, particularly in Asia and Sub-

Saharan Africa. This tidal wave of suffering

and death, the loss of income, the burden of

orphan care, the loss of hope, the

desperation inflicting both individuals and

communities, and the accompanying social

stigma that threatens the dignity of the

individual, make it diff icult in many

instances to deal realistically with the crisis.

29.Compounding the difficulty are the

self-serving financial policies and

insensitivity of international pharmaceutical

companies that prevent many in developing

nations from gaining access to and benefit

from the available medications that would

reduce human suffering and prolong life.

30.There is need for our churches to

address the disturbing issues related to this

epidemic in their theological, ethical, and

pastoral dimensions, and this with a view

to facilitating the whole church’s pastoral

care of the infected and the affected. This

will include working to influence behavioural

changes and responsible lifestyles and

grappling with the issue of how our two

communions can cooperate in dealing with

this issue as we proclaim the Gospel.

31. Violence - The ugly head of violence

rises everywhere – especially against women,

children, and other vulnerable communities.

Dictatorships; militarism; racism;

industrialisation that pushes people off their

land; and racist violence against groups like

the Dalits , blacks, and indigenous

communities are responsible for a large

share of the wave of ongoing misery of

countless multitudes. In addition, many

structural adjustment programmes imposed

on indebted developing countries have

adverse effects upon human and peoples’

rights. Such violence and discrimination

brutalise and dehumanise people made in

the image of God.

Ecological Destruction32.In recent years there has been a global

raising of consciousness to the ways in which

human beings, particularly from affluent

societies in the northern hemisphere, have

contributed to the destruction of the

environment. Manifestations of this

destruction include reduction of valuable

biomass (e.g., deforestation, over-harvesting

of marine life, and overgrazing),

compromises in maintaining eco-diversity

balance (e.g., acid rain and use of fossil fuels),

and global warming.

33. As Christian believers, we are called

to respond to these crises by engaging in

the work of healing and reconciliation. The

doctrine of creation shapes our

understanding of Christian mission in

relation to environmental degradation. We

view the world as God’s good creation; a

theatre of God’s grace; a gift to be enjoyed

and nurtured by God’s creatures. Sabbath

rest may well be a reminder both of God’s

providential care of the earth and our

responsibility to serve as its creative

stewards.

34.In the light of the doctrine of creation,

we exhort ourselves and other Christians to

35

repent of the sinful ways in which we have

exploited the environment and modify our

behaviour accordingly. Positive practical

steps that Christians can take on a local

level to address these concerns include:

recycling, conserving energy, buying

ecologically-friendly products, and supporting

local conservation groups. Our discussions

emphasised that Christians also need to

think with global and systemic perspective

about their mission. In agreement with a

report submitted to the World Council of

Churches Central Committee in 2001

(Document PRII 3), we call Christians from

industrialised countries to recognise that

they carry “major moral responsibility for

precipitating climate change and therefore

must exercise leadership that results in real

action to reduce the causes”. In addition, we

hold that Christians be aware of the

relationship of multinational corporations

to ecological destruction and refuse to

condone business endeavours that benefit

industrialised countries to the detriment of

developing nations.

Prejudices35.We recognise that prejudices still

persist in many of our societies, including

faith-based communities. Wherever they

exist, these prejudices constitute a denial of

the Gospel. In this section we focus on issues

of religious freedom and gender which

impinge on the holistic proclamation of the

Gospel.

36. Religious Freedom - We recognise

that religious freedom is a gift of God and a

fundamental freedom that should be

promoted and protected.

37.We are concerned by the increasing

violations of religious freedom in several

parts of the world leading to an increase of

intolerance and conflict.

38.We encourage cooperation between

our communions: (a) in defending and

promoting religious freedom through

international agencies, governments, and

churches; (b) in organising conferences and

symposia to discuss religious freedom issues;

and (c) in sharing information and joining

in common projects and prayers for those

who are persecuted.

39. Gender Biases - Women experience

discrimination, oppression and exploitation

in many forms. We believe the church needs

to continue combating gender

discrimination. The doctrine of creation

teaches that men and women are equally

created in the image of God; in the

household of faith we are all one in Christ.

This theological affirmation needs to be

supported by concrete action first in local

contexts and then in networking with others

from multiple contexts who are also

advocates of women and women’s concerns.

40.Women constitute a vital and dynamic

force within the church. They keep the

church active by their numerous

contributions. But in many contexts they

are excluded from leadership roles and

decision-making bodies. The New

Testament, by contrast , teaches that

women are equal recipients of the gifts of

the Holy Spirit and should therefore exercise

36

leadership roles in the church’s ministry.

Reformed representatives emphasise that

this includes the ordination of women to

the ministry of Word and Sacrament, whilst

admitting that the mere fact of the church’s

having this commitment does not imply that

all gender-equality issues have been

resolved. While it is true that, because of

differences in biblical interpretation,

Adventists do not at present ordain women

to the ministerial office, women are

occupying increasingly significant leadership

roles, including service as local pastors.

41.In the course of our discussions we

highlighted the need for: (a) ongoing

interpretation of Scriptures pertaining to

gender equality; (b) raised consciousness of

social evils including prostitution in relation

to tourism, sati (an Indian term for widow-

burning), dowry, female infanticide, female

sterilisation, job discrimination; and (c)

increased understanding of the particular

ways in which gender discrimination is

manifest, depending on the particular

context.

V. Conclusion42.We are happy to conclude that our

conversation has been productive in a

number of directions. We have affirmed the

common doctrinal ground on which we

stand, and we have specified some of the

ways in which our teachings have developed

over time. We have sought to dispel mutual

misunderstandings concerning doctrine. We

have eschewed the sectarian spirit, and have

not questioned one another’s status as

Christians. Recognising that the Gospel of

God’s grace concerns the whole of life and

the whole of society, we have turned our

minds to some of the burning issues of the

day. We invite our constituencies to redouble

their efforts to work for justice, the

eradication of poverty, and the preservation

and right stewardship of the created order.

43.In many ways, this conversation was

a learning process for both parties. The

Adventists made clear their indebtedness

to the historic creeds of the church, and to

the Reformation heritage, while the

Reformed were impressed by the

considerable efforts made by Adventists in

education, health, and the cause of religious

freedom. It appeared that while the

Adventists might do well to reflect further

upon socio-political involvement grounded

in the Gospel, the Reformed might in some

quarters question the relative weight they

give to evangelism and social witness.

44.In the course of our discussions, it

became clear that there is scope for a greater

degree of clarification on doctrinal and

ethical issues than we have yet achieved.

The following topics have emerged as

candidates for future consideration, should

the sponsoring bodies decide that further

Reformed/Adventist dialogue should take

place: the interpretation of the Bible; the

Sabbath; law and grace; eschatology; the

concept of the “remnant”; the question of

church discipline and holy living in relation

to secularised societies; the relation of Ellen

G. White’s writings to the Scriptures; the

meaning and implications of “double

37

predestination”; questions concerning

worship and polity; the contributions of

liberation theologies; and the meaning and

significance of Christ’s “high priestly

ministry”.

45.We have every hope that, were such

matters to be pursued, considerable

convergence might be revealed. This would

lead to increased mutual understanding and

acknowledgement of our communions as

authentic members of the one church of

the Lord Jesus Christ.

APPENDIXList of papers presented

Seventh-day Adventists: A Profile,

William G. Johnsson, Adventist ; The

Apocalypse: God’s Answer to the Human Cry

for Ultimate Justice, Roy Adams, Adventist;

Keepers of the Garden: Christians and the

Environment: An Adventist Perspective,

John T. Baldwin, Adventist; Seventh-day

Adventists and Religious Freedom – An

Aspect of Justice, John Graz, Adventist;

Protestant Theological Heritage in Seventh-

day Adventism, Hans K. LaRondelle,

Adventist; The Challenges of the Post-Cold

War for Protestant Christianity in Latin

America, Arturo Piedra, Reformed; Church

Concerns from the Southern Africa

Perspective: A Presentation to the Adventist-

Reformed Dialogue, Rupert Hambira,

Reformed; Reformed Ecclesiology, Alan Sell,

Reformed; Women’s Concerns from a Dalit

Perspective, Nalini Arles, Reformed; The

Doctrine of Forgiveness and Its Implications

for Justice: A Reformed, Feminist, North

American Perspective, Cynthia Rigby,

Reformed.

Participants

7th Day Adventist Participants: Dr. Bert

Beach (Co-chair), Dr. Roy Adams, Dr. Niels-

Eric Andreasen, Professor John Baldwin, Dr.

John Graz, Dr. William Johnsson, Professor

Hans La Rondelle, Dr. George Reid, Dr. Angel

Rodríguez

Apologies: Dr. Jean-Claude Verrechia

Reformed Participants : Prof. Dr.

Cynthia Rigby (Co-chair), Prof. Dr. Nalini

Arles, Rev. Rupert Hambira, Dr. Arturo Piedra,

Dr. Alan Sell, Dr. Setri Nyomi

Apologies: Prof. Dr. Beatriz Melano

WARC Staff: Ms. Margaret Owen, Dr.

Odair Pedroso Mateus

38

Christianity in the African Context

The Report of the International Theological Dialoguebetween the Organisation of African Instituted Churchesand the World Alliance of Reformed Churches(1998–2002)

Adopted in Mbagathi, near Nairobi, Kenya, 9-14 February 2002

INTRODUCTION

Dialogue between two Christianfamilies

1. This document is the record of a

significant breakthrough in ecumenical

dialogue. It is a report of a series of three

meetings between the Reformed Churches,

represented by the World Alliance of

Reformed Churches (WARC), Geneva, and

the African Independent or Instituted

Churches (AICs), represented by the

Organisation of African Instituted Churches,

Nairobi. To our knowledge, it is the first time

the African Independent Churches have

been involved in a dialogue with another

Christian world communion. During this

process, members of churches that

separated from churches of the Reformed

family within living memory have been

meeting with representatives of the

churches from which they separated.

The Beginnings of the Church in Africa2. According to tradition, the history of

the church in Africa began with the

preaching of the gospel to the Ethiopian

eunuch, and with the arrival of the

Evangelist St. Mark in Alexandria in AD 42.

St. Mark was the founder of the Coptic

Orthodox Church of Egypt, which formally

separated from the other churches at the

time of the Council of Chalcedon, and has

retained many of its traditions and original

liturgy until the present day. The Copts took

the gospel to the Nubians and Ethiopians,

and beyond Africa, as far as Ireland. In other

parts of North Africa, the Christian faith was

planted and nourished by the Latin church.

After the Muslim conquests of the 7th

century, when much of the North African

church was destroyed, and the Coptic

Church itself fell under the hegemony of

Muslim overlords, the Christian faith endured

on the continent mainly in the Coptic and

Ethiopian Orthodox Churches. The next

significant and enduring missionary

expansion of the church was brought about

by European and North American Protestant

and Catholic missionaries of the 19th and

20th centuries. From the 1870s onwards, this

missionary expansion became inextricably

entwined with European colonial expansion

and the “Scramble for Africa”. Thus, the

39

gospel presented by European missionaries

was not only heavily influenced by European

culture (individualistic, materialist and

capitalist) but became for the African convert

a way of entry into the new colonial systems

with their exploitative economies and racist

assumptions. It was in this frequently highly

oppressive context that the African

Independent Church movement was born.

African Independent Churches – a newChristian phenomenon

3. AICs are known by various names, of

which African Independent and African

Instituted Churches are the most common.

The term “instituted” was first used in the

title of OAIC simply to obtain Kenyan

government approval for its registration. Its

use did not mean that AICs wanted to lose

the older term “independent”, and both

terms are generally acceptable to the

constituency.

4. Although AICs are now very widely

spread in Sub-Saharan Africa, originally

they were focused in South Afr ica ,

Zimbabwe, Malawi, Kenya, the Congo

basin, Nigeria, and along the West African

coast between Côte d ’ Ivoire and

Cameroon. Three factors led to the

creation of a new form of Christian faith

in these areas:

– the intensity of cultural conflict

between the European colonisers and

their associated miss ions , and the

indigenous cultures;

– the degree of political and economic

oppression in East and Southern Africa

resulting in the seizure of lands and the

displacement of African peoples;

– the extent of christianisation. AICs

did not usually emerge until people had

the Bible in their own mother tongues,

and were able to challenge or “correct”

mission church interpretations of the

Scriptures.

Thus AICs were born out of prophetic

attempts by African peoples to interpret

their oppress ive s i tuat ions , to f ind

meaning, to create space for themselves,

and often to fight for freedom.

5. From a sociological perspective, AICs

can be seen as examples of the new religious

movements (NRMs) which arose out of the

impact of European culture and Christianity

upon African cultures that were less powerful

politically, militarily, and economically. AICs

stand at one end of a spectrum of NRMs

which ranges from the movements very

close to the African religious heritage at one

end to fully Christian churches at the other.

Other NRMs use the name “church” but are

less than fully Christians, and may not even

wish to be called Christian. Theologically,

however, the term New Religious Movement

does not do justice to the AICs. The OAIC

constitution restricts membership to:

Any African founded church which

believes in Jesus Christ as Saviour, the Holy

Trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy

Spirit as one God) and Christian Doctrine

as founded in the Holy Bible (Old Testament

and New Testament).

6. OAIC groups its members into three

categories:

40

– Nationalist churches (also known as

Ethiopian and African Churches). These are

churches that seceded from the mission

churches during the colonial era (beginning

in 1844 in South Africa and in 1891 in

Nigeria) over issues of leadership and a

desire that Africans should control the

church and its teachings on cultural

practices. They often saw the fight against

colonialism as one of the legitimate goals of

the church, and were influenced by the

Marcus Garvey movement, which sought to

unite Africans of the continent and of the

diaspora to work for the liberation of Africa

and the dignity of African peoples. In liturgy

and doctrine nationalist churches have

retained much from the Western or

historical churches. They often looked to

Ethiopia as a symbol of African resistance

to and independence from colonialism, and

referred to Ps 68.31 as a prophecy for

themselves.

– Spiritual churches (also known as

Zionist, Apostolic, and Aladura churches).

These churches (dating from 1910 onwards

in Southern Africa, and 1920 onwards in

West and Eastern Africa) are sometimes

referred to as “prophet-healing” churches,

because of the centrality of the charismatic

gifts in their worship and ministry (prophecy,

interpretation of dreams, healing, and prayer

for protection against evil). Their liturgies

are more informal, and there is greater use

of forms borrowed from African tradition.

Especially in Southern Africa, these churches

look to Zion as the symbol of a heaven.

– African Pentecostal churches. These

are African founded Pentecostal style

churches that have arisen since the mid-

1960s. Though the stimulus to their

foundation has frequently been the

evangelistic missions and training

conventions associated with Western

Pentecostals (and as a result, there is some

dispute whether these churches are fully

African), a number of them (those that give

a positive value to African culture) have

found a home in OAIC. There are tensions

between these churches and the spiritual

churches which relate more to styles of

worship than to essential differences over

doctrine.

The Organisation of African InstitutedChurches

7. The Organisation of African Instituted

Churches was begun in Cairo in 1978, as a

loose association of AICs, in order to express

and to address their needs and concerns,

among which theological education was the

most urgent. At its 2nd General Assembly in

Nairobi in 1982, a constitution was drawn

up and the international headquarters set

up in Nairobi. The 3rd General Assembly,

which took place in Limuru in August 1997,

emphasised the empowerment of the seven

OAIC regions. These are: Eastern Africa,

Southern Africa, Democratic Republic of

Congo, Nigeria, Francophone West Africa,

Anglophone West Africa, and Madagascar.

Some of these regions are composed of

national chapters. The regions send three

delegates to the General Assembly, and

their regional chairpersons form the OAIC

41

Executive Committee, which appoints the

General Secretary, and through him

oversees the running of the programmes.

These programmes currently are:

Theological Education by Extension,

Programme for Participatory Development,

Women’s Department, Research and

Communication, and HIV/AIDS.

8. The total AIC constituency has been

conservatively estimated at 60 million, and

of this number some 15–20 million people

are members of OAIC affiliated churches.

The Reformed Churches9. The Reformed family is the portion of

Christian churches that recognise their

most immediate origins primarily in the

Swiss wing of the Reformation movement

that culminated in the 16th century.

Reformed Churches share a set of

doctr inal emphases – such as the

Sovereignty of God, the Lordship of Christ

in the church and the world and the

affirmation of the Scriptures of the Old

and the New Testament as authority in

matters of faith and church discipline – as

wel l as church orders known as

Presbyterian (from the Greek word for

“elder”) or Congregational. There are more

than 750 Christ ian churches that

recognise themselves as part of the

Reformed family. The World Alliance of

Reformed Churches (WARC) in its current

form is the result of the merger in 1970

between the World Presbyterian Alliance

(founded in 1875) and the International

Congregational Council (founded in 1891).

The World Alliance of Reformed Churches

represents some 75 million Reformed

Christians, gathered in 218 churches in

107 countries.

10. Most African Reformed Churches

began as a result of 19th century missionary

activities, mainly from Western Europe.

The only community that pre-dates this

is the Dutch Reformed Church of South

Africa which came with the migratory wave

from the Netherlands a couple of centuries

earlier. They then began spreading through

Southern Africa. Reformed Churches

(Presbyterian, Reformed, Congregational,

Evangelical and United) can be found all

over Africa (including Egypt). However, most

of them are found in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Many of the nineteenth century

missionaries did not understand African

culture and therefore condemned most

elements of African culture as pagan – to be

discarded. One needs to recall the fact that

the 19th century was also the time when

colonisation was taking place and a good

number of the missionary bodies enjoyed

the protection of the colonial powers.

Therefore, many indigenous Africans

identified the missionaries with the colonial

powers. One needs to credit these

missionaries with a number of things. They

brought with them the gospel, schools,

hospitals and agricultural innovations. Many

of them sacrificed their lives for the sake of

the gospel. Today, the Reformed Churches

in Africa are increasingly living out the gospel

within their cultural contexts and many of

42

them are at the forefront of prophetic

action in their nations.

Planning of the dialogue11.At a preparatory meeting held at the

Methodist Guest House in Nairobi from 2-

3 June 1998, the two families of churches

defined the dialogue themes. These were:

Unity – the meeting expressed an

overriding concern for the lack of unity on

the African continent, which threatens

the survival of its peoples. These divisions

are ethnic , denominat ional (wi th a

proliferating number of new churches),

and political, and had sometimes led to

war and genocide. It was felt that in

handl ing this issue , the theme of

reconciliation would be more positive and

productive.

Gospel and culture – Both Reformed

Churches and AICs are struggling to define

their identity as Christians in Africa, both

in relation to “culture” narrowly defined,

and also in relation to the global, and

socio-political contexts in which our

churches are set, and to which we are called

to proclaim the gospel.

Women – The role of women in the

church and church ministries is of great

concern to both families of churches.

12. It was decided that the process

could best be focused and guided under

the overall theme of Christianity in the

African Context, and then broken down

into three sub-headings, each of which

would form the focus for a dialogue

meeting:

African Christian Identity

Reconciling identities – learning from

and challenging each other

Towards our common witness.

The Nature of the Process13.Given the lack of formally articulated

and published theologies among the AICs,

the following tasks emerged as necessary if

the dialogue was to succeed:

- Participants were challenged to develop

a dialogue process concentrating initially on

building trust, relationships and mutual

respect as the necessary prerequisites for

eliciting AIC and Reformed perceptions and

accounts of their practices and beliefs;

- Participants were faced with bridging

the gap between formal presentations of

theology (a Reformed strength) and receiving

testimony of firsthand experiences of faith,

worship and life (the chief theological

resource of the AICs);

- Participants uncovered the shared

African roots of much grassroots Christian

faith and practice among both Reformed

and AIC participants, and were challenged

to value these sources for theologising

appropriately, but not uncritically.

I. AFRICAN CHRISTIAN IDENTITY14.During the first meeting in Kigali (13-

19 October 1999), during which we were

hosted by the Presbyterian Church in

Rwanda, agreement on the practical

challenges the African church faces formed

the most significant part of our search for a

common African Christian identity. AIC and

43

Reformed participants reached substantial

agreement on the crisis facing the African

continent and her people, and the way in

which the Church was called to respond. As

a prelude to this, a simple agreement was

reached on our common faith. Both these

agreements are summarised in

The Kigali StatementAffirmations

15.We have come together from two

Christian families, the Reformed Churches

and the African Instituted Churches, and

rejoice in the spirit of unity, knowing that

we share a common ministry. We meet in

Kigali, Rwanda, and have been deeply

moved by accounts of the 1994 killings in

this nation and by our visits to some of the

sites of genocide. We have been much

encouraged by our Rwandan brothers and

sisters as they seek reconciliation and the

reconstruction of their country. Their

example has been an inspiration to us as

we ourselves seek to understand each other

better and to overcome our own suspicions

and spirit of disunity. We lament our past

histories of division and hatred and resolve

to continue to meet together in dialogue,

seeking opportunities and means of

common action.

16.We affirm a common faith

– in the Triune God,

– in the lordship of Jesus Christ as God

incarnate and crucified, who identifies with

us in our suffering,

– in the Holy Spirit and his transforming

power in our lives.

17.We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are

for both of our families a yardstick for

Christian faith and life, while recognising

that there may be differences in our

interpretations. We affirm that African

Christians have an identity that is both

African and Christian, and that our faith

calls us to witness and act in the social and

political realities of our world. As

representatives of the world church, and as

leaders of churches in Africa, we confess

the complicity of ourselves and our churches

in the economic and political injustices that

have impoverished and dis-empowered the

people of this continent. We acknowledge

that we have failed to speak prophetically

when called to do so, and that we have shown

a blatant disregard for the environment.

Challenges and actions18.We have shared together our deep

concerns about the present tragic situation

of Africa, to which the following factors have

contributed. We have agreed to do all we

can as church leaders to assist our people

to reconstruct our continent, and are

committed to the following actions for

ourselves, our churches, and our people.

19.We are distressed by division and

disunity in the church and society. We will

use our pulpits and our churches to promote

greater tolerance and understanding of

different groups and persuasions, and to

encourage a spirit of openness that will

enable people to express themselves and

accommodate diversity. As part of this

process we will take steps to initiate dialogue

44

at the local level between our two church

families. We acknowledge a need to return

to African models of reconciliation and of

establishing and maintaining unity. As

church members and leaders, we need to

engage actively with society and its needs

and problems in order to enable people to

identify, prioritise, and find solutions to their

own needs, and not just those of our

churches.

20.For centuries the human and material

resources of our continent have been

exploited by others. Knowing that it is this

exploitation that has increased poverty and

unemployment in Africa, we have a duty to

educate the members of our churches and

local communities on the nature of the global

and local processes involved. We will work

with other churches and agencies to reduce

our dependency on foreign models and

solutions for these problems. In the face of

widespread corruption and lack of

accountability, we need to strengthen

governance in our nations and institutions.

We will therefore educate our people so as

to form a strong and well-informed civil

society. We will act to provide more

information to the members of our

churches, and train them to use this

information in order to strengthen

governance in our churches as well as in

society. We will conduct programmes for

sensitising church and community

members, through such means as the

distribution of literature and through

national and local forums, with the aim of

empowering people to take initiatives

themselves and to participate more actively

in civil society.

21.We acknowledge that our own

churches do not adequately model the

democratic structures we are urging on the

state. This is true of “family churches” among

the AICs as well as of the more bureaucratic

structures of the Reformed Churches. We

will be more courageous in confronting

issues of corruption and misuse of power in

government. The process of encouraging

participation will also require some of us to

change our attitudes as leaders, and to

reduce our use of Scripture or the Holy Spirit

to enforce our decisions upon others. We

will work to reduce attitudes and habits of

dependency among our church members.

22.The Western models of development

we are using in Africa are not sustainable.

As a result, our environment has been

exploited, spoilt and degraded, and our own

societies have become polarised between

rich and poor. We have accepted the

dumping of toxic wastes. We will educate

our churches and communities to take

responsibility for protecting and improving

the environment. This is something every

member can share in, through such

grassroots activities as tree planting and the

cleaning up of our cities and villages.

23.As Christians we recognise the God-

given dignity of human beings and the

sacredness of life. In this regard, therefore,

we oppose military regimes whose power is

based on violence rather than the will of

the people expressed through the ballot box.

Working with the media, we will act to

45

expose arms dealers and their customers,

and we will cooperate with our partners in

the North to advocate a shift from arms

production to socially beneficial industries.

We will continue to advocate against the

ready supply of i l legal arms in our

countries, and the lack of discipline and

professionalism in our security forces,

while recognising that these problems are

int imately re lated to our decl ining

economies and increasing poverty. We will

also encourage our governments and

especially our own churches to continue

to show hospitality to refugees, giving

thanks for the self-sacrificing generosity

in this area of many of our local

congregations.

24 .We wi l l work to strengthen

democratic values and institutions, and

to research and develop models of

democracy appropriate to African society,

which can enable people of all ethnic

groups and pol i t ical and rel ig ious

persuasions to participate in decision-

making at all levels of church and state.

We recognise that this will require a

change in our own methods of working,

away from concentration on seminars for

leaders towards more exchange visits, in

order to build relationships between

people and communities across Africa, and

to expose our members to other cultures

and ways of working together.

25.We commit ourselves to promote the

full participation of women at all levels in

our church structures, and to work to

expose oppress ive tendencies and

traditions, so that our churches can

become exemplary models for the

empowerment of women in the wider

society.

26.Children are both the present and

the future of our churches and societies.

Yet they are exploited as child labour, as

child soldiers, and as child prostitutes.

Others are heads of families at a very young

age or are forced to live and sleep on the

streets. For their protection and better

upbringing, we commit our churches to the

task of sensitising our members and

communities about HIV/AIDS,

unemployment, landlessness, Structural

Adjustment Programmes and other issues

which affect the lives of our children. We

will advocate against all those practices

which put children at risk, and we will train

our own members in responsible

parenthood.

27.Social forces in contemporary Africa

threaten to destroy family life. We commit

our churches to the promotion of family life

education programmes. Education about

changing attitudes to the care of the old,

sensitisation to HIV/AIDS, and education

on the home care and support of People

With Aids, and on the importance of chastity

before marriage and faithfulness in marriage

should all be priorities in such programmes.

28.Extreme poverty contributes to rising

levels of drug abuse and drug trafficking. This

is true not only of the hard drugs but also of

cannabis and of alcohol, in which the use of

poisonous additives is of particular concern

in some of our countries. As church leaders

46

we will act to expose the trade, create

awareness of the dangers of addiction, and

support efforts to counteract its spread.

29.The process of globalisation and the

speeding up of communications affect our

continent in various ways. Because

globalisation is driven by market forces and

is largely directed by Transnational

Corporations which are beyond the control

of national states, it threatens to destroy

local values, traditions, and self-reliance.

This can be seen most clearly in the impact

of the mass media on our people. To counter

its ill-effects we need as church leaders to

strengthen our sense of identity, and to

encourage people to be proud of their roots

in church and community. Furthermore, we

need to sensitise our members and those

of our communities to globalisation and its

effects, so that people can participate in the

process, becoming agents of change

themselves and not simply victims. Because

globalisation benefits those who have access

to global networks, and is dependent on

expensive technology, it threatens to

marginalise the poor of Africa even further.

Our churches must engage in research, and

in networking with sympathetic partners in

order to be effective advocates against the

ill-effects of globalisation, and to prevent our

people from being overwhelmed by

processes which may otherwise be beyond

their understanding or control.

30.In both our church families, we

acknowledge a deficit in the area of

contextualised theology. This deficit has

contributed to the deep identity crisis felt

by many of us as African Christians. The

Reformed Churches have much to learn here

from the inculturation of the gospel in the

AICs, but both our church families lack well-

articulated and contextualised theologies for

contemporary Africa. We will therefore work

to encourage a writing culture in our

churches, and to promote further reflection

on the encounter between gospel and

culture. An aspect of this encounter is the

issue of polygamous marriages. We are agreed

that the Christian ideal of marriage is faithful

monogamy, but we recognise that some

African churches need time to work out the

theological and pastoral implications of this

principle. We believe that churches should

not be discriminated against on this and

other pastoral issues which their leaders

are seeking to handle with sensitivity among

their members.

31.We are concerned about the spread

of false teachings on our continent (including

the so-called “prosperity gospel”), many of

them coming from abroad. Our church

members have become consumers of many

different theologies which are not relevant

to African realities. These have contributed

to divisions in our churches, and to

theological confusion. To counter this

challenge, we commit our churches to

encourage more study and teaching of the

Bible, and to the promotion of theological

education programmes which can reach all

levels of church membership.

32.We acknowledge that our churches

have often failed to obey the Great

Commission, and have been preoccupied

47

with maintaining already existing churches

in areas where the gospel took root long

ago. We commit ourselves to reach out to

where the gospel has not yet been heard,

and where churches have not yet been

planted.

33.Many of our churches lack a strong

financial base. As church leaders, we are

called to increase the participation of our

members in church activities, so that they

become “owners” rather than “followers”.

We will encourage investment in church-

owned income generating projects. We will

promote stronger biblical teaching on giving,

stewardship, and accountability in our

churches. We acknowledge that our

behaviour and practice as leaders in this

area has not always been above reproach,

and we commit ourselves to greater

transparency, integrity, and accountability.

34.Concrete actions:

1. We have agreed to meet together again

in 2000 at a venue to be arranged by the

OAIC in consultation with WARC.

2. We will distribute this statement to

the member churches in Africa of our

respective constituencies.

3. We will encourage our member

churches to engage in dialogue and in work

together at the local level, with feedback to

our respective organisations.

4. We will invite representatives of our

partners in this dialogue to attend

significant meetings of our organisations

and churches on the African continent.

35.We encourage our member

churches in Africa to engage in local

dialogue and action arising from this

statement, and invite them to respond

with comments, suggestions, and reports

to the Department of Theology of the

World Alliance of Reformed Churches,

P.O. Box 2100, 1211 Geneva 2,

Switzerland or to the General Secretary

of the Organisation of African Instituted

Churches, P.O. Box 21736, Nairobi,

Kenya.

OAIC Representatives: Baba Aladura Dr.

G.I.M. Otubu, Co-Chair, Archbishop John

Mweresa Kivuli, Father Michael A. Ng’ong’a,

Rev. Thomas Oduro, Mr. John Padwick, Ms.

Olga Ratovonarivo, Archbishop Njeru

Wambugu

WARC Representatives: Rev. Dr. André

Karamaga, Co-Chair, Rev. Dr. Peter Bisem,

Rev. Dr. Gregg Mast, Rev. Muthoni Ruth

Ngaari, Rev. Dr. Setri Nyomi, Ms. Margaret

Owen

II. RECONCILING IDENTITIES36.Participants in the second dialogue

session were hosted by the Eternal Sacred

Order of the Cherubim and Seraphim, and

by its sister churches in OAIC Nigeria. In

this meeting, held in Lagos, Nigeria, 4-7

March 2001, they sought to address

themselves to the two issues of the place

and ministry of the Holy Spirit, and the role

of education (both secular and theological)

in the two families of churches. These were

approached from the standpoint of the

theme of the meeting , Reconciling

Identities, which formed the subject of the

two introductory papers from both families.

48

The summary of the Lagos meeting appears

in the following document:

The Lagos CommuniquéAddressing our common problems

37.We, the representatives of two

Christian families, the World Alliance of

Reformed Churches (WARC) and the

Organisation of African Instituted Churches

(OAIC), have met together in Lagos, Nigeria,

as the guests of OAIC Nigeria. Our theme

has been Reconciling identities: learning

from and challenging each other (the

prophetic role of the church, the free

movement of the Holy Spirit).

38.We have heard from our Nigerian

hosts the challenges they face as Christians

as sharia law is enforced in certain states in

this country, and we affirm a common desire

to work towards relations with our Muslim

brothers and sisters that will permit the full

practice of both faiths. In this connection,

we are agreed that killing people in the

name of God is foreign to African tradition

and can never be justified.

39.Building on our previous meetings in

Nairobi, Kenya in 1998, and Kigali, Rwanda

in 1999, we celebrate our continuing growth

towards mutual understanding and unity in

the Christian faith, and our common desire

to address the continuing crisis on our

continent. In this connection, we affirm the

Kigali Statement of 1999 as presenting an

analysis that continues to be relevant of

the problems and challenges facing Africa.

We commend it again to our member

churches, together with its

recommendations for action. We note with

regret the lack of response to the statement,

and commit ourselves to ensure its wider

circulation among our respective

constituencies.

Moving towards reconciliation of ouridentities

40. In this meeting in Lagos we have

further identified beliefs and standpoints

that we share in common:

– Both our families are committed to

practising the Christian faith in its Trinitarian

fullness, although with different emphases.

– Our continent has a profound

spirituality and a belief in mysticism that is

deeply rooted in our traditional cultures, and

we share a commitment to developing and

practising a Christian faith that addresses

these spiritual realities. We acknowledge the

long experience of the African Instituted

Churches (AICs), and the increasing

involvement of the Reformed Churches, in

this ministry. In the difficult matter of

discerning the spirits , we affirm two

principles common to our families: that we

test the spirits against the word of Scripture,

and that we do so in the context of the

praying community (the local and universal

church).

– Our families show a common concern

for providing appropriate education at all

levels and for all members of our churches,

an education that must have its roots in

African culture and values. With regard to

training our ministers and others who serve

the church, we recognise the importance of:

49

– providing theological education in an

ecumenical context

– providing a theological education that

will enable our ministers and workers to

engage with social issues of the day, for

example, with issues of governance and HIV/

AIDS

To this end, we commit ourselves to

sharing resources, financial, intellectual, and

spiritual.

– We celebrate the diversity of our

peoples as God-given, and we recognise the

right of every person to self-respect and

human dignity. For this reason we affirm

again the necessity of encouraging full

participation in decision-making in church

and society as we seek to empower our

peoples to address the crises that surround

them on this continent. As we engage with

the fullness of African diversity we do so

from an understanding of our identity as

open and inclusive. We draw from the model

of the incarnation a willingness to take risks

in order to achieve a new identity

characterised by integration and the

harmonisation of differences. It is in this

spirit that we are committed to our

continuing dialogue. As we move towards

unity in the church we seek the unity of

humankind.

Moving ahead41.We have agreed to meet again for the

final consultation of this present dialogue

in Nairobi in 2002, in order to decide concrete

steps that we can take together as part of

our common witness on this continent. As

a preliminary step we will address the gaps

in our conversations (e.g., the interpretation

of the Bible, the role of the sacraments, and

the ministry of women).

Signed:Rev. Dr. André Karamaga, Vice

President of WARC, Co-chair of the

Dialogue

His Eminence Baba Aladura

Dr. G.I.M. Otubu, International

Chairman of OAIC, Co-chair of the

Dialogue

Rev. Dr. Setri Nyomi, General

Secretary-WARC

Most Rev. Njeru Wambugu, General

Secretary-OAIC

7th March 2001 – Lagos, Nigeria

III. MOVING TOWARDSCOMMON WITNESS

42.The third meeting was held in

Mbagathi, Nairobi, Kenya (9-14 February

2002) and participants were hosted by the

Presbyterian Church of East Africa. Members

of the dialogue worshipped in churches of

both families. They dealt with issues of

biblical interpretation, sacraments, the role

of women in the church and the future of

50

this dialogue. They stated together the

following:

Hermeneutics43.We are agreed in both our families

that Scripture is central to the life and work

of the church. The Scriptures can only be

properly interpreted within the hermeneutic

community, which is not just local or oral,

but denominational, ecumenical, and global.

AICs have particularly emphasised

hermeneutical dialogue with the local

community of the faithful, in which the

congregation responds to the preachers with

hymns and interjections which strengthen

the preacher and push the argument a

stage further. Indeed, both Reformed and

AIC traditions emphasise the importance

of music and hymns in the hermeneutic

process. The Reformed hermeneutic in

addition has particularly emphasised the

global, and intergenerational community of

biblical commentaries, and written

theologies.

44.We recognise and celebrate certain,

especially African, emphases in the

hermeneutic process. Among these are a

commitment to oral tradition and an

interpretation which builds on and relates

to the shared stories, proverbs, and

memories of the community; an emphasis

on God’s word to the community rather than

just to the individual; an understanding that

all in life is sacred (with no division between

sacred and secular); and a deep reliance on

the role of and assistance from the Holy

Spirit. Both families of churches agree that

our hermeneutic must address itself both

to the local situation and, at the same time,

be aware of and be responsible to the global

hermeneutic community. A closed

hermeneutic community cannot in the long

run remain faithful to the Gospel.

Sacraments45.We agree that the sacraments of

baptism and the Eucharist are grounded in

Scripture and are commended to the church

for its spiritual growth. Baptism signifies the

entrance of the believer into the community

of faith, and his/her engrafting into the body

of Christ. In communion, the faithful are fed

with Christ himself. The experience of

receiving Christ in the sacraments is made

possible by the powerful and mysterious

action of the Holy Spirit.

46.Some of the AICs have affirmed as

many as seven sacraments: baptism,

chrismation (confirmation), Eucharist,

marriage, confession, ordination, and holy

unction (anointing of the sick). Other AICs

are non-sacramental in tradition, although

they would say that they celebrate the

sacraments spiritually. Some of them

believe that, as the bread and wine are set

aside as food for God’s people, so God’s holy

people are themselves set aside as God’s

sacrament and gift to the world.

The role of women in the church47.Both communities acknowledge and

celebrate the gifts of the Holy Spirit to both

women and men. We acknowledge that for

cultural and historical reasons, women have

51

not been allowed to develop and share

these gifts adequately in the service of the

wider Christian community. In many parts

of Africa issues of purity and impurity deeply

influence and limit the role of women in

the church. This affects both the Reformed

and the African Independent Church

families. Also, structural inequalities within

the church often limit women’s ministries.

Sometimes these inequalities are seen in

segregated and subordinate structures, often

mistakenly called “parallel structures”, of

women’s ministries or women’s

departments. Although these women’s

ministries and departments can and do play

a significant role in the lives of women and

men, and can help in raising their awareness,

we are agreed that women must not be

limited to these ministries. The church must

remove restrictions on the ministries of

women, and the lack of women’s

participation in the higher decision-making

structures. It must find ways of dealing with

its procedures (such as holding meetings

only in the evenings), which effectively

prevent women from playing a full role. It

must also seek to understand, to challenge,

and to motivate communities and

congregations to change those of their

traditions and perceptions which prevent

them from welcoming an integrated model

of equal partnership in the ministry of

women and men.

The way forward48.We recognise that some of the AICs

separated historically from member

churches of WARC in a process of

polarisation in which the positions of the

two sides became deeply entrenched. We

acknowledge that ill-feelings and bitterness

continue to exist between some of our

members until the present day. We

recommend that in the countries where this

is the case leaders of the churches

concerned meet to discuss the

reconciliation of memories, and to consider

how best to come together again in mutual

repentance, in order to strengthen our

common witness to the one Christ. In other

situations, although bitter historical

memories may not be present, prejudice and

the lack of a spirit of common fellowship in

the ministry may be present. Sometimes

this prejudice is characterised by attitudes

of rejection of the other based on false

conceptions such as, “lacking education”,

“backward”, “lacking the Holy Spirit”,

“colonial churches”. We commit ourselves

to working much more strongly for mutual

understanding and ecumenism, and we urge

the leaders of the churches in our respective

communities to work and act together to

remove the misconceptions and prejudice,

to build trust and share fully in joint Christian

witness. In the crises that affect our

continent, for the survival of our own people,

we cannot afford disunity.

49.We recognise the dangers of training

AIC students at colleges of the other

Christian world communions and

denominations, because they can easily be

lost from the AICs to the denomination of

the college. In this context, there is a need

52

to explore how Reformed Church theological

institutions can be used for the training of

AIC students, and how these institutions

can be made more hospitable to AIC

students, in order to build them up in their

ministry in their own churches rather than

purely in the context of the Reformed

ministry. In this context, also, we consider

that initially, support should be given to the

OAIC Theological Education by Extension

programme, and its attempts to revise its

curriculum, and to obtain proper academic

accreditation for its courses. In association

with the Conference of African Theological

Institutions, the Reformed Churches in Africa

should consider encouraging some of their

lecturers to cooperate in the process.

Further, and as a long-term goal, we

recognise the need for an increased number

of further degree- level theological

institutions run by and for AICs.

50.As a dialogue, we endorse the

aspirations of the AIC community to come

up with their own written theological

material. We consider that an appropriate

first step would be for AIC theologians to

discuss the theological issues and logistics

required in a continental-level workshop,

and we commit ourselves in our various

capacities to exploring how this can be

made possible.

51.In view of the great measure of

progress we have achieved in this dialogue

at the international level, we urge our

member churches over the next three

years to engage in a process of dialogue

between our two families at national

levels. We will collect and record the

progress made, and report back to our

respect ive organisat ions , wi th the

possibility of resuming the dialogue at

international level at another date.

APPENDIXList of papers presented

First SessionPresbyterian Church in Rwanda, Kigali,Rwanda – 11-19 October 1999

Theme: African Christian Identity

The political, economic realities of

Africa, Prophetess Dr. J. E. Ahme; African

Christ ian identity , Archbishop John

Mweresa Kivuli; Marriage as in the African

context, as repeated by the Scripture,

Baba Aladura Dr. G.I.M. Otubu; African

Christian identity, Rev. Thomas Oduro;

Towards an African Christian identity: the

potential contribution of the African

Independent Churches in an era of

globalisation, Mr. John Padwick; The

political and economical realities of Africa,

Rev. Dr. André Karamaga; Christianity in

the African context, Rev. Dr. Setri Nyomi;

An introduction and brief history of the

53

Organisat ion of Afr ican Instituted

Churches, Archbishop Njeru Wambugu.

Second SessionThe Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim& Seraphim, Lagos, Nigeria4-7 March 2001

Theme: Reconciling identities: learning

from each other (The prophetic role of the

church, the free movement of the Holy Spirit)

Africa in Crisis: The practical prophetic

role of the Church, Rev. Dr. Peter Bisem;

The experience of the Holy Spirit in worship,

Rev. Ruth Ngaari; African Independent

Churches: their role and strategies of

education, Rev. Thomas Oduro; Reconciling

Identities: learning from each other, Dr.

André Karamaga.

Third SessionThe Kenya College of CommunicationTechnology (KCCT)Conference Centre, Mbagathi, Nairobi,Kenya – 9-14 February 2002

Theme: Towards our Common Witness

The Role of Sacraments in the Church,

Rev. Fr Michael R.A. Ng’ong’a; Spontaneous

Hymnodal Hermeneutics: An Analysis of an

AIC Hermeneutic, Rev. Thomas Oduru;

Reformed Tradition and the Ministry of

Women, Dr. Bukelwa Hans; Summary paper

of the last three dialogues, Mr. John Padwick/

Rev. Ruth Ngaari; Report of the Dialogue

between the OAIC and Reformed Churches,

Mr. John Padwick/Rev. Ruth Ngaari.

Portions of this document were

developed over the period of four years from

1999-2002. The drafters and editors of the

final report are indicated with an asterisk

(*). Those who chaired the meetings are

indicated with a (c) or acting co-chair with

(ac), while those who presented papers are

indicated with a (P) following the year in

which they made their presentation, staff

are indicated with (s) and absent with (a).

Participants who were part of the original

exploratory committee are noted with

attendance in 1998.

OAIC Participants: Dr. (Mrs.) Justina

Ahme (Nigeria, 1999 P, 2001, 2002);

Archbishop John Mweresa Kivuli (Kenya,

1999 P, 2001, 2002); Father Michael A.

Ng’ong’a (Kenya, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002 P);

Rev. Thomas Oduro (Ghana, 1999 P, 2001 P,

2002 P); Baba Aladura Dr. G.I.M. Otubu

(Nigeria, c 1998, c 1999 P, c 2001, c 2002);

*Mr. John Padwick (England/Kenya, 1998,

1999 P, 2001, 2002 P); Mrs. Olga Ratovonarivo

(Madagascar, 1999, 2001, 2002); Archbishop

Njeru Wambugu (Kenya, 1998, c 1999 P, c

2001, c 2002).

Reformed Participants: Rev. Dr. Peter

Bisem (Kenya, 1999, a 2001 P); Dr. Bukelwa

Hans (South Africa, 1999, 2001, 2002 P); Prof.

Pieter Holtrop (The Netherlands, 1998); Rev.

Dr. André Karamaga (Rwanda, 1998, c 1999

P, a 2001 P, a 2002); Rev. Dr. Gregg Mast

(USA, 1999, 2001, 2002); *Dr. Odair Pedroso

Mateus (Brazil/Switzerland, a 2001, 2002);

*Rev. Ruth Ngaari (Kenya/USA, 1998, 1999,

2001 P, 2002); Rev. Dr. Setri Nyomi (Ghana/

Switzerland, 1998, 1999 P, s 2001, s ac 2002);

54

Ms. Margaret Owen (England/Switzerland,

s 1999); Rev. Dr. E. B. Udoh (Nigeria, a 1999,

a 2001, a 2002); Dr. H. S. Wilson (India/

Switzerland, s 1998 Geneva, Switzerland).

Visitors from the OAIC – 2002: Mr. Nicta

Lubaale, Rev. John Gichimy, Rev. Daniel

Oguso

Visitors from the Presbyterian Church

of East Africa – 2002: Rt Rev. Dr. Jesse

Kamau, Very Rev. Dr. George Wanjau, Rev.

Patrick M. Rukenya, Rev. Dr. Lawrence

Mbagara, Rev. John K. Mwinchia, Rev.

Johnson K. Mwangi, Mr. Francis Kihiko, Mr.

Elijah Karimi, Rev. Dr. Godfrey Ngumi

55

Towards an Alliance of ProtestantChurches?The Confessional and the Ecumenicalin the WARC Constitutions (I)

Odair Pedroso Mateus

By creating in 1875 an Alliance of churches whose faith was “in harmony withthe consensus of the Reformed confessions” and whose order was generallydetermined by the “Presbyterian principles”, the founders of WARC were also seekingto promote that unity of the Reformation family which led Calvin, in response to theAnglican Archbishop Cranmer, to declare that he was ready to cross ten seas tobring it forth.

A confession which would intensify Presbyterianism and loosen the ties whichunite us to the other branches of Christ’s kingdom I would regard as a calamity. (…)We want a declaration of union, not a platform of disunion. Much as we esteemdoctrinal unity, there is a higher unity, the unity of spiritual life, the unity of faith,the unity of love which binds us to Christ, and to all who love him, of whateverdenomination or creed.

Swiss-American theologian Philip Schaffat the Alliance’s first general council, Edinburgh, 1877

If we get our hearts large enough to embrace all our Presbyterian brethren, theproofs of enlargement will go on, and we shall begin to long earnestly for widerfellowship. I, for my part, never desired that this Alliance should end, as it were,with itself: but rather that it should be a step towards an Alliance that one daywould have a vastly larger constituency, and that would form a more importantcontribution than we can make toward the swifter fulfilment of our Saviour’s prayer– “That they all may be one”.

William Blaikie,founder, secretary, then President of the Alliance,

at the Belfast general council, 1884

56

The purpose of this article – hopefully

the first of a series of three – is to attempt a

description of the interplay between what

is confessional and what is ecumenical in

some of the foundational expressions of the

World Alliance of Reformed Churches’ self-

understanding as an institution that gathers

churches sharing special bonds of

communion, briefly what one calls in today’s

ecumenical language a Christian world

communion.

My attempt is not primarily

historiographic. I am not deploying here a

set of agreed procedures in order to make

sense of the past. Nor is it exhaustive. What

I have just called “the foundational

expressions” of the Alliance includes, for

instance, documents from the International

Congregational Council which I have not

dealt with in preparation for this enquiry.

My attempt is inspired and shaped by the

question of the present and future of the

ecumenical movement in general and the

role that the World Alliance of Reformed

Churches, known as one of the Christian

world communions, might play in it in

particular.

One of the questions which translates

the concern just ment ioned is the

following: How has the Alliance articulated

at crucial points of its history those

particular bonds of communion that

supposedly constitute its institutional

specificity with the call to the discipline

of Christian communion, with the call to

transform tradi t ional confess ional

boundaries into gates of exchange of

spiritual gi fts? I am addressing this

question to three constitutions adopted

success ive ly when the Presbyter ian

Alliance was created in 1875, when it

reorganised itself following World War II

and the creation of the World Council of

Churches, in 1954, and when it merged

with the International Congregational

Council in 1970.

I am aware of the fact that this is a

quest ion widely debated within the

ecumenical movement in the 1950s and

1960s and that ecumenical theology has

come to terms with it by rejecting, for

instance, the opposition between organic

unity and reconciled diversity.1 However,

the perception, arguable as it might be,

that a certain neo-confessionalisation of

the ecumenical space might be one of the

const i tut ive e lements of the future

ecumenical configuration suggests that, at

least for the World Alliance of Reformed

Churches, this should be dealt with as a

question of the future rather than a

question of the past.

1 Cf.: H. Fey, “Confessional Families and the Ecumenical Movement”. H. Fey (ed.), The Ecumenical Advance - A Historyof the Ecumenical Movement, Geneva, WCC, 1986 (2nd ed.), pp.124-130; O. P. Mateus, “The Alliance, the Christianworld communions and the ecumenical movement (1948-1957). Reformed World, 54(2), June 2004, p.91-106; Y.Ishida, H. Meyer, E. Perret (eds), The History and Theological Concerns of World Confessional Families, Geneva, LWF,1979, 80 pp.

57

How does the Alliance understand

itself in 1875? What makes churches

eligible for membership in the Alliance

and points, therefore, to its confessional

and institutional specificity? Are there

elements and impulses that intentionally

point to Christian fellowship over and

above the Alliance’s confessional and

institutional specificity? In what follows,

these three questions will be addressed

to the Alliance’s first constitution.

I. The Constitution of 1875The first constitution of the Alliance was

adopted by representatives of twenty-one

churches from Britain, United States and

Western Europe who gathered in London

in July 1875 to found “The Alliance of

Reformed Churches throughout the World

holding the Presbyterian System”. It drew

to a large extent on the results of preparatory

discussions held in Edinburgh and New York,

November and early December 1874.

In an age in which Protestantism had

just become a worldwide phenomenon –

thanks particularly to the British colonial

empire and the related unparalleled

missionary expansion that marked the 19th

century – the Presbyterians from the heart

of the Empire were unsurprisingly among

the first ones to conceive and carry out the

idea of what they then called a “Pan-

Presbyterian Council” or an “ecumenical

council” (in the geographic sense) in order

to exhibit their “substantial unity” and

promote “harmony of action” in mission.2

Mission, Reformed unity, and mission in

Reformed unity, let us not forget it, were

among the main factors leading to the

creation of the first Protestant Christian

world communion.

In two rather long sentences, the

Preamble of the first constitution of the

new Alliance sets first of all the case for

its existence. Churches “holding the

Reformed fa i th , and organised on

Presbyterian principles”3 are found under

different names in different parts of the

world. Though they have wished for a long

time “to maintain close relations”, these

churches are at present united “by no

visible bond”. In God’s providence, the time

seems to have come when they may more

fully “manifest their essential oneness,

have closer communion with each other,

and promote great causes by joint action”.4

The Presbyterian Alliance is formed “to

meet in general council from time to time”

in order “to confer upon matters of

common interest”, and “to further the ends

for which the Church has been

2 William G. Blaikie, “Introductory Narrative”. Report of Proceedings of the First General Presbyterian CouncilConvened at Edinburgh, July 1877– With Relative Documents Bearing on the Affairs of the Council, and the State ofthe Presbyterian Churches Throughout the World. Edinburgh, Thomas and Archibald Constable, 1877, p.1-13.3 Report of Proceedings of the First General Presbyterian Council Convened at Edinburgh, July 1877 – With RelativeDocuments Bearing on the Affairs of the Council, and the State of the Presbyterian Churches Throughout the World.Edinburgh, Thomas and Archibald Constable, 1877, p.9. Infra: Edinburgh 1877.4 Edinburgh 1877, Preamble.

58

constituted by her Divine Lord and King”.5

The second long sentence of the

Preamble states that the formation of the

Presbyterian Alliance is not to be seen in

opposition to other forms of inter-church

cooperation. It should not affect “fraternal

relations” with other Christian churches. On

the contrary, the members of the new

Alliance are ready to join with other

churches “in Christian fellowship, and in

advancing the cause of the Redeemer”.6

They are ready to do so on the basis of “the

general principle maintained and taught in

the Reformed Confessions”, namely that the

Church of God on earth, “though composed

of many members, is one body in the

communion of the Holy Ghost, of which body

Christ is the supreme Head, and the

Scriptures alone are the infallible law”.7

The four articles of the first constitution

deal successively with the official name of

the Alliance, eligibility for membership, the

general council, and the requirements to

change the constitution. Let us turn to the

second and third articles. Unlike the World

Evangelical Alliance, founded in 1846 on an

individual membership basis, the new

Presbyterian Alliance is a fellowship of

churches, what we call today a Christian

world communion. Which denominations

are then entitled to apply for membership?

According to the second article, “any Church

organised on Presbyterian principles which

holds the supreme authority of the

Scriptures of the Old and the New

Testaments in matters of faith and morals,

and whose creed is in harmony with the

consensus of the Reformed Confessions”.8

In order to manifest their “essential

oneness”, have “closer communion with

each other”, and “promote great causes by

joint action”, the Alliance’s member

churches will “meet in general council from

time to time”. The general council, which

will meet once every three years, shall

consist as far as practicable of “an equal

number of ministers and elders” according

to regulations that will take into account

the number of congregations in the member

churches. The general council will have

power “to decide upon” membership

applications and “to entertain and consider

topics” of interest to the constituency.9

However, it shall not “interfere with the

existing creed or constitution of any Church

in the Alliance, or with its internal order or

external relations”.10

The aims of the general council include

considering questions of general interest to

the Presbyterian community, seeking the

welfare of the Churches, especially such as

are weak or persecuted, gathering and

5 Edinburgh 1877, Preamble.6 Edinburgh 1877, Preamble.7 Edinburgh 1877, Preamble.8 Edinburgh 1877, Article II.9 Edinburgh 1877, Article III.3.10 Edinburgh 1877, Article III.3.

59

disseminating “information concerning the

Kingdom of Christ throughout the world”,

commending the Presbyterian system “as

Scriptural, and as combining simplicity,

efficiency, and adaptation to all times and

conditions” and entertaining all subjects

“directly connected with the work of

Evangelisation”, including “the best

methods of opposing infidelity and

Romanism”.11

II. Confessional identity in the1875 Constitution

What is specific or distinctive about the

newly created organisation called Alliance

of Presbyterian churches? The answer to

this question, which is the question about

the profile of the Alliance as an institution,

is provided by what the denominations

which have founded the Alliance hold

specifically in common, in short, by what

entitle certain Christian churches rather

than others to apply for membership.

According to article II this is a question of

harmony on matters of Faith and Order:

the Scr iptures , f i rs t of a l l , and the

Reformed confessions, on the one hand,

and the Presbyterian system or the

Presbyterian principles on the other hand.

It is important to note, however, that

what seems to be crystal clear as a

principle, namely that the Presbyterian

system and the Reformed confessions are

to identify the churches el igible for

membership and therefore to make the

Alliance institutionally distinctive as a

Christian world communion, proves to be

a more complex issue in the actual

practice of the Alliance’s member churches.

The Presbyterian system – This can be

seen first of all in connection with the

Presbyterian system.12 It is well known that

in matters of eldership Calvin was not a

Presbyterian. In the absence of indisputable

biblical evidence and significant historical

precedent, the understanding and practice

of this constitutive element of the Reformed

polity and tradition gave rise, between the

Reformation and the late 19th century, to

growing differences among continental

Reformed churches and those influenced

by the Scottish Second Book of Discipline

of 1578 or, later on, by the 1831 Samuel

Miller’s An Essay, on the Warrant, Nature

and Duties of the Office of Ruling Elder, in

the Presbyterian Church to give but one

example.

The first general council – Edinburgh

1877 – dedicated no less than three full

sessions (nine papers altogether!) to

Presbyterian principles in general and to

eldership in particular.13 The second general

11 Edinburgh 1877, Article III.4.12 For an overview of what follows see: T. F. Torrance, The Eldership in the Reformed Church, Edinburgh, The HandselPress, 1984, 16 pp; L. Vischer, “The Office of the Elders”, in L. Vischer (ed.), The Ministry of the Elders in the ReformedChurch, Bern, Evangelische Arbeitsstelle Oekumene Schweiz, 1992, pp.9-95; L. Vischer (ed.), Elders in the ReformedChurches Today, Geneva, WARC, 1991.13 Edinburgh 1877, pp.52-86, 98-123. Papers by John Cairns, A. A. Hodge, S. Robinson, Samuel Prime, Eells, Lord

60

council – Philadelphia 1880 – continued the

discussion14 which resulted in the

appointment of a committee that reported

to the third one, held in Belfast in 1884.15

Following a survey on the understanding

and practice of the eldership among the

Alliance’s member churches, the committee

concluded that “touching the office and

functions of the Eldership, at least three

distinct theories are entertained”. According

to the first, “while the New Testament

recognises but one order of Presbyters, in it

there are two degrees or classes, known as

Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders”. For the

second theory, “there is no warrant in

Scripture for the office of the eldership as it

exists in the Presbyterian Church”. The third

one contends that “the modern elder is

intended to be, and should be, recognized

as a copy of the Scriptural ‘Presbyter’”. The

practice “generally followed” by Presbyterian

churches of the present time “is in

accordance with the first-named theory”.16

It is, therefore, clear that when the

founders of the Alliance refer to

“Presbyterian principles” or to “the

Presbyterian system” as a condition of

eligibility for admission and therefore as a

constitutive element of the Alliance’s

institutional identity, they are speaking of a

polity concept, of a broad polity concept,

rather than of a polity model, of a specific

normative polity model.

The Consensus of the Reformed

Confessions – The second evidence of the

complexity of the confessional/institutional

identity issue comes from the reference to

the Reformed Confessions as a condition of

eligibility for admission into the Alliance.

It was expected, when the 1875

constitution was written and adopted, that

it would be possible for the founding member

churches to reach an agreement on the

consensus of the Reformed confessions

soon. It is obviously desirable, says William

Blaikie as he addresses the 1877 council on

its aims and spirit , “that at the very

commencement it should be made plain

what that consensus is. This is the object of

the first meeting, to be held to-morrow

forenoon”.17 Philip Schaff, the well-known

author of Creeds of Christendom, adds the

following day that this subject “will have to

be settled sooner or later”.18 The consensus

would then be the standard, the doctrinal

basis, whereby the Alliance would determine

whether the creed of an applicant church

made it eligible for admission.

Moncreiff, Lee, W. Moore, and Harper.14 Report of Proceedings of the Second General Council of the Presbyterian Alliance, Convened at Philadelphia,September, 1880, Philadelphia (USA), Presbyterian Journal Company and J. C. McCurdy & Co., 1880, p.148-157, 165-176, 213-223, 257.15 Alliance of the Reformed Churches holding the Presbyterian System, Minutes and Proceedings of the Third GeneralCouncil, Belfast, 1884, Belfast, Assembly’s Offices, 1884, Appendix, p.131-136.16 Belfast 1884, Appendix, pp.131-132.17 Edinburgh 1877, p.21.18Edinburgh 1877, p.36.

61

The first general council dedicates just

one session to the future doctrinal basis of

the Alliance. Schaff himself delivers the

keynote speech. He recalls Archbishop

Cranmer’s proposal, made in 1552, of a

Reformed Consensus “while the Council of

Trent was framing its decrees against the

doctrines of the Reformation”; he reviews

the symbols of the 16th and 17th century

by dividing them into ante-Calvinistic or

Zwinglian, Calvinistic, and post-Calvinistic.

He then argues for the harmony of the

Reformed confessions. They present “the

same system of Christian doctrine”, they

are “variations of one theme”. There is fully

“as much harmony between them as

between the six symbolical books of the

Lutheran Church, or between the

Tridentine and Vatican decrees of Rome”.19

The difference between them “is confined

to minor details, and to the extent to which

the Augustinian and Calvinistic principles

are carried out”. They are “protestant in

bibliology, oecumenical or old Catholic in

theology and Christology, Augustinian in

anthropology and the doctrine of

predestination, evangelical in soteriology,

Calv inist ic in eccles iology and

sacramentology , and ant i -papal in

eschatology”.20

According to Schaff a consensus can

be formulated in three ways. By a “mere

list of doctrines, or an index of the chief

heads of doctrine on which agreement is

desired” , something s imi lar to the

doctrinal basis of the 1846-founded

Evangelical All iance; by a historical

statement , a “br ief summary of the

common doctrines of the old confessions,

without additions or changes”, or by “a

new oecumenical Reformed Confession”.

Schaf f advocates the third way , a

consensus “freely reproduced and adapted

to the present state of the Church”, in the

sense that it would be “the creed of the

Reformation translated into the theology

of the nineteenth century, with a protest

against modern inf idel i ty and

rationalism”. This would be “a work for

our age, such as Cranmer invited the

Reformers to prepare for their age”, and

“a testimony of the living faith of the

Church”. It would afford “an excellent

opportunity to simplify and popularise the

Reformed system of doctrine, to utter a

protest against the peculiar errors and

dangers of our age, and to exhibit the

fraternal attitude of this Alliance to the

other evangelical Churches. It ought to be

truly evangelical-catholic in spirit”.21

The agenda of the first general council

seems, however, to favour a consensus

which results from the summary of the

common doctrines. A paper by William

19 P. Schaff, “The Consensus of the Reformed Confessions”, Edinburgh 1877, p.26-27.20 P. Schaff, Edinburgh 1877, p.27.21 P. Schaff, Edinburgh 1877, p.27.

62

Kraft, who at that time teaches church

history in Bonn, Germany, contends that

such a consensus is possible first of all

because the Reformed confess ions

“unanimously adopted the traditional

doctrine of the ancient Church”, secondly

because “they all wholly rejected the

corrupt doctrines which arose under the

legal yoke of the Middle Ages”, and thirdly

because “they presented their peculiar

doctrinal views independently, deriving

them from the Holy Scriptures”. After a

brief description of the three main groups

of Reformed confessions, Kraft goes on to

present his own attempt at a consensus:

a confession in 31 articles, each of them

followed by the passages from the classical

confess ions used as “documentary

proofs”.22 To Kraft’s argument, Alexander

Mitchell, from Saint Andrews, Scotland, adds

the evidence of “The Harmony between the

Bibliology of the Westminster Confession

and that of the earlier Reformed

Confessions” by proposing a table exhibiting

“in detail the coincidences in thought and

expression” between them.23

I will bring the debate that follows to its

most elementary expression. Principal

Brown welcomes these expressions of the

harmony of the Reformed confessions

because they put to shame “the calumny of

the Church of Rome” who says that “the

Reformed Churches are divided into as many

distinct and conflicting religions as there

are sects among them”. For Brown the

oneness in substance of the Reformed

churches is “infinitely more valuable than

the enforced oneness of a Church that is a

despotism, and which bears down all

individual, free investigation into the Word

of God”. These expressions of the harmony

of the confessions should, however, serve

the practical purpose of projecting these

great principles “into society and the world,

considering that they were the salt of the

earth as a Christian Church”. Professor

Candlish underlines the fact that in the

early history of the Reformation the

churches had “consciousness and feeling

(…) of the agreement of their Confessions

and of their being one”. This consciousness

needs now to be revived. It might be a work

worthy of the council, he thinks, “to have a

return, through a Committee, of the

Confessions used by different Churches, and

might be the means, perhaps, of restoring

in some degree that feeling and

consciousness of the harmony of the

Reformed Confessions that once existed”.

The harmony “should be seen and felt as a

living power and a living sympathy, building

together all the Churches upon the common

ground of the great doctrines of the

Reformation”. Marshall Lang reacts against

22 W. Kraft, “The Consensus of the Reformed Confessions”, Edinburgh 1877, pp.41-48.23 A. Mitchell, “The Harmony between the Bibliology of the Westminster Confession and that of the Earlier ReformedConfessions”, Edinburgh 1877, pp.48, 371-377.

63

Schaff’s suggestion that, in Lang’s words,

“every age must produce its own theology”,

that “every age has its peculiar form of

expressing the one eternal truth” because

this seems to be a rejection of the decisions

of the 16th century “as absolutely binding

upon all times in the precise form in which

they were given”.

Elder Taylor Innes has a strong feeling

that “the Council and Alliance should be

very cautious in the whole matter of

dealing with this complicate and very

delicate and difficult question of creeds”.

He wonders whether it is desirable to give

“any opinion upon the general question

of a creed…” and proposes a motion to

appoint a committee in charge of a survey

on the existing creeds or confessions as

well as on formulas of subscription adopted

by the member churches, and the extent

to which individual adherence is required

from ministers, elders or other office-

bearers.24 The motion by Taylor Innes has

the support of those, like Principal Tulloch,

who think that one cannot “draw up a

new creed or even formulate the

consensus of old creeds” without full

informat ion about the confess ions

adopted by the member churches, and of

those, like Dr. Begg, who entirely disagree

with Schaff’s idea that “every age has its

own theology”. No consensus on the

consensus is achieved in 1877.

Chaired by the same Philip Schaff, the

Committee on Creeds and Confessions,

appointed in 1877, submits to the following

general council, held in Philadelphia, USA,

in 1880 a comprehensive report including

detailed information about churches in 13

countries from the British Islands, North

America, continental Europe, Australia and

New Zealand.25 The report recommends, in

the words of Schaff, that a committee be

appointed “to prepare a summary of the

creeds and confessions upon which the

Council is professedly based. By such

information we may be able to know what

the complexity of the body itself is…”26

A new committee, “of divines from the

various branches of the Reformed or

Presbyterian Churches embraced with this

Alliance” is then appointed in order to

consider, more modestly this time, just “the

desirableness of defining the consensus of

the Reformed Confession as required by our

Constitution…”.27 It works in three sections:

American, British, and Continental

European. The members of the sections are

required to answer the following question:

“Do you think it desirable that the

‘Consensus of the Reformed Confessions’

as mentioned in the Constitution of the

24 Edinburgh 1877, p.51.25 Report of Proceedings of the Second General Council of the Presbyterian Alliance, convened at Philadelphia,September 1880. Philadelphia, Presbyterian Journal and J. C. McCurdy & Co., 1880, pp.259-262, 379-395, 497-499,965-1123.26 Philadelphia 1880, p.262.27 Philadelphia 1880, p.497.

64

Alliance, be defined, and in what sense and

to what extent?” The American section,

whose members include A. A. Hodge and

Philip Schaff, is “in favour of formulating the

Consensus of the Reformed Confessions, in

the received historic sense of those

Confessions, and to the extent of including

all the doctrines common to the symbolical

books of the Reformed Churches”.28 For the

British, including W. Blaikie, “it is scarcely

possible to formulate such a Consensus as

will determine all cases which may arise, or

prove helpful to the Alliance in regard to

the admission of Churches”.29

Among the Continental Europeans “the

reasons for and against a Consensus nearly

balance each other”, in the words of Jean

Monod. The Germans go as far as submitting,

on behalf of the Rhenish Synod, the draft of

a confession taken from the Luther and

the Heidelberg catechisms. For some

pastors from Neuchâtel, a confession of faith

is “needful to the Presbyterian Alliance” as

a witness to Christian truth and as a way of

making known to churches seeking

membership “the terms of their admission”

whereas for others it might disguise

theological differences or lead to separation:

“Thus, in seeking to consolidate our work

we have put it in peril”. The Waldensians

affirm the desirableness of a consensus

“which should not involve the abandonment

of particular Confessions”. The French, non-

officially, approve and encourage “all the

labours which have tended to throw light

on the characteristics of Presbyterianism,

both as regards Church doctrine and

organisation…”, provided that the aim is

not “to impose on the Churches a new

symbol”. According to Van Osterzee, from

Utrecht, now that the Alliance exists

without the consensus, founded “on the

purely formal pr inciple of

Presbyterianism”, “there is reason to fear

that the efforts to formulate a Consensus,

and the debates which such a procedure

would entail, might lead to a dissension

fatal to the Alliance itself.” Placing himself

“ in the point of view of our French

Protestant Churches”, Théodore Monod,

the author of the Continental European

report, “would not vote at this time for the

framing of a doctr inal basis to the

Presbyterian Alliance.”30

These rather different views, added to

the optimism of the Americans and the

scepticism of the British, lead the second

consensus committee, reporting at Belfast

in 1884, to conclude that “it is not

indispensable to the Alliance, as an

organization, that the Consensus should

at present be further defined”. While “there

are advantages which the defining of the

Consensus would secure, as working out

28 Alliance of the Reformed Churches holding the Presbyterian System. Minutes and Proceedings of the Third GeneralCouncil, Belfast, 1884. Belfast, Assembly’s Offices, 1884, p.32.29 Belfast 1884, p.32.30 Belfast 1884, p.33-34.

65

the ends for which the organization

exists” , i t i s recognised that “ the

advantages which might arise from a

satisfactory definition of the Consensus

seem to the Committee, for the present,

outweighed by its risks and difficulties”.31

Absent from the agenda of the general

councils held in London 1889, Toronto

1992, Glasgow 1896, Washington 1899,

Liverpool 1904, New York 1909, Aberdeen

1913, and Pittsburgh 1921, the consensus

issue makes a somewhat predictable

comeback when the Alliance celebrates

its jubilee in Cardiff, Wales, 1925. Against

the advice of Karl Barth, who contributes

a substantial paper read in absentia, the

Cardiff general council requests the North

American and the European branches of

the Al l iance to once again appoint

committees “ to draw up a common

Statement of Faith to be presented to the

Council for consideration”.32

Once again, as in 1884, the Eastern

and the Western areas of the Alliance hold

different views. The Europeans generally

prefer “a declaration, within a paragraph”

which looks like “the first of the well-

known Art ic les Declaratory of the

Constitution of the Church of Scotland in

Matters Spiritual”,33 a statement “brief and

simple, religious and practical, affirmative

rather than expository , loyal to the

principles of the Reformation and to the

fundamental revelation of which Scripture

is the record”.34 A short declaration of faith

is then drafted to this effect. The North

Americans, however, object that “the form

submitted is in no distinctive sense a

Reformed instrument” and that no express

affirmation is made of “the virgin birth,

the substitutionary, sacrificial atonement,

and the bodily resurrection of our Lord”.35

The two committees recommend that the

1929 Boston general council “take no

further step in the matter”,36 but the

general council asks the Eastern and

Western sections of the Alliance “to

appoint Committees to continue the

consideration of the Cardiff plan, with a

view to drawing up a declaration of the

evangelical truths now held in common

by the constituent Churches of this

Alliance”.37 At the request of the North

American section, however, the activities

around the common statement of faith

were suspended in Belfast, 1933, “in view

31 Belfast 1884, p.35-36, 36-43.32 Proceedings of the Twelfth General Council of the Alliance of Reformed Churches holding the Presbyterian Systemheld at Cardiff 1925. Edinburgh, Office of the Alliance, 1926, p.145.33 Presbyterian Alliance, Eastern Section. Committee on Proposed Doctrinal Statement. 20th Jan., 1926. Geneva,Archives of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, HA 1.34 Report of Eastern Sub-Committee to meeting of the Eastern Section. Geneva, Archives of the World Alliance ofReformed Churches, HA 1.35 Letter from Dr. McNaugher in reply to the communication from the committee of the Eastern Section, 20th May1927, Geneva, Archives of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, HA 1.36 Proceedings of the Thirteenth General Council of the Alliance of Reformed Churches holding the PresbyterianSystem held at Boston, Massachusetts 1929. Edinburgh, Office of the Alliance, 1929, p.388.37 Boston 1929, p.85-87.

66

of union negotiat ions then pending

between various Churches in America”.38

None of the two specific conditions

meant to identify the churches eligible for

membership in the Alliance – the

Presbyterian system and the harmony with

the consensus of the Reformed confessions

– is thus specific enough to provide the

Alliance at the outset with a clear

institutional profile, with a clear

institutional identity as a future Christian

world communion. The term “Presbyterian

system” here also means “Reformed

system”… or perhaps systems. It includes

churches attached to teaching and ruling

eldership as well as churches alien to the

idea that those ordained to the ministry of

word and sacrament hold the same office

as that held by the “lay” members of a local

session, council or presbytery, themselves

also ordained for life. It includes also

Reformed churches with an episcopal-like

structure. It therefore refers broadly to

corporate decision-making and corporate

responsibility . The consensus of the

Reformed confessions not being agreed upon,

or even formulated, churches holding

particular or conflicting views on traditionally

essential tenets of the Reformed tradition

such as predestination remain entitled to

membership provided that they state that

their confession is nonetheless in harmony

with the consensus.

III. The Ecumenical Dimension ofthe 1875 Constitution

Is it possible to discern in the 1875

Constitution impulses or elements which

would be considered “pro-ecumenical” in our

days? I wish to contend that they do exist

and that they outweigh what a plain reading

of that document might suggest.

The first element has to do with the

ecclesial and theological culture shared by

the founding fathers of the Alliance and

authors of its first constitution. Three men

above all others, writes J. R. Fleming in 1925,

on the occasion of the Alliance’s jubilee,

“were pioneers in this adventure”:39 James

McCosh, William Garden Blaikie, and Philip

Schaff .40 McCosh is the president of

Princeton Theological Seminary. One of the

leaders of the Free Church evangelical

movement in Scotland, he is also a

philosopher concerned with the impact of

materialists, empiricists and Kantians on

religious beliefs. At the US Presbyterian

union assembly of 1870, he preaches a

sermon that gives a remarkable impulse to

the idea of a world alliance of Presbyterian

churches. Blaikie, who teaches apologetics

and pastoral theology at New College,

38 Proceedings of the Fourteenth General Council of the Alliance of Reformed Churches holding the PresbyterianSystem held at Belfast, Northern Ireland 1933. Edinburgh, Office of the Alliance, 1933, pp.187-188, 435.39 J. R. Fleming, The Founding and Achievements of the Alliance. Proceedings of the Twelfth General Council of theAlliance of Reformed Churches holding the Presbyterian System held at Cardiff 1925. Edinburgh, Office of theAlliance, 1926, p.41.40 We should add to Fleming’s list the names of John Hall and Duff.

67

Edinburgh (Scotland), is the one through

whom the vision will come true. He will be

secretary and later on President of the

Alliance.

Although he is certainly the most widely

known among them, Philip Schaff, whom I

have often quoted above, deserves a

reference albeit very brief at this point. Born

in Chur, Switzerland, in 1819, he studies

theology in Tübingen, Halle, and Berlin,

Germany. Under the influence of Hegelian

theologians such as Ferdinand Christian

Bauer and David Strauss, and particularly of

August Neander, Schleiermacher’s

“congenial pupil”, Schaff embraces church

history.

Instead of pursuing a promising academic

career in Berlin though, Schaff accepts the

call from the German Reformed Church in

America to take up teaching at its small

theological seminary in Mercersburg,

Pennsylvania, in 1844. His encounter with

John Nevin who, also under the influence of

Neander, breaks with Charles Hodge’s

Presbyterian Princeton and later leaves

Pittsburgh Seminary, marks the blossoming

of the so-called Mercersburg theology, a

solitary church-based theological

experiment of evangelical catholicity within

a US ecclesial and theological landscape

marked by Puritanism and revivalism.

From 1870 to his death in 1893 he

teaches church history, theological

encyclopedia, Christian symbolism, Hebrew,

and sacred literature at Union Theological

Seminary – a liberal split from conservative

Presbyterian Princeton – in New York. A

prolific author, he is also the founder of the

American Society of Church History and

contributes to the foundation of the Society

of Biblical Literature and the World’s

Parliament of Religions (1893).

Schaff was celebrated by the American

Society of Church History in 1988 not only

as a “Christian scholar” but also as an

“ecumenical prophet”.41 In his Hegelian

inspired Weltanschauung, today’s many

move dialectically towards the future One.

He distinguishes but does not separate

church and history. History is in progress.

History is developing. The church is an

organic unity. The members of the body,

by their union with Christ – a Calvinian

leitmotiv – join in an organic whole, an

organic unity. The history of the church is

the history of the pr inciple of l i fe ,

introduced by Christ into human nature.

History and therefore church history move

to the future organisation of the world as

the Kingdom of Christ in the pleroma. The

blurring of the clear-cut borders between

Cathol ic ism and Protestantism that

fol lows l ike a corol lary inevi tably

challenges a confessionalism in search of

self-perpetuation. The present ministry of

the future Kingdom requires the building

of bridges: between North America, Britain

and Europe,42 between separated

41 I am referring to George Shriver’s Philip Schaff – Christian Scholar and Ecumenical Prophet, Macon (Georgia, USA),1987.

68

evangel ical Christ ians , 43 between

Christianity and other religions.

Schaff, McCosh and Blaikie are all

familiar with Reformed church life on both

sides of the Atlantic as well as with the

experience of recent church divisions and

attempts at church reunion. Some of these

attempts are successful, like the 1870

reconciliation within the Northern

Presbyterian Church (USA), others not, like

the effort to unite the Free Presbyterian

Church and the United Presbyterian Church

in Scotland. The hearts of good men, writes

Fleming, “were sick of barren and bitter

controversy, and were turning towards some

possible basis of closer fellowship.”44 They

began to feel that the tendency to division

“was in danger to be carried to extremes,

that distinctive testimony – to part of the

truth – was not everything, that catholic

testimony – to the whole of the truth – was

a worthier ideal.”45

Schaff and Blaikie, Fleming goes on to

say in a reference to the Alliance and its

first constitution, “conceived and put into

practice a scheme of unity that would include

the Reformed Churches of the Continent”.

We are surprised today, he concludes, “at

the wisdom of those who, instead of

propounding a new doctrinal formula or

attempting to define rigidly a common

system of polity, were content to rear their

structure on the supreme authority of the

Holy Scripture in matters of faith, on

adherence to the consensus of the

Reformed confessions, and on a general

acknowledgement of Presbyterian

principles.”46

The second ecumenical dimension I wish

to underline has to do with the conciliar

idea of a fellowship of churches. The

founders of the Alliance are aware of

initiatives meant to bring together individual

believers from different denominations on

the basis of a set of commonly held

doctrinal affirmations, such as the 1846-

founded Evangelical Alliance, or in order

to respond to social and humanitarian

challenges such as the Red Cross or the

Young Men’s Christian Association and the

Young Women’s Christian Association.

However , the encounter between

Christianity and other religions in the

mission fields of Asia and Africa, the

pastoral or ministerial challenges raised

by the socia l consequences of the

industrial revolution as well as the cultural

expressions of the dissolution of the corpus

christianum seem to encourage them to

realise not only the importance of the

renewal of the v is ib le inst i tut ional

expressions of the koinonia based on

42 Schaff published his Amerika in German (Berlin, 1854) and coordinated the English translation of Herzog’sRealenzyclopädie.43 Schaff supports the work of the Evangelical Alliance formed in 1846.44 J. R. Fleming, op. cit., p.40-41.45 J. R. Fleming, op. cit., p.43.

69

God’s covenant but also the importance

for l i fe and miss ion of their l ived

fellowship made possible by their oneness

in Chris t and by their common

confessional memory.

This pioneering, modern expression of

confessional conciliarity is conceived as a

supranational prolongation of different

national Presbyterian structures, as an

international Presbyterian and Reformed

synod or world general assembly whose

aims, according to the longest article of

the f i rs t const i tut ion , include the

promotion of common reflection on faith,

inter-church solidarity and information,

the Presbyterian system, and church

mission, particularly “the best methods of

opposing infidelity and Romanism”. By

denying it any jurisdictional authority,

though, the founders of the Alliance

intend to be consistent with the urgent

need to respond to Reformed divisiveness

and isolation while, on the one hand,

recognising the autonomy of member

churches in matters of faith, order, and

relat ions , and, on the other hand,

remaining critical of what they call the

enforced, mechanical, external unity of

the Roman Catholic Church.47

My last note on the ecumenicity of the

1875 constitution has to do with its pan-

Protestant ism. The founders of the

Alliance, Schaff included as I have noted

above, are convinced that by bringing

together Reformed and Presbyterian

churches from different parts of the world

they are responding at the end of the 19th

century to Archbishop Cranmer’s call to

unity among Reformation churches, a call

for which Calvin had declared himself

ready to cross ten seas in order to put it

into practice. Schaff’s project for the

Alliance is an Aufhebung of past Reformed

divisions consubstantial to a critical

engagement with present modern

rationalism that is a sign and seal of the

future in which all will be one in the One.

The idea of an Alliance, Council, or

Confederation of Reformed churches,

writes Blaikie in the first line of his 1877

Introductory Narrative, “had a prominent

place in the minds of the Reformers, and

has seldom been overlooked by those

whose minds have been impressed with

the unity of the Church”. Seven years later,

addressing the Belfast general council on

“the extent and di f fus ion of the

Presbyterian Church, and the leading

features of its training and work” Blaikie

affirms that for his part he has never

desired that the Alliance “should end, as

it were, with itself”. On the contrary, he

concludes as an ecumenical visionary, “it

should be a step towards an Alliance that

one day would have a vast ly large

constituency, and that would form a more

46 J. R. Fleming, op. cit., p.41-42.47 Oswald Dykes, “Individual Freedom and Catholic Unity”. Alliance of the Reformed Churches holding the PresbyterianSystem – Minutes and Proceedings of the Fourth General Council – London 1888. London, Presbyterian AllianceOffice, 1889, p.9.

70

important contribution than we can make

toward the swift fulfilment of our Saviour’s

prayer – ‘That they all may be one’.”48

This understanding sheds some light on

the two parts of the preamble of the first

constitution. Reformed and Presbyterians

are coming together to “more fully manifest

their essential oneness”. But this should

not “change their fraternal relations with

other Churches”. Even more meaningful, it

is in order to ground the affirmation that

the Alliance intends to join with the other

Reformation churches “in Christian

fellowship, and in advancing the cause of

the Redeemer” that the preamble of the

constitution refers to the Paulinian image

of the one body with many members as a

“general principle maintained and taught

in the Reformed Confessions”.

ConclusionWhy not a Reformed Alliance formed

exclusively by churches which adopt the

Westminster standards – which are,

according to Philip Schaff “the most

important of the Reformed symbols, and

have shown the greatest vitality” – and order

themselves according to the functional

distinction between ruling and teaching

elders? Would it not provide the expression

of this fellowship with a clear confessional

and institutional profile? Would it not give

rise to a Christian world communion

committed to perpetuate Presbyterianism?

This is not the path chosen by the

founders of the Alliance nor is it the self-

understanding embodied in its first

constitution. Facing Reformed and

Reformation diversity in its faith and order

complexities, the first constitution chooses

to state its confessional and institutional

specificity in a way that not only enlarges

the Reformed tent but also shows its thin,

transparent fabric. Although the name of

the fellowship refers to the Presbyterian

“system” and its general council aims include

both to commend Presbyterian polity as

“Scriptural, and as combining simplicity,

efficiency, and adaptation to all times and

conditions” and to oppose “Romanism”,

eligibility for membership is formulated in

more inclusive terms of agreement with

Presbyterian “principles” and “harmony

with the consensus of the Reformed

Confessions” which, at the same time,

encourage the search for more visible

fellowship with those living under other

tents nearby.

48 W. Blaikie, “A Survey of the Whole Family of Presbyterian Churches: Their Training and their Work”. Alliance of theReformed Churches holding the Presbyterian System. Minutes and Proceedings of the Third General Council, Belfast,1884. Belfast, Assembly’s Offices, 1884, p.100.

71

Pilate, the Empire, and the Confessionof the Church

Lukas Vischer

“…was crucified under Pontius Pilate…” The name of the governor of theRoman Empire in Judea is mentioned in statements of faith - such as the so-calledApostles’ Creed - made by Christians who lived in areas under Roman domination.Was it mentioned just to establish the crucifixion in historical time? This is not all,argues the Reformed theologian Lukas Vischer in this biblical meditation. Bymentioning Pilate, the confession reminds us that there was a conflict “betweenthe message of love and the political power of the empire”.

Luke 13.1-5: “At that very time there

were some present who told him about the

Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled

with their sacrifices. He asked them, ‘Do

you think that because these Galileans

suffered in this way they were worse sinners

than all other Galileans? No, I tell you, but

unless you repent, you will all perish as they

did. Or those eighteen who were killed when

the tower of Siloam fell on them – do you

think they were worse offenders than all

the others living in Jerusalem? No, I tell you;

but unless you repent, you will all perish just

as they did.’”

Pontius Pi late , a governor in the

Roman Empire, had ordered a power play.

He had told his henchmen to kill a group

of Galileans who were bringing their

offerings to the Temple. The precise

circumstances are not given in the text.

Were these people acting suspiciously

somehow? In any case, their own blood

was mingled with that of the animals

which they were bringing as sacrifices to

God.

The figure of Pilate is familiar to us

from the Passion story. Jesus was brought

to him as an accused person. He tried to

keep from getting involved in the affair. The

Jesus movement was, in his eyes, an

“internal Jewish” matter, which should have

been brought to a Jewish court. But finally

he gave in and condemned Jesus to die on

the cross, which was the Roman way of

executing rebels. Pilate is portrayed as a

holder of power who is forced to exercise his

office and who finally, with some reason, is

able to “wash his hands of” Jesus’ blood.

From other sources we know that Pilate

could be harsh. A Roman knight of Samnite

72

descent (a southern Italian mountain tribe),

he had became Procurator of Judea in 26

AD. His way of discharging his office soon

earned him hatred. He was openly suspicious

of the Jewish religion. To make clear whose

word was law, he did not hesitate to use

provocation. Soon after taking office, he sent

Roman troops on the march, carrying the

image of the emperor which was particularly

objectionable to the Jews. In Caesarea he

had a temple built in honour of Emperor

Tiberius. He illegally took money from the

Jerusalem Temple treasury to finance a

water main, and when a group of Samaritans

carrying arms gathered at the foot of the

Gerizim in 36 AD, he had them seized

immediately; some were put to death on

the spot, some later. Shortly after this event,

he was recalled to Rome, and is said to have

committed suicide there. This news which

was brought to Jesus therefore fits very well

with Pilate’s overall image. He was a governor

who thought his power entitled him to take

drastic measures, and did not hesitate to

risk making himself unpopular.

And this is the governor whose name

has been repeated to this day in the creeds

of the Christian church: Jesus Christ –

crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato. In the gospel of

Matthew we are told that Pilate’s wife

intervened on behalf of Jesus: “Have nothing

to do with that innocent man, for today I

have suffered a great deal because of a dream

about him” (27.19). Legend tells us what she

had dreamed: she had heard voices calling,

crucified under Pontius Pilate , voices

swelling to a mighty chorus, repeating

together again and again, crucified under

Pontius Pilate . Thus she foresaw the

astonishing fact that her husband, a

governor in the Roman Empire, would have

a central place in the confession of the

Christian Church.

How are we to understand this? Many

people think the intention, at this point in

the creed, was simply to establish the

Crucifixion in historical time. Jesus’ death

took place at a specific moment, for reasons

verified by historical sources. But certainly

that is not all. The confession reminds us

that there was a conflict between Jesus and

Pilate, between the message of love and

the political power of the empire. Jesus

represents the kingdom of love, Pilate the

empire, to the extent that it is built upon

violence. Jesus refrains from offering any

resistance. Pilate bases himself on his power:

“Do you not know that I have power to

release you, and power to crucify you?” (Jn

19.10). The confession confronts the church

with this power. It tells us, like Jesus, you too

are confronted with empires built upon

violence. The church, as the witness to God’s

love in every age, must count on coming

into conflict with the destroying might of

imperialistic thinking.

But let us return to our text. The people

who brought the news of Pilate’s latest crime

to Jesus were no doubt expecting him to

take a position on it. What should we think

of the death of the Galileans? What will

Jesus say about this worsening situation? Is

there going to be an uprising? How will he

and his disciples react? Will he call on them

73

to resist? Or did these Galileans cross some

line that they should not have crossed? Were

they guilty, did they deserve to die?

Jesus makes no “comment on the

situation”, and he also makes no statement

on the relative guilt or innocence of the

Galileans. He is focusing on the people who

brought him the news. He tells them that it

is not a question of how this situation should

be evaluated. The question is rather, what

consequences does the criminal action of

the Roman governor have for your life? To

do justice to the worsening of the situation,

you have to make a decision.

No, I tell you; but unless yourepent, you will all perish just asthey did.

Evidently there are two ways of dealing

with this event. We can observe the event

and analyse it. We can comment on it. We

can discuss the guilt or innocence of the

Galileans, get excited about the violence of

those in power, consider whether our cup is

full and active resistance will break out. But

fundamentally, everything stays the same.

Commentators are still in the grip of this

world and its laws and machinations. They

are carried like driftwood with the stream of

events. And possibly they will indeed, like

the Galileans struck down by Pilate, also

become victims of the spiral of violence, and

will perish just as they did.

Jesus is looking in a different direction

from the outset. Acts of violence, like the

criminal act of Pilate, can also serve as a

sign to us that our life needs to change

direction. They can move us to turn back.

Jesus’ approach to imperialistic thinking goes

deeper. In his view, violence can only be

met with love. A community is forming

around him which does not reach for its

sword. Whether or not these persons are

guilty or innocent remains to be seen. In

any case they are no more guilty than any

other Galileans. The real issue is what will

be our witness. “Blessed are the meek, for

they will inherit the earth” (Mt 5.5). In the

turmoil of the times, Jesus calls for

repentance and conversion, opening our

eyes to God’s kingdom of love, which can

become reality here and now.

No, I tell you; but unless yourepent, you will all perish just asthey did.

This does not mean that, after we have

repented, we shall be safe from violence

and persecution. It does not mean that,

while “others” lose their lives, we shall

save our own skin. The whole emphasis is

on conversion as the way to the true life,

a life in love in the midst of the vicious

circles of this world. This new way is not

exempt from danger. Like Jesus himself,

his disciples will be exposed to persecution

and oppression. Perhaps they will even

die, but not just as they did, not like the

unfortunate Galileans. The disciples will

have become witnesses who stand head

and shoulders above the events.

As if to make his point clear, Jesus

reminds them of an accident which had

recently taken place. A tower by the pool

74

of Siloam had collapsed, burying eighteen

people under its ruins. This time there was

no crime – it was chance, an accident.

Perhaps there was some carelessness

involved. Perhaps the tower had not been

well designed. Today there would

immediately be calls for investigation by a

committee. But even if charges were brought

against somebody, it would not change the

fact that eighteen people unintentionally

lost their lives. Why were they the ones to

whom this accident happened? Why did

other people escape? Here as well, Jesus does

not enter into such questions. The degree

of these persons’ guilt or innocence does

not interest him, in this context. In any case

they were no more guilty than other persons,

and there was no moral reason why they

should die. What interests Jesus is whether

the “onlookers” hear, through this event,

God’s call to repentance.

No, I tell you; but unless yourepent, you will all perish just asthey did.

Who are we? Are we just observers of

the events which come one after the other?

Newspaper readers? Television watchers?

People who are well-informed about the

crimes and accidents which happen in our

world? Have you heard what just happened?

What do you think of that?

What happened today? Another house

in the Occupied Territories of Palestine was

levelled. Another suicide bombing in Israel.

The bombing of Fallujah; another series of

attacks on American convoys in Iraq, and

on Iraqi police stations. Another earthquake

under the sea, but less interesting than the

first tsunami, because it only killed hundreds

of people instead of thousands, and none of

them were tourists from rich countries.

And what is our answer?

75

Subscription Rates-2005

Reformed World1 year 13.50 18.00 8.002 years 25.50 34.00 15.003 years 36.50 49.00 21.50Update1 year 11.00 15.00 7.002 years 21.00 28.00 12.503 years 30.00 40.00 17.50

Combined subscription to Reformed World and Update1 year 23.00 31.00 14.002 years 43.50 58.00 26.003 years 62.00 83.00 37.00

Update is the quartely newsletter of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches.Published in English and French, it keeps its readers informed of developments in the life of

WARC and its churches. Please say which language you wish to receive.

US dollars Swiss francs £ sterling

Payment may also be made through our authorized agents in the followingcountries:

Back issues, books and other publications are available from:Word Alliance of Reformed Churches, 150 route de Ferney,PO Box 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland.Tel 0041 22 791 62 40 Fax 0041 22 791 65 05e-mail: warc@warc.ch web: www.warc.chPrices include mailing.

Editor: Odair Pedroso MateusPublished by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches150 route de Ferney, PO Box 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland

Payment may be made by cheque directly to the WARC officeor through our postal cheque account: 12-2890-9, Switzerland.Please mention Reformed World and/or Update, as appropriate.

Japan: Committee of Ecumenical Relations2-2 Yoshida, Kawagoe City 350-0807

New Zealand: Church Stores NZ Ltd., PO Box 11-1061Ellerslie, Auckland 1131