At its United States Faith and Order Conference in Oberlin, the World Council of Churches drew up a series of section reports which it referred to member churches for study. The issues debated in ecumenical circles today are issues that involve the churches at large. While ecumenical conferences need not supply the orbit around which biblical and doctrinal study revolves, it is heartening to see such concerns raised with new earnestness. The neglect of biblical and theological studies by any church or association of churches quickly results in ambiguity and misunderstanding. Evangelicals within the ecumenical movement have a special obligation to scrutinize the faith and order reports, and evangelicals outside the movement will also do well to familiarize themselves with the precise positions adopted and rejected, and to engage in earnest theological study on their own account.
Of the twelve sections into which the Oberlin conference subdivided, that on “Doctrinal Consensus and Conflict” was in some respects the most significant. The reports of all the sections will be published in January by Bethany Press under the title The Nature of the Unity We Seek. By special permission, CHRISTIANITY TODAY in this issue carries the report of the section dealing with doctrinal issues. For evangelical Christians, the center of interest is here. They are eager to discover in what sense the ecumenical movement understands its confession that Jesus Christ is God and Saviour.
The report on “Doctrinal Consensus and Conflict” singles out three special areas “in which further agreement needs to be reached before we can move toward closer oneness.” They are: the nature of the Church, its ministry and its sacrament; the nature of the authority and inspiration of the Bible; the nature of the unity we seek. Evangelicals will appreciate the realistic view that honest, intellectual agreement in these areas must precede any unity in which there can be mutual confidence. An unrealistic view would assume that genuine and essential unity exists apart from such questions, and that their solution may be deferred pending closer fellowship.
As the evangelical Christian scans the Oberlin report on doctrine for special study, he will be inclined to press certain questions for special examination. Among them are these:
a) Is it proper to speak of “a common faith” and of “a common witness” in the absence of common doctrinal beliefs? Does not the extent of doctrinal unity define the extent of common faith and witness? Is genuine faith really devoid of intellectual content?
b) What view of Atonement is implied by “the sacrificial Saviour of the world in whom God bore the sins of mankind.…”? Does “sacrificial Saviour” mean the sacrifice of the Saviour on the cross, i.e., the propitiation, or is this phrase intended to deny such a sacrifice?
c) What view of the person and natures of Christ is implied by “the Incarnate Word of God … the divine-human Lord and Saviour”?
d) Why are some members of the ecumenical movement dissatisfied with the formula that Jesus Christ is “God and Saviour”? What are the several meanings these words can be made to bear? Are all interpretations of this formula equally valid?
e) Is it an illustration of destructive conflict springing from sin when churches remain outside the ecumenical orbit because they require satisfactory answers to such questions (as religious knowledge and the nature of the human and the divine in Jesus Christ)?
f) What bearing on the Protestant principle of authority has the emphasis on “the centrality of the biblical revelation in Christian doctrine … both as the record of the mighty acts of God … and also as the source of intelligible truths expressed in inspired words, whereby the message of our redemption can be spelled out”? How also is the Protestant principle of authority affected by “the witness of Holy Scripture, confirmed and interpreted by the witness of the Holy Spirit in the Church, as the sine qua non of authentic Christian doctrine”? Does this or does it not halt short of the historic evangelical emphasis on divinely revealed truths constitutive of authoritative Christian doctrine? Does it not seem that “revelation as witnessed in Scripture and received in the Church through the Spirit,” and that “the authority of the Faith … is located in the Scriptures, the historic tradition of the Church, and the continuing work of the Spirit” differ from the traditional view of Scripture revelation? Does it mean that the supreme norm for judging all controversies of religion can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures; or does it mean that there is a living voice in the church organization and that some contemporary majority vote is the voice of God?
g) Does “diversity of doctrine” really reflect “the riches of God’s grace and the diversity of his gifts to the Church” or does it reflect the limitations, the finitude, and the sinful nature of the human mind? Is there “Christian liberty and responsibility” to “interpret Christian truth in varied ways.…”? Is the idea of authoritative doctrine to be excluded? Does not Christian unity ideally seek an unchanging system of doctrine?
Such questions could be multiplied at length. But these at least will indicate some significant points of contact for the evangelical effort to appraise present ecumenical thought in the realm of doctrinal considerations. As a service to readers of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, the Oberlin report is printed below.
REPORT OF SECTION 2 DOCTRINAL CONSENSUS AND CONFLICT
I. Introduction
In reporting the results of its discussions on “Doctrinal Consensus and Conflict,” the members of this section wish first to record their gratitude for the privilege of having been participants in an earnest doctrinal discussion involving representatives of so many of the Christian communions. The breadth of its official and unofficial representation alone constitutes a significant historical event and an ecumenical accomplishment.
The section was specifically asked to study a) the degree and kind of consensus in faith which binds us together, b) the extent and significance of our common use of the historic confessions, c) the degree of conformity and freedom in faith which should be considered essential to Christian unity, d) the points of conflict in the realm of doctrine, e) the kind of consensus which should precede union as distinguished from that which can only develop after closer fellowship, and f) the diversity which is appropriate in view of our allegiance to Jesus Christ.
The section had at its disposal the findings of three study groups which had engaged in discussions and studies related to the specific assignment of the section over a two-year period (Saskatoon, Vancouver, Minneapolis). The Saskatoon group arrived at a very high degree of consensus, centering in the Person of Christ and the Word of God, and extending into many aspects of the doctrine of the Church. This group holds that “the unity we seek to express under God should be sufficiently elastic to permit varieties of doctrinal expression provided that they all maintain the Christological faith of the historic Church, with its Biblical foundation.” The Minneapolis group discovered by the use of its “check-list” a considerable homogeneity of doctrine running across denominational lines, a large agreement on the importance of doctrine to the unity of the Church, and at the same time a wide range of variant teaching both among pastors and laymen, even even in the most doctrinally-minded churches. It finds that “neither clergy nor laity feels any great urge toward organizational unity,” and concludes that “the movement toward unity cannot rely heavily on the desire for unity in the contemporary churches,” unless the churches become more aware than now of an “imperative” to unity growing out of “the very nature of the Christian faith.” The Vancouver group notes that there is a large measure of agreement in the statements of Faith and Order meetings, but feels that they reflect “a tendency to be too complacent about agreement,” and obscure the presence in our churches of “disagreements … far more fundamental than most of the statements of ecumenical gatherings would suggest.”
In addition to the reports of the study groups, a statement on “Christian Unity As Viewed by the Eastern Orthodox Church,” submitted by representatives of the Greek Orthodox Church in the U.S.A., was available to the section for study and discussion. It defined the general ecumenical position of the Eastern Orthodox Church with specific reference to the theme of this Conference.
Of the four papers presented to the evening Plenary Sessions by chairman of the respective Faith and Order Commissions, this section found Dr. Robert L. Calhoun’s paper on “Christ and the Church” particularly relevant and helpful to this work.
II. Some General Observations
A. The members of the section are impressed with the gift of unity which is already evident in the willingness of all participants to engage in this theological encounter on an ecumenical basis. This is the fruitage of many years of Faith and Order studies and conversations.
B. Discussion in the section was characterized by a readiness to face central and crucial issues in the realm of doctrine instead of ignoring or by-passing them. There seemed to be a common feeling that sincerity in our desire for unity calls us not only to confront one another but to confront together the Truth of the Gospel in all its fulness. We seemed agreed that “The way to the center is the way to unity.”
C. The members of the section found that when they thus faced “the center” and spoke of “Jesus Christ,” the “Word of God,” the “Gospel,” the “Church,” there was a rather large body of common discourse which made for meaningful and fruitful discussion in spite of diversities in other areas and in the theological explication of this common vocabulary.
D. The section found the wide range of tradition represented by the membership both an obstacle and a challenge. The various traditions have developed differing and sometimes distinctive ways of clarifying and formulating the faith in theological systems and doctrinal statements. They have also developed varied institutional structures and practices, many of which have doctrinal implications. This variety adds to both the problems and the promise of fruitful communication.
E. As we have engaged in this discussion of “Consensus and Conflict” we have been made aware of the necessity of having some comprehensive perspective which can include both our consensus and our conflict without doing injustice to either. Such ecumenical discussions as that in which we have engaged may be particularly helpful in achieving such a perspective.
F. A pronounced emphasis which recurred throughout the discussion was the importance of the “servant-image” for the Christian Church, its theology and its mission. The judgment was expressed, and broadly affirmed, that in the Bible the image of the “servant” has a centrality and significance which Christianity in our time needs to rediscover. It was as the “servant of the Lord” that Israel was called upon to fulfill her destiny. Jesus Christ Himself glorified in fulfilling the role of a servant who lived “to serve, not to be served.” Paul interpreted the significance of the Incarnation and work of Jesus Christ by affirming that in Him the Eternal Son of God decisively and exultantly took the form of a servant. In the Church of today as well as in the world of today, it is of first-rate importance that the significance of the “servant-image” be discovered by persons, groups, and institutions. It was held that unity will be promoted among the churches in their apprehension of Christian truth and in their dedication to the Church’s mission under the Lordship of Christ when they take seriously the normative character of the “servant” for Christian thought and action.
III. Doctrinal Consensus, Conflict and Diversity
A. The Degree and Kind of Consensus in Faith that Binds us Together
We have found ourselves bound together in a common faith that impels us to a common witness, despite the variety of doctrinal standards found in our churches. “Faith” here means something more than “doctrine,” though closely related to doctrine; it means the trustful response of the whole man to God’s self-revelation in Christ. Primarily, the faith we share is a common commitment to the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, and a common mission to bring to all mankind the message of the great salvation He offers. When this faith becomes a message (kerygma) it demands an intellectual expression and begins to be articulated into doctrine. The articulation of doctrine must never become an idol (i.e., an end in itself) but is ministerial to the Church’s inner life of worship and nurture and her out-going mission to the world. The Church needs a massive and vertebrate form for her faith, and finds abundant material in God’s self-revelation for such a reasoned-out message, but Christian doctrine must never be divorced from Christian devotion and obedience, and must therefore never wholly abandon the poetry of faith for the prose of doctrinal elaboration. If this partnership between faith and doctrine is maintained, we may expect consensus in faith to be accompanied by a high degree of consensus in doctrine, and this is indeed what we find among ourselves.
The center of our doctrinal consensus is Christ Himself as the Incarnate Word of God and the sacrificial Saviour of the world in whom God bore the sins of mankind and founded a new humanity. At the beginning of the Faith and Order Movement, faith in the divine-human Lord and Saviour tended to stand in a sort of splendid isolation, as the one clear point on which we were united. It is still the center of our consensus, but under the influence of the Biblical renewal there is now a growing sense of its connection with other basic Christian doctrines: God’s Covenant with His People Israel, fulfilled and renewed in Christ; the Church and the new People of God, the Body of Christ, the Community (koinonia) of the Holy Spirit, pressing on toward its consummation in a new community of mankind and a new heaven and earth. The stern events of our time have taught us to see new meaning in the dramatic conflict between the Kingdom of Christ and the God-opposing powers, as portrayed in the New Testament; but our faith in Christ’s ultimate Lordship over the world as well as the Church, stands firm as the final capstone in the arch of faith that now begins to tower over the wreckage and confusion of our time. There has been a great recovery in recent years of the centrality of Biblical revelation in Christian doctrine—though this has not penetrated all the curricula of Christian education—both as the record of the mighty acts of God leading up to our redemption in Christ, and also as the source of intelligible truths expressed in inspired words, whereby the message of our redemption can be spelled out. While we differ in our theories of revelation, reason and Biblical inspiration, we are united in looking to the witness of Holy Scripture in the Church, as the sine qua non of authentic Christian doctrine.
B. Extent and Significance of Our Common Use of the Historic Confessions
When we compare the actual use of historic confessions in different churches we find them sharply divided between creedal churches, where they are largely used for catechetical instruction and in public worship, and non-creedal churches, where there is grave objection to using them at all—except as historical documents. When we examine the significance of the use of creeds and confessions, we find this sharp polarization much diminished. For example, some non-creedal churches of the “covenant” type express their opposition to confessionalism by declaring that they use creeds only as “testimonies not tests” of faith. Yet there are churches of the creedal type which use the very same word, “testimony,” to define their own use of their historic confessions. All our communions agree that their creeds and confessions are subordinate to Scripture, at least in the negative sense that they must not contradict Scripture. They further agree that these confessions must be interpreted and reinterpreted in the light of Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Those churches which make no use of historic confessions actually use “tests” or norms of other sorts (such as the Quaker “queries” or the “covenants” of other churches) to keep up standards of Christian commitment and Christian instruction among their members. We agree with the Lausanne call (1927) to re-examine the content, the historical significance and the meaning for us of the great ecumenical definitions of the early church councils; and we also agree that when the Church’s very existence is challenged again, by anti-Christian trends and dangerously perverted versions of the Christian message, such threats need to be countered by similarly pointed confessions of the mind of Christ. A good recent example of such a contemporary confession, formulated with specific reference to the current renaissance of Hinduism and the deluge of communism, is that of the Batak Protestant Church in Indonesia.
C. Conformity and Freedom in Faith
The section wishes to reassert as sufficient ground of membership in the Ecumenical Movement the confession that Jesus Christ is “God and Saviour.” While some of us are dissatisfied with this form of words, all of us recognize that loyalty to Christ as God’s Incarnate Word and our Saviour is the very heart of our given unity. Every church will wish to supplement and interpret this central faith; none can repudiate it without ceasing to be united to her sister communions. This common confession is rooted in revelation as witnessed in Scripture and received in the Church through the Spirit. The authority of the Faith, then, is located in the Scriptures, the historic tradition of the Church, and the continuing work of the Holy Spirit.1Orthodox and Protestant churches will name these factors in different order, but it was already agreed between them at Edinburgh (1937) that the living Word of God (Christ) precedes the Church’s tradition while the written Word of the New’ Testament existed as verbal proclamation and tradition before it was written. Diversity of doctrine not contrary to this authority reflects the riches of God’s grace and the diversity of His gifts to the Church. The unity we seek is not to be found in enforced conformity to a detailed, complete, unchangeable system of doctrine. Our only absolute captivity is to Christ and His mission; this captivity sets us totally free to realize the purpose for which we were created. Freedom to interpret Christian truth in varied ways, as the Spirit guides us to apply it to changing situations and different men, is part of Christian liberty—and responsibility. Against what seem to be real perversions of the Gospel, all are bound to protest in the name of the truth; but none of our churches is so “authoritative” that it forbids all difference on special points of doctrine (theologeumena).
D. Points of Deepest Conflict
We have to distinquish between desirable diversity, creative conflict which helps to get truth stated, and destructive conflict which obscures the truth. Diversity and creative conflict spring from our finiteness; destructive conflict from our sin. Destructive conflict in matters of doctrine exists at various levels between member churches within the fellowship of the World Council of Churches, and also between the member churches and others which find it impossible to seek membership in it. All conflicts which keep churches in opposition are serious because they make it hard to hear the voice of Christ above the clamor of rival churches; but the latter type of conflict, which now keeps Roman Catholics and some Protestants out of official ecumenical confrontation, is most serious. Continued study and conference are recommended, to see if it is really necessary for all such groups to stay out on doctrinal grounds, when other groups, quite as different from the Protestant majority (e.g., certain Eastern Orthodox churches) are already in. Conflicts also exist among the member churches in the World Council, sometimes dividing them from one another, sometimes cutting across denominational lines and sometimes reducible to differences of emphasis. Examples of such conflicts may be found in varying theories of religious knowledge, theories concerning the nature of the union between the divine and the human in Jesus Christ, varying concepts of the nature of the Church, and varying ways in which the Lord and Head of the Church is related to the concrete life of the Church and its members (e.g., in the various “means of grace” specially preferred in different communions). The conflicts center, as has often been noted, in the part of Christian doctrine dealing with the Ministry and the Sacraments, while they are at a minimum in the doctrine of God and the doctrine of Christ.
E. Consensus Which Should Precede Unity and That Which Must Await Closer Fellowship
There is of course a given consensus already existing, concerning which we have already spoken under (A). This given consensus does not yet fully express the oneness of the Church which it is God’s will for His people to realize. We call attention, therefore, to those areas in which further agreement needs to be reached before we can move toward closer oneness. (The necessity of agreement will vary, of course, according to the nature of the unity we seek; “mutual recognition” requires less than “corporate unity.”)
1. The nature of the Church, its ministry and its sacraments. Here greater agreement is needed, based on much further study and conference between the various types of churches, before some of them can consider intercommunion, and others can consider reunion.
2. The nature of the authority and inspiration of the Bible. Here is one of the chief causes of disunity among Protestants. The relations between the Bible and reason, and the nature of revelation (whether expressed in “propositions” or “events,” or both) need particular study in this connection.
3. Finally, the nature of the unity we seek. On this, as noted above, will depend the degree of doctrinal unity necessary beforehand. It is quite plain that participants in the Ecumenical Movement are hoping for different outcomes. It is good to make these differences conscious and try to resolve them.
After the unity we seek (or which God wills for us) reaches each stage of realization, the ministry of the Holy Spirit will lead (in the process of growing together) to a profounder appreciation of the gift of the Church and a profounder understanding of the meaning of its worship, its sacramental koinonia, and its mission in the world. Some united churches have deliberately left the drafting of a longer doctrinal statement of faith until after they have merged upon a very simple “basis of union,” including a short declaration of their common faith.
F. “Diversities to be Welcomed” in the Expression of Our Common “Allegiance”
We have already distinguished “diversity” from “conflict” under (D) above. Our common allegiance to Jesus Christ means a loving obedience to Him, which may be expressed in diverse ways. In his missionary work, the Apostle Paul became “all things to all men” that he might “by all means win some.” We welcome such diversity in the life and thought of the churches, as a manifestation of the “fruits of the Spirit” and a contribution to the “fullness of Christ.” Diversities of this sort are found in liturgical practice, in cultural tradition, in types of Christian service, in styles of Christian art, in ways of proclaiming the faith. Whether diversity in theological doctrine can be encouraged without endangering the Christian faith itself, is questioned by some of us. Diversity of faith has often resulted from diversity of theology. It is important to distinguish the divine revelation which is the center of our common faith from the human systems of theology which relate this revelation to contemporary schools of philosophy and changing world situations. The purity of the common faith is better preserved by encouraging creative conflict between theological systems than by prematurely finalizing any one of them. (Doctors of divinity are stewards of divine revelation, but the history of doctrine proves that they do not possess divine omniscience.) As Dr. Calhoun remarked in his address on “Christ and the Church,” the mystery of God’s infinite Being can never be fully resolved by finite minds, for “God as self-disclosed to us men remains mystery, not only in some secrets of His Being that remain undisclosed, but also in His self-revelation itself.” We cannot therefore hope or desire to eliminate all diversities from Christian doctrine. We walk together in the light of the same divine-human Face; we bow together before the same ineffable Mystery, content to argue with one another’s best judgments, since none can claim to have plumbed the infinite depths of the Godhead.
In the work of this section we have repeatedly verified the Lausanne principle of “comprehension.” That is, when the seemingly conflicting doctrines of different churches are carefully defined in face-to-face conference, they are first found to be less contradictory than they appeared to be, and then found to be diverse aspects of a comprehensive truth which all need to consider in order to deepen and correct their own favorite views. (See point (B) above.) Every American in our day needs to be a world citizen in order to be a good American, so every confessional theologian needs to be an ecumenical theologian in order to be a good representative of his own confession. The sparks of comprehension that flew between Baptists and Lutherans, Quakers and Orthodox, will continue to illuminate the minds and hearts of all of us who took part in these discussions.
Not all doctrinal differences can speedily be turned into fruitful diversities so as to be resolved by mutual comprehension. The doctrinal differences concerning the ministry, the sacraments and others mentioned under (D) above cannot be overcome at this time, and constitute an impasse which must be examined and re-examined by all the methods recommended at the Lund Conference. However, the progress that has already been made by the Faith and Order Movement, and our experience in this section, give us confidence that here too, destructive conflict may someday be transformed through creative conflict into a more comprehensive truth that will include us all. For us all, Jesus Christ is the Truth. Theology or doctrinal labor is the service of our minds humbly and joyfully offered to Him, and therefore to one another. Our hope in seeking unity resides not in endeavors to master the other man with our superior insights, but in love to serve our brother and to be served by him as servants together of the Word of God.
IV. Recommendation
The section records its conviction that there is need for a continuation and extension of the kind of theological exchange which has here taken place, to all sections of our continent. The work of the sixteen study groups which made preparatory studies for this Conference give evidence of both the possibility and fruitfulness of such a project. It is hoped that the encouragement which has been given to Faith and Order studies through this Conference will establish the work of Faith and Order as a proportionally larger part of the total ecumenical enterprise in this area.
