READINESS FOR RESPONSIBILITY

For the ecumenical movement, the Second Vatican Council was a turning point that fundamentally changed the conditions for relationships between the churches. Since the council, the Roman Catholic Church has become an active partner in the ecumenical movement, while until the middle of the 20th century it had deliberately rejected any recognition of the ecumenical movement as a new reality in the life of the churches. The change has particularly affected the World Council of Churches (WCC), and the jubilee of the Second Vatican Council (2nd VC) is an appropriate moment to assess the developments in ecumenical relations during these fifty years. Of course, the significance of the 2nd VC goes far beyond its impact for ecumenical relations. Mention could and should be made of its new understanding of the place of the church in the modern world, of its affirmations of human rights and religious liberty, as well as of its initiatives preparing the way for inter-religious encounter and dialogue. The following reflections, however, will be limited to the development of ecumenical relations in the fifty years since the council. The generation of those in the leadership of the WCC who witnessed the 2nd VC and who participated in its successive sessions as observers on behalf of the WCC and of some of its member churches has passed away. This is true in particular for the first general secretary of the WCC, Dr W.A. Visser't Hooft; for the principal observer on behalf of the WCC, Dr Lukas Vischer; and for the two Orthodox observers, Dr Nikos Nissiotis and Fr Vitalij Borovoij. Their accounts still provide a vivid testimony for the groundbreaking significance of the council. The present attempt to assess the development in ecumenical relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC is written from the perspective of someone who since 1971 has been involved in shaping these relationships, who was co-secretary of the Joint Working Group between the Vatican and the WCC, and general secretary of the WCC from 1993-2003. The foundation for the new phase in ecumenical relationships was laid decisively by the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, which was approved by the council in November 1994. With its affirmation that those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are brought into certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (N. 3), the decree formulated the ecumenical consequences of the new articulation of the ecclesiological self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium). Thus, the relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the other Christian churches were placed on a new basis. Soon after the council, this became evident in the development of an impressive network of bilateral dialogues between the major church families, which have led to important results. An assessment of these dialogues, which have been documented in several volumes under the title “Growth in Agreement,” is beyond the scope of these reflections. In the immediate period following the announcement of the forthcoming Vatican Council, the WCC became the privileged ecumenical partner for the Roman Catholic Church. Even before the official establishment of the Vatican Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, a first secret encounter took place at Milano in 1960 between Cardinal Bea, the future president of the secretariat, and Dr Visser't Hooft, the general secretary of the WCC. Subsequently, the WCC served as a facilitator for the invitations of ecumenical observers at the council and was itself represented by two observers. The position papers and commentaries of the ecumenical observers were taken seriously at the council. For example, the preface to the Decree on Ecumenism, which refers positively to the ecumenical movement, has been influenced by a memorandum from the WCC. A second encounter between Cardinal Bea und Dr Visser't Hooft took place in April of 1964, even before the promulgation of the Decree on Ecumenism. It prepared the way for the establishment of a Joint Working Group (JWG) between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC with the initial mandate to clarify the basis for future relationships. During its first mandate period between 1965 and 1967, the JWG developed a very productive activity. With the publication of a basic working document on the understanding and the methodologies of “ecumenical dialogue” it had fulfilled its initial task. As a consequence, a number of common initiatives were launched for direct collaboration between the Vatican and the WCC. Mention should be made in particular of the joint Committee on Society, Development and Peace (SODEPAX), which began its work with a joint secretariat in 1968. High hopes were placed in this endeavour and SODEPAX quickly became a symbol for the new quality of relationships. However, the increasingly independent dynamics of its activities led the two parent bodies to reduce and refocus the mandate, and eventually this form of structured cooperation was concluded in 1980. The Joint Advisory Group on Social Thought and Action that was created in its place proved to be ineffective and was terminated after a few years. The same fate caught up with two other early initiatives, that is, the Women's Ecumenical Liaison Group and a structure for cooperation in the field of the laity, both of which ceased operation after only a few years. What remained from this initial hopeful period were official cooperative relationships in the fields of theological study, especially in the framework of the Commission on Faith and Order; of mission and evangelism, facilitated especially by Catholic missionary orders; of ecumenical diakonia; and of inter-religious dialogue. The most long-lasting cooperative endeavour has been the joint preparation of the Week of Prayer for Christian unity. At the 4th Assembly of the WCC in Uppsala (1968), Fr Roberto Tucci SJ in a public address mentioned the possibility that the Roman Catholic Church might join the WCC as a full member. At the same time, the Vatican approved the inclusion of Roman Catholic theologians as official members of the WCC Commission on Faith and Order. Since then all decisive theological study processes in the WCC have benefited from full Roman Catholic participation. One year later, in June 1969, Pope Paul VI visited the WCC secretariat in Geneva. This was a gesture of high symbolic significance, even though the Pope left no doubt about the difficulties that still needed to be resolved on the ecumenical way. In the same year, the JWG formed a small working group to study the conditions and implications of a possible Roman Catholic membership of the WCC. The report under the title “Pattern of Relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches” (1972) came to the conclusion that there were no fundamental obstacles preventing possible membership. However, serious consultations on the highest levels in the Roman Curia led to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church would not further pursue this option in the near future. These conditions have not changed in the forty years since then, even though the Roman Catholic Church has joined national ecumenical structures in more than fifty countries as a full member. The focus of ecumenical activities on the part of the Vatican shifted more and more towards bilateral dialogues with the major Christian church families and structured cooperation with the WCC was reduced. despite all divisions which have occurred in the course of the centuries there is a real though imperfect communion which continues to exist between those who believe in Christ and are baptized in his name . . . Through the development of the ecumenical movement that communion has been experienced anew. This is not to claim that it has been created anew. Since it is beyond human power and initiative, it precedes all ecumenical efforts for the restoration of the unity of all Christians.1 The report also referred to the failure of the efforts to give visible and structured expression to the relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC. While there was no doubt that the Roman Catholic Church could accept the basis of the WCC, the report indicates that the Roman Catholic Church understood its constitution “as a universal fellowship with a universal mission and structure as an essential element of its identity.” It sees further difficulties in “the way in which authority is considered in the Roman Catholic Church and the processes through which it is exercised.”2 In this way the report for the first time points to the fundamental differences in the understanding of ecclesial fellowship, and thus it concludes this assessment with the question: “How can the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, without forming one structured fellowship, intensify their joint activities and thereby strengthen the unity, the common witness and the renewal of the churches?”3 In any case, the question how “the real, though imperfect communion” can gain visible shape has remained open since then and it has become clear that the Decree on Ecumenism of the 2nd VC did not offer a conclusive answer. In the following years, until the 5th Assembly of the WCC at Vancouver (1983), cooperation with the Roman Catholic Church concentrated more and more on the work of the Commission on Faith and Order. During this period the commission concluded its work on the convergence documents on “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” (BEM), which were approved at the meeting of the commission in Lima (1982). In appropriating the results of bilateral dialogues and with full participation of the Roman Catholic members of the commission these convergence texts manifested a large measure of agreement on central issues of doctrine and church order. No other result of ecumenical theological work has been discussed on a similarly broad level in the churches. In 1987 an official response from the Roman Catholic Church to the convergence texts stated that “BEM is perhaps the most significant result of the [Faith and Order] movement.” The response underlines that baptism is the decisive basis for the communion which “already exists between divided Christians.” It is somewhat more reserved regarding the text on the eucharist, but it considers that a reception by all churches of the theological understanding and description of the celebration of the eucharist as expressed in the Lima document would be an important development in the direction of affirming a “common faith.” Critical questions were addressed in particular to the document on the ministry. But even here the response comes to the conclusion that the acceptance of the proposals of the Lima document on the ministry would represent a “major step towards Christian unity.”4 In order to avoid misunderstandings the response however underlines once again the self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church and its unity by quoting explicitly the affirmation in the Decree on Ecumenism (No. 4) that the “unity of the one and only Church which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning . . . subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.”5 It links this with the expectation “that the study of ecclesiology must come more and more into the centre of the ecumenical dialogue.”6 When in 1984 Pope John Paul II visited the ecumenical centre in Geneva he emphasized his office as Bishop of Rome, which had served as the visible point of reference and as the guarantee of unity in faithfulness to the apostolic tradition. Ten years later, after the Commission on Faith and Order at its 5th World Conference in Santiago de Compostela also recommended a common study of the question of a universal office of unity, the Pope came back to this question in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint “on commitment to ecumenism” (1995) and invited church leaders and theologians “to engage in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject” in order “to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation” (No. 95f). This dialogue has begun, but so far no solution has been found. The WCC assembly at Vancouver (1983) gave the impulse for a “conciliar process for justice, peace and the integrity of creation,” which became a crystallization point for ecumenical cooperation in the period until 1990. The Roman Catholic Church was invited to co-sponsor this process. While it accepted this invitation on national and regional levels, its participation on the global level remained restricted, especially because of questions regarding the ecclesiological foundations of the conciliar process. This fact served to underline the need to give more focused attention to the issues of ecclesiology, as had been urged already in the Roman Catholic response to the BEM document. On the basis of a proposal by the Faith and Order Commission, the 6th Assembly of the WCC at Canberra (1991) in its declaration on “The Unity of the Church as Koinonia: Gift and Calling” re-affirmed the importance of the concept of koinonia in searching for a common ecumenical understanding on ecclesiology. Since its 5th World Conference at Santiago de Compostela (1993) the Commission on Faith and Order had concentrated its attention on working out a convergence statement on the church. Several preliminary statements were published and circulated among the churches for reaction. After successive revisions, a final text has been accepted by the Commission in 2012 under the title, The Church: Towards a Common Vision. In November 2013 it was received by the 10th Assembly of the WCC at Busan and it is now before the churches for serious study and appropriate reception. It will now have to be seen whether and how the Roman Catholic Church will respond to this concerted ecumenical effort to address the core issues of ecclesiology that have been at the centre of ecumenical dialogues during these past decades. This question is of particular interest since, with the document “Dominus Jesus” (2000) and the subsequent Decree with “Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the Doctrine On the Church” (2007), the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith strongly affirmed the uniqueness and exclusivity of the Roman Catholic Church and defended a rather restrictive interpretation of the teachings of Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the 2nd VC. This is a matter of concern particularly for the churches of the Reformation. The council had referred to them as “ecclesial communities,” but this has now been sharpened in the sense that they cannot “according to Catholic doctrine be called Churches in the proper sense,” since, due to “the absence of the sacramental priesthood they have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the eucharistic mystery.”7 These statements were issued by the Vatican under the responsibility of Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope Benedict XVI. Whether new ecumenical signals will come from Pope Francis still has to be seen. At this stage it appears that there are still profound differences in the understanding of the church and of ecclesial communion. On the one hand we discern a universal ecclesiology oriented towards communion with the Bishop of Rome and the recognition of his primacy which stands over against an ecclesiology that recognizes the plurality of local churches and is oriented toward a communion in which “all churches are able to recognize in one another the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church in its fullness.”8 This brief retrospective of developments during these fifty years leaves a mixed impression. The 2nd VC and particularly the Decree on Ecumenism have irrevocably brought the Roman Catholic Church into the ecumenical movement and its ecumenical commitment has been re-affirmed in very solemn terms by successive popes. In many ways the Roman Catholic Church has even begun to claim leadership responsibility regarding the development of ecumenical relationships that would have been unthinkable in the period before the 2nd VC. The numerous bilateral doctrinal dialogues have reached important clarifications regarding basic issues of faith and order and have concluded many of the doctrinal controversies between the churches. One of the most significant results is the “Common Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” between the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran churches that was solemnly signed in 1999. Ecumenical collaboration between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC has so far been based on the conviction that there is only “one ecumenical movement” that embraces all Christian churches and traditions. This is reflected also in the Decree on Ecumenism, which in the headline of its first chapter speaks of “Catholic Principles of Ecumenism,” instead of “Principles of Catholic Ecumenism” as was initially proposed. However, after fifty years there are increasing doubts whether we are still dealing with one and the same ecumenical movement, or whether competitive understandings of ecumenism and its ultimate goal have emerged in the meantime. The ecclesiological self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church as articulated in the official interpretation of the teachings of the 2nd VC places the Roman Catholic Church with its universal structure and its hierarchical understanding of authority and its exercise into the centre of the search for Christian unity. This cannot easily be reconciled with the understanding of ecclesial unity in conciliar fellowship that has developed in the course of serious dialogue within the fellowship of churches in the WCC. The fact that it has not been possible so far to give visible and structured expression to the “real though imperfect” communion based on the common baptism indicates that there are still differences of rather basic character. The recent Vatican statements referred to above strengthen this impression, precisely where they interpret the teachings of the council. It is evident that the declarations of the 2nd VC, including the Decree on Ecumenism, were the result of controversial discussions among the council fathers trying to hold together widely divergent positions and convictions. Thus, they allow for different interpretations and show signs of internal tension or even contradictions. It should therefore not come as a surprise that the process of renewal that was initiated by the council has not yet reached its full clarity. However, that raises the question whether the changes in ecumenical relationships that were initiated by the council, and particularly by the Decree on Ecumenism, can be regarded as an open process in the sense that the ecumenical reception and discussion of the teachings of the council can make a contribution to clarifying the remaining questions and tensions, or whether the Decree on Ecumenism has to be regarded as the final word of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the challenges of the ecumenical movement. While the papal encyclical Ut Unum Sint has in many respects been received as a source of encouragement, there was disappointment among many ecumenical partners that Pope John Paul II did not go beyond repeating and re-affirming the teachings of the Decree on Ecumenism and did not appear to adequately recognize and honour the insights and clarifications that have been reached in the course of fifty years of intensive ecumenical dialogue, not least in the context of bilateral conversations. The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are ‘numerous elements of sanctification and of truth’ which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.9 In a lecture 2004, on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the Decree on Ecumenism, Cardinal Kasper as President of the Pontifical Council on Promoting Christian Unity already dealt extensively with this same issue and stated that the formulation “subsists in” “contains in nuce the whole ecumenical problem.”10 The Cardinal felt that thanks to this formulation, which replaced the simple “is,” the council was able to take a decisive step forward. “It wished to do justice to the fact that there are found outside of the Catholic Church not only individual Christians but also ‘elements of the church’, indeed churches and ecclesial communities which, although not in full communion, rightly belong to the one church and possess salvatory significance for their members.” The concept “subsistit in”, according to the intention of the Theological Commission of the Council, means: the church of Christ Jesus has its concrete location in the Catholic Church… It is not a purely Platonic entity or a prospective future reality, it exists in a concrete historical form, it is located in the Catholic Church. Understood in this sense “subsistit in” encompasses the essential thrust of the “est.” But it no longer formulates the self-concept [self-image] of the Catholic Church in “splendid isolation”, but also takes account of churches and ecclesial communities in which the one church of Jesus Christ is effectively present, but which are not in full communion with it. In formulating its own identity, the Catholic Church at the same time establishes a relationship of dialogue with these churches and ecclesial communities. Accordingly it is a misunderstanding of “subsistit in” to make it the basis of an ecclesiological pluralism or relativism which implies that the one church of Christ Jesus subsists in many and thus the Catholic Church is one among many other churches . . . The Catholic Church continues to as it to be the true church of Christ in which the of the of are present, but it now sees itself in a context of dialogue with the other churches and ecclesial communities. It does not any new doctrine but establishes a new and formulates its self-concept in a concrete one could even The Council is that the church is on a through towards a concrete historical of what its most profound This interpretation is but it is not clear how this position can as a basis of further ecumenical dialogues on ecclesiology. the theological dialogue will But the reception of their results difficulties in all because the new and common that has been developed through these dialogues cannot easily be reconciled with the doctrinal of the churches. a towards the affirmation of a communion” will not be possible without a of the ecclesiological by the teachings of the council. The papal encyclical Ut Unum Sint also has not been able to open a way forward. An of a new ecumenical might be in the response from the Vatican to the of the WCC document Towards a Common and a Common of the WCC This response the “common or basis of ecumenism” by repeating the conviction that is a true and real, even imperfect, koinonia between the Catholic Church and other Churches and But it then “It is a real sacramental koinonia the churches a true baptism by which one is into the of explicitly the of the which already exists between the churches by of their common this statement recognizes the ecclesiological quality of these ecumenical relationships. It once again that this “real but imperfect communion” is to any to form of it even is to that understanding the WCC has ecclesiological believe that a further development of the of a as in these statements could the ecumenical dialogue about the understanding of the church and its unity from the present, and open future It is that the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC has a study on the and Ecumenical of a Common was the general secretary of the World Council of Churches, from through

Preface

October 2014 Samuel Escobar, a contributing editor, and his wife, Lilly, worked with the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students in Latin America and Canada, 1959–85. Then he taught missions at Eastern Baptist (now Palmer) Theological Seminary, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, 1985–2005. He presently teaches at theFacultadProtestantedeTeologiaUEBEinMadrid. —jsescobar@yahoo.com A I sit down to prepare this response to a World Council of Churches (WCC) document on mission and evangelism, I cannot but reflect on the “landscape” from which I write. My most recent experience of missiological activity in Spainwas a fewweeks ago speaking in a gathering of LatinAmericanmissionaries in Europe. Over a hundred of them met at Torrox, near Malaga, representing fifteen countries. After that I crossed the peninsula to Seville in order to teach an intensive course about Christian mission organized by Irismenio Ribeiro, a Brazilian missionary who leads an extension theological center for the region. It was hosted by the Baptist church of Montequinto, where the pastor is Stella Maris Merlo, anArgentinian who has been serving as a missionary in Spain for thirty-three years. During the course we prayed for a team of Spanish missionaries that serve in Equatorial Guinea in western Africa under the European Baptist Mission. At the time for meals we were hosted by Gladys, a lady from El Salvador, a hard-working immigrant and one of the hundreds of Latin American volunteers who are active in Spanish churches these days. This is the reality of the global church in the twenty-first century, and as I experience it in Spain I cannot but praise the Lord as I trace back this reality to the two centuries of missionary work that have preceded us. Four years ago we were celebrating the centennial of Edinburgh 1910, and this year we are celebrating forty years of the Lausanne Covenant and the movement that followed it. In fact, the Busan document of the WCC has reminded me of what I consider providential convergences for Christian mission in the mid-1970s. First, in 1974 evangelicals gathered in Lausanne issued the Lausanne Covenant. This document reaffirmed commitment to mission and evangelism but also included critical reflection about the way in which mission efforts had taken place up to that moment, along with a surprising call to repentance and a commitment to explore realistically a more Christlike way of going about them. That same year a synod of bishops of the Roman Catholic Church asked Pope Paul VI to issue a renewed call to evangelism; in 1975 he promulgated the apostolic exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi, concerning the evangelization of the modern world. In the same year, the WCC had its Fifth Assembly, in Nairobi, where themes of mission and evangelismwere the object of renewed attention. Missiologist James A. Scherer commented that, in Nairobi, “Assembly statements about ‘confessing Christ’ had a stronglyChristocentric, Trinitarian, and churchly ring, echoing Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic influence but also responding to evangelical criticisms.”1Thefinal documentwas “Together towards Life: Mission and Evangelism in Changing Landscapes”

and a Master of Divinity student at the

1) Ecumenism as an urgent need in theological education basis of the WCC affirms: The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the scriptures and therefore seek to fulfil together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In the constitution of the WCC the concern for ecumenical theological education therefore receives a high priority: it is defined as one of the primary purposes and functions of the WCC to nurture the growth of an ecumenical consciousness through processes of education and a vision of life in community rooted in each particular cultural context (WCC Constitution para. III). ecumenical movement from its very beginning and even before the founding of the WCC in 1948 (cf. history of World Council of Christian Education) had a profound impact on the understanding of Christian education in general and ministerial formation for future ministers and priests in particular. If the ecumenical movement as a whole is about strengthening common witness and promoting new forms of the visible unity between churches of different denominational and confessional traditions then the scandal of churches remaining in disunity and using distorted images of sister churches in one's own educational materials and publications needs to be overcome, with foremost priority in the area of theological education and ministerial formation. strengthening and pursuit of church unity in theological education is a gospel imperative for any church joining in the affirmation of the church as being one, holy, catholic and apostolic in its essence (The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed [381]) (interdenominational or ecclesial dimension of ecumenical formation). emergence of interdenominational or non-denominational institutions of theological education in the '50s and '60s which was intentionally supported by the Theological Education Fund (TEF) of the IMC as well as the introduction of distinct courses and curriculum models on ecumenism and the ecumenical movement was a consequence of this ecclesiological insight. emphasis on interdenominational cooperation in theological education as well as the development of proper teaching materials on ecumenism remains an indispensable and in many places still lacking component of the theological education of pastors and ministers. There is no future for the ecumenical movement as a whole if there is no commitment to ecumenical formation processes in formal and non-formal theological education programmes of WCC member churches. If theological education fails to be guided by an ecumenical vision of a church renewed in mission and service to the whole of humankind there will be a serious shortage in terms of a new generation of Christian leaders, pastors and theological teachers carrying on the ecumenical vision and commitment into the 21 st century and a widening gap and estrangement between the majority clergy and ever fewer experts on the ecumenical movement and ecumenical theological discourse which can already be observed in a number of member churches. 2) Contextualization of theological education Ecumenical formation in theological education is guided by the vision of the church truly united and serving the renewal of the human community. Therefore, ecumenical formation reaches beyond the realm of issues of inner church unity in addressing fundamental questions of the human family and the survival of the whole earth. Being inspired by the ecumenical vision of God as the owner of the whole earth (oikumene) as well as the eschatological vision of a new heaven and a new earth, theological education in ecumenical understanding will always try to respond to the pressing needs of social contexts and to be related to issues of human survival both in global and in local environments. Relating theological education to the realities of particular social and cultural contexts, liberating theological education from any captivity of certain social milieus, cultural one-sidedness and spiritual blindness to religious values existing in certain indigenous traditions has been a major emphasis of the WCC in the programme on theological education (PTE) since the sixties (social or contextual dimension in ecumenical formation of theological education). …

摘要 本文主要探討 1950 至1960 年代台灣基督長老教會的主體意識，長老會歷經晚清、日治、光復等不同時期的統治，教會也歷經英、日殖民主義、大中國乃至於本土認同的社會遷，因此，做為本土教會的長老教會，其教會主體意識是如何形成的？為何在1950 年代以後會有那樣劇烈的變遷？從歷史發展來看，在二戰之後，台灣長老教會總會的創立，加入普世教協(WCC) 和世界長老會聯盟(WPA)，參與普世合一運動，與國際接軌。然而台灣長老會在倍加運動、百年設教大會中，卻遭到萬國教協(ICCC) 為討好國民黨政府而誣陷是一個「親共」、「容共」的基督教團體，因而退出普世教協。長老會在承受內、外壓迫的環境下，台灣基督長老教會的主體意識有著明顯的轉型，從過去注重福音宣教事工的信仰立場，轉型為台灣人民爭取人權自主自決的政治主體意識型態，這樣的變遷與之前有極大的轉向，值得深入分析探討，成為本文的研究動機與主要目的。 台灣基督長老教會近幾十年雖然有各種的自決運動，其中以1971 年台灣人民自決運動中的「國是聲明」和1973 年之「台灣人民自決運動宣言」最具震撼力。與國語教會不同的是，台灣基督長老教會為何從福音宣教事工的宗教立場轉型為台灣人民爭取人權自主自決的政治主體意識型態，表面上是台灣基督長老教會基於當時國際局勢動盪不安，台灣的退出聯合國和美國總統尼克森訪問中國可能危及台灣人民生活的基本人權，結合信仰的關懷，對土地和人民的認同所發起的，但長老教會主體意識這樣的急遽轉變，都可追溯自黃武東議長帶領下的長老會總會、百年設教大會、倍加運動這個時期所播下的種子。 由於這段歷史，過去的研究經常一筆帶過，少有深入性的研究，故此，本文便設定以黃武東議長所帶領下的長老會與設教百週年倍加運動這一時期做為研究台灣基督長老教會的主體意識變遷的主題與焦點，期能對台灣基督長老教會政治神學背後的歷史有更多的掌握。 關鍵字：長老會總會、長老教會主體意識、設教百週年大會、倍加運動

When churches speak to their own people and to the nations on matters of international affairs, how much do their pronouncements reflect the political policies of various countries and power blocs? Is the voice of a national or regional church body likely to be very different from that of an international ecclesiastical organization? A single example will, admittedly, yield onlv partial answers, but they may suggest what a fuller studv would disclose.Consider the ways in which churches have dealt with the question of disarmament and arms control. Statements have been made by three representative groups: (1) The Christian Peace Conference centered in Prague. Czechoslovakia: (2) the National Council of Churches in the U.S.A. and one of its member churches, the United Church of Christ: and (3) the World Council of Churches. These are representative church bodies from both sides of the iron curtain and an international body which has member churches in virtually all parts of the world.

How does one properly account for the rise of theological ferment in the Third World, when so much of the theological activity in that region is so closely related to what happens (or fails to happen) in the First World? To what extent can the decisions of the Second Vatican Council, or the programs of the World Council of Churches, or the initiatives of the Mission Boards in North America, be given credit for the emergence of Third World theologies? Or how do we explain the paradox that in spite of two decades in the growth and development of local theologies in the Third World, much of the way in which Third World churches conduct their business and their worship still fails to reflect such developments? Who sets the priorities for theology in the Third World? What is the procedure for its validation and official acceptance? When does the local church know that it is safe to shift from the received tradition to the new tradition? All these are questions of farreaching significance, for they bear on the very heart of authentic Christianity as it is proclaimed and practised in the Third World. Third World Christians must determine for themselves when and how they will theologize in their own language, in which they were born (Acts 2.8). Third World theologians have stepped out in front and have taken some initiatives for themselves, and among themselves.

BOOK REVIEWS145 (the conservative/fundamentalist backlash to Modernism), the quixotic Gilbert Reid and his International Institute, and the Laymen's Inquiry and Report of 1932 (which marks the end of the coverage of the book). Lian Xi's conclusion stakes out a more ambitious claim, which cannot easily be proven: that the mission experience, especially in China, shaped the emergence of liberalism in North American theology on the home front during these decades. Here he makes some good points, such as the centrality ofmissions to Presbyterian conservatives as the focal point of their protests against liberalism, and the large number of liberal ex-missionaries who came home to teach in major seminaries . My major criticism of this work is that by ending in the early 1930's it gives the impression that the liberal/modernist impulse carried the day in missions. However, as a new work byJoel Carpenter,Revive UsAgain: The Reawakening ofAmerican Fundamentalism (Oxford, 1997), makes clear, a resurgence of conservative Christianity, including a strong thrust in foreign missions, was beginning just in these years. That impulse has been dominant inAmerican Protestant missions in the decades since; today, liberal missionaries like those described so well in this book are few, while fundamentalists on the mission field abound. Daniel H. Bays The University ofKansas Philippines The Church audits SocialInvolvement in the Philippines, 1930-1972. ByWiIfredo B. Fabros. (Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press. 1988. Pp. xii, 202.) In the late 1970's and early 1980's,the ReverendJohn N. Schumacher, S.J.,prepared and presented an "elective" course, on the "History of the Catholic Church's Involvement in the Philippine Social Problem," at the Loyola School of Theology in the Ateneo de Manila University. Father Schumacher was committed to ensure that the up and coming clergy under his care were provided with an historical, social, and political perspective of the Church's involvement in the Philippine social problem and a scientific, historical, and analytical methodology to investigate such involvement. Some of the results of his efforts were a master's thesis on"Catholic Social Action Prior to WorldWar II" (1986) byVictor Ibabao and a doctoral thesis on "The Church and Its Social Involvement in the Philippines between 1930 and 1972" by FatherWilfredo Fabros. If anything, the publication of Father Fabros' dissertation is a testament to Father Schumacher's success in educating the young Philippine clergy to take up historical research work in the Philippines, be this at the level of the local or national church. Father Fabros' book covers the period from before World War II (the 1930's), after World War II (mid-1940's), after the Second Vatican Council (mid-1960's), 146BOOK REVIEWS up to 1972,when Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law in the Philippines and began his fourteen-year, one-man rule over the Philippines. Father Fabros' description of Catholic Social Action prior to World War II (the 1930's) is sketchy. This is understandable in that he concentrates his efforts, and much of the contents of his book, on events afterWorld War II (1945- 1972). The master's thesis ofVictor Ibabao provides a more detailed account and analysis of Catholic Social Action in the Philippines prior to World War II (1930's). Father Fabros' publication provides firsthand data on events afterWorld War II. In terms of future historical work in the years covered by Father Fabros' book, i.e., 1930- 1972, there appears to be a need to undertake further historical research in the areas of the ideological, social, political, and religious linkages between Catholic Social Action in the Philippines on the one hand and Catholic Social Action in Western Europe, the United States ofAmerica, and Central and Latin America on the other hand. In the Philippines, prior to and after World War II (1930-1960), such linkages would come primarily from Western Europe and the United States of America. Prior to and after Vatican Council II (1960-1972), such linkages would come primarily from Central and Latin America. Victor B. Ibabao Washington, DC. ...

This article interprets the links between the AGAPE (Alternative Globalization Addressing People and Earth) process, which the World Council of Churches (WCC) established to seek alternatives to the current process of economic globalization. The scope of this article is limited to the AGAPE process in as far as it contributes to transformative mission and in order to discern an understanding of ecumenism as a sanctuary for the flourishing of life in abundance for all. The article also identifies areas that need further reflection.

International Review of MissionVolume 85, Issue 337 p. 277-281 SOME ISSUES CONCERNING RELATIONSHIPS IN MISSION John Brown, John Brown John Brown is a minister of the Uniting Church in Australia, and a member of the Unit II Commission.Search for more papers by this author John Brown, John Brown John Brown is a minister of the Uniting Church in Australia, and a member of the Unit II Commission.Search for more papers by this author First published: April 1996 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-6631.1996.tb03486.x AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume85, Issue337April 1996Pages 277-281 RelatedInformation

Much of the social science literature pertaining to the development of civil society in post-communist Eastern Europe focuses on the issue of religious pluralism, especially the relationship of religious minorities and new religious movements (NRMs) to the state and their established Orthodox churches. Their findings suggest that the equation of ethno-religious nationalism, cultural identity, and the state becomes a hindrance to religious pluralism and the development of civil society in these nation-states. As a result, social scientists depict these national churches, and in most cases rightly so, as being the caretakers and fomenters of ethno-religious nationalism in their particular states. A factor in this debate that is often overlooked, however, is the role of the local church in intra-ecclesial relations. Is the concept of the “local church,” which developed in the time of the Roman and Byzantine Empires, to be identified with the modern national church? If this is the case, these churches may be guilty of the sin of ethno-phyletism, which the Council of Constantinople condemned in 1872 in regards to the Bulgarian schism. Additionally, while the development of religious pluralism in post-communist society with the proliferation of Protestant Christian sects and NRMs challenges the religious hegemony of the national churches, even more problematic has been the issue of inter-territorial Orthodox churches in Eastern Europe. The existence of a plurality of national Orthodox churches in the same territory violates the ecclesiological principle of the “local church” as well as perpetuates the sin of ethno-phyletism. While some social scientists may laud the development of a multiplication of churches in the same territory, from an ecclesiastical standpoint such a multiplication denies the unity and identity of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, which it confesses to be. What social scientists have failed to discuss is this important self-understanding of the Orthodox churches, especially as it pertains to inter-Orthodox ecclesial relations. Only with this self-understanding of the church blended with the issue of ethno-nationalism can the problems pertaining to the relations and development of ethno-national churches be properly understood.

“Mission on the Move” means mission still moving out of traditional perceptions of what mission is; and if “witness” is a new word for mission, it means re-conceptualizing what “witness” means in multi-faith/ religiously plural societies. This is a difficult process as the concept of “mission” carries with it a long history and biblical authority. Further, it has often been aligned with political powers and misused for non-religious purposes. Its practice has focused on converting the other into one's own religious likeness rather than sharing (in a variety of ways) the transformative power of the gospel in one's own life. The European Project for Interreligious Learning (EPIL) is an educational project for Christian and Muslim women from five countries in Europe and the Middle East. It is a two-year intensive learning process that was originally developed and launched as a cooperation by the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the Protestant Academy Boldern, Switzerland. It owes much to concepts of ecumenical learning and “Learning in Community” and to the liberation pedagogy of Paulo Freire. The first phase of this project (comprising three cycles) took place 2000–2013. In the course of each two-year cycle, participants spent five weeks in live-in situations where they had to deal with cultural and religious differences and explore how these might be harnessed to live more peacefully and fairly. “Interreligious dialogue and engagement should be the way for religions to relate to one another.” This statement from the Birmingham Pluralist Summit (September 2003)1 was the basis of the learning process. There would be no proselytizing and no attempt at missionization on either side. For the Christian participants in EPIL, this marked a relational shift from “mission” (as a hierarchical relationship) to witnessing in the form of presence to and with “the other.” Learnings about religion became narratives and conversation – telling each other what religion meant concretely in the lives of participants. It was a work of “translation” that taught students more and at a deeper level about their own faiths than about the faith of the respective other. At the same time it heightened the students' sense of respect, even awe at the richness of religious experiences. And in the course of time it developed into something close to “the communication of love in action,”2 an attentiveness to the needs of the other woman, her limitations, her potential, and the realization of her humanness. If the classical response to “the other” used to be fear of difference (with all the consequences, including suppression and even elimination of the other) there has occurred a shift to valuing diversity, to perceiving it as enriching and helpful in solving the many problems of daily living together. In the discourse developing on a pluralist “theology of religions”/ “interreligious theology” we observe a shift from holding one's own religious truths as only truths (exclusivist approach) to acknowledging that “the great world religions with their diverse teachings and practices constitute authentic paths to the supreme Good.”3 To be “on the move” then could refer in a sense to a concept of living together in complex societies with a multitude of cultural expressions and religious beliefs. A concept that allows us to be attentive to insights and ideas emerging in many locations and that preserves a certain fluidity and openness to different ways of life and different approaches to problem solving. This works on the assumption that cooperation, respect, and acceptance of the different religious perspectives can produce results that draw all into the process of building life together within a culture of justice and peace. In the educational process of EPIL, being on the move has been the most decisive factor. EPIL came into existence in 2000. At a historical moment when Islam in general was judged by the deeds of a few terrorists, we wanted to contribute to an alternative discourse. Exploring the history of relationships between the two religions, Christianity and Islam, helped to harness their peace potential and guided the process of finding out how to live this in our everyday lives as women in different countries and contexts of Europe. We wanted to create a frame in which students could have a positive experience of the “other”: the other person, the other culture, the other religion. To that end, we invented the “Roaming College.” Our exploration should not happen in one fixed place, but on the move, going from place to place, confronting the problems where they are, where people are working on solutions, and where sometimes a view from outside can be helpful and open up new perspectives and possibilities for peaceful living. We also want to experience the richness and diversity of different contexts and the cultural expressions of religions. Being on the move – not only metaphorically, but also physically – means to embody a process. EPIL students experienced this in a variety of ways. The learning process was structured around five cities in Europe and the Middle East, where modules took place and where the student groups and members of the accompanying academic team came from. This meant there was no central “classroom” – no centre dispensing knowledge and wisdom for the others. Instead there were a variety of real-life situations on the way that constituted the themes of our investigation and study. These situations were intimately linked to the lives of all participants. Students had to prepare for them and to reflect on them afterwards, both formally with their team members, but also informally among themselves. Lectures, workshops, and public events were structured around this pedagogical concept of developing the issues around live encounters with people involved in them. This helped to break down hierarchical relationships, as all became teachers and all students at different moments in the process. The concept was based on the assumptions that most tensions and frictions between people of different cultures/religions occur in everyday life and have to be resolved there, and that positive encounters, mutual knowledge and sharing happen locally where people live and work together. In each module the local student group, along with their team and organizers, acted as hosts, helping to create conditions for fruitful working together. In this way each local student group was host once in the process. Sometimes all had to assist, participating in washing up, preparing a meal, or doing other things of daily life. Friendships grew and small learning communities developed, which sometimes had their own conflicts but also their very special discoveries. “On the move” students also discovered in a very concrete way that there is a basic human solidarity transcending the boundaries of culture, religion, economic situation, language, age, and other factors that were the main markers of difference in the student body. An example from EPIL: During the module in Vienna (“Historic Memories and Present Day Realities”) we visited the neonatal department of the Vienna general hospital AKH, where the midwives have developed a transreligious ritual for the parents of stillborn babies. This effort of the midwives to help women and men grieving the loss of a premature child deeply moved the group, which stood in silence, some of them sobbing, all connected because of strong feelings of empathy, and in some cases personal experience. A similar moment, although in a totally different environment, occurred at the memorial site of Potocari near Srebrenica, BiH, where the remains of the victims of the genocidal massacre of July 11, 1995, are buried. The group of Dutch students and team had prepared a moving meditation4 and then invited all of us to put roses on the marble slabs carrying the names of men of all ages, even boys, who had lost their lives in a brutal act, only because they were Muslims. Our hearts went out to our hosts, the “Mothers of Srbrenica,” who had lost husbands, sons, fathers, and brothers but still affirmed that they did not want revenge – they wanted to be able to bury their dead in peace! The EPIL experience carried many such moments of life lived together. This reminded us of our common humanity, planted more deeply than our differences, as real and divisive as these may be. But it also made clear that being on the move compelled us to work for justice in relationships, beginning in our own learning community. Being on the move suggests dynamic energy. It involves our bodies and physical abilities, resilience, stamina, and care – but all in the spirit of non-violence. Because “we can only do so much,” it does not offer fixed solutions but flexible experiments with a goal that might become clearer as we move on. Justice and peace have proven to be scintillating concepts that only become clear in concrete contexts. Being on the move therefore means exploring context and abilities, conditions for justice and peace to flourish. One such condition is the need to overcome the history of silence around the “othering” of religions so as to discover alternative memories. Europe has a history of enmity with both Judaism and Islam. Traditionally this history has been told by those who succeeded in silencing the respective others. The story of Muslim and Jewish Spain was told by the protagonists of the expulsion of the Jews (under the reign of Fernando and Isabella) and the reconquista (the century-long struggle to re-Christianize Spain); the story of repulsing the Ottomans after the siege of Vienna (1683) became the grand posture of victory of Christian (Catholic) Europe that exploded in Baroque art and architecture. Both still influence present-day perspectives and power relations. What is needed therefore is a shift in historical perception: History needs to be reread and retold so as to regain the “forgotten knowledge” of certain groups and communities that have been silenced in the dominant religious /cultural discourse of Europe. As clearly articulated by one of the African proverbs capturing this reality of telling and writing of history from the exclusive perspective of the powerful: “Until lions have their own historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunter”5 An example from EPIL: During the EPIL pilot project (2002–2004) one module took place in Barcelona. It presented an alternative view of the historic period of Muslim Spain, today referred to as Al Andalus. But while the programme reflected the dedicated work of Spanish historians who have discovered for themselves a rich field of investigation in Al Andalus and are eager to show the Muslim elements in Spanish culture, there was no Muslim among them. It became obvious that, despite good intentions, the Spanish historians were repeating the same pattern of silencing the other and speaking on the others' behalf that they had intended to overcome. Being on the move toward “justice” means including the right of those silenced to speak for themselves, recuperating knowledge that has been forgotten and destroyed: for example, creating alternative narratives to the dominant discourse on conquista and reconquista that so far has been part of Spanish identity. Here, the issue of who speaks when and for whom is of paramount importance. We have to be aware that our dialogue is not happening in a power-free space: There is an asymmetry of power, especially in migration contexts. As the many discussions on integration demonstrate, usually the stronger group tends to co-opt the “other” into their own project of unity. Similarly, the art of listening and not immediately passing judgment or “explaining away otherness” has to be practised constantly. Only in this way can a more comprehensive reading of history and hence a clearer analysis of present-day power relations emerge in which all can find themselves sufficiently included. A new perception of history will also lead to a shift in self-perception. From viewing our own religion or culture as being in the centre and as providing the hermeneutical perspective, we will shift to acknowledging various “centres” in communication with each other and as equal. There will be a shift from superiority to equality; from concern about solving doctrinal problems and preserving religious purity to efforts to build peace and share life and spirituality. An example from EPIL: It was interesting to note that in the recurring debates on “identity,” religion proved to be the most resilient identity-shaping factor. Surprisingly, students were more ready to give up on other factors (notably work/workplace, geographical location) but not on religion. There may be various reasons for this. In increasingly unstable environments, religion was considered as not movable. This observation disturbed me as it assigns to religion (or at least to certain religious practices) a place similar to a nature reserve. Does religion become aligned with positive memories of a childhood-like feeling of trust and confidence? Or do growing demands on people to be flexible and mobile, lead to a longing to have a centre, something non-negotiable? Some clarification was offered when we did an exercise in plenary, designed to practise a change of perspectives. In this exercise (adapted from diversity management techniques) one group argues in favour of a given issue, one argues against, and one observes and afterwards offers a discourse analysis. Then the roles are changed. The debate was on a statement, “My religion is the best and this is good about my religion” / “My religion is not the best and this is bad about my religion.” After a certain time, the observers noticed that Christian and Muslim students were arguing from rather different perspectives. Muslims spoke from within their religious practice. They were able to say all the good things about their religion but had trouble mentioning something bad. With the Christians (especially the Protestant Christians) exactly the opposite was true. They found a lot of bad things to say, but could only speak ironically about the good things. When we tried to find a reason for this, it turned out that the colonial history of mission and the continuing power and practices of some churches had acted like a blockade in the minds of Christian students. They resorted to irony in order to distance themselves from this history. Reflecting on this experience, there may be yet another interpretation: While EPIL had succeeded in having almost 40 percent of Muslim participants, Muslim students were still in the minority, especially in the Western European partner cities. In such a situation there is usually a tendency to present a “positive” picture and to refrain from criticism. I have gained less information about another religion, in this case Islam, than I have learned from other people about their actual experience (or lack of experience) of religion. We have shared . . . how we actually experience our religion, found the words to communicate them and how we find our relationship with God as the deepest wellspring and challenge of our lives, or not.6 In order to understand more deeply the religiously other, empathetic intellectual approaches will not be sufficient. “Rather, it is being appropriated in practice . . . Understanding takes shape by way of practicing. The content of the exchange in this type of dialogue is not the interpretation of doctrines but a series of practices . . . one might say that the dialogue partners are learning to speak the words of the other as their own words.”7 An example from EPIL: In EPIL we were very much aware of the fact that inter-religious encounters that happen only at the discursive level would touch religious life neither deeply nor sustainably. We therefore made a daily morning meditation part of the curriculum. We consciously did not want to pre-structure these meditations into one or the other religious tradition; they were meant to be an open space, to be filled by the students themselves. There was only one rule to guide them: Radical respect of the other and a general prohibition to proselytize. Over the course of the years, about 75 morning meditations were celebrated. The pattern emerging was that women tried to identify similar concerns addressed in both religions (most importantly peace); that they looked to the “saints” of their traditions (most often remembered Mary/Maryam); and they tried to avoid potentially divisive issues and actions. The most difficult were those moments when women felt compelled to participate in something alien to them / to their spiritual life. The most moving were those that grew out of the life of the group itself. When one woman lost her husband, another woman, during the meditation, moved around the group, throwing small white feathers into the air that came floating down like words of comfort and consolation. There were also numerous experiences of shared life during the week-long modules. There was “spiritual hospitality,” with invitations to prayer, to share food cooked for religious feast days, etc. It was “practising the words of the other as their own words” and also testing the limitations of this approach. Staying connected emerged as the single most important shared value. It was in this context that it became important to affirm “dialogue”as staying related, and to affirm being on the move together with the goal of creating justice in relationships. A former WCC staff associate, Reinhild Traitler has focused for more than 30 years on education for peace-making, feminist theology, and interfaith education. Co-founder of the European Women's College and the European Project for Interreligious Learning (EPIL), she has served since 2003 as project coordinator at EPIL.

In most African nations, including South Africa, the history of religious education is closely linked to the nation’s experience of colonization and later racial segregation under apartheid. Christian religious education in particular came to be used as a proselytizing tool through the advocacy of early Christian missionaries. In addition to such proselytization, early Christian missionaries became very instrumental in the creation and perpetuation of secular polarized higher education curricula which continue to exhibit complete submission to Euro-centric thought. The purpose of this article was thus to draw a link between historical proselytization and contemporary religious polarization visible in the religious curricula of these institutions. Methodologically, this was demonstrated, first by looking at how the spread of Christianity suppressed, marginalized, and undermined native African religious education. Second, the history of Christian religious education was presented not only as an enrichment of the Christian proselytizing program but also as a missionary tool that consolidated the polarized education that continues to shape the curriculum design of higher education systems in the countries of southern Africa. Drawing largely from secondary sources, both in history and in religious studies, the article argued that in South Africa, religious education has been used to serve the colonial and oppressive apartheid systems. The main conclusion of this article is that many curricula in South Africa’s higher education systems still reflect or are characterized by a polarized type of Euro-centric education, which is a legacy of earlier Christian proselytization initiatives. Keywords: Religious Education, Colonization, European Missionaries, Christianity, Proselytization

God calls his ecclesial church to go out to proclaim his Gospel to all creation and baptise, teach, and make all nations his disciples. Local churches, particularly in Indonesia, commonly carry on the calling by using the so-called One Duty (the Missio Dei)-Three Tasks (koinonia, martyria, diakonia) tasks. Reality shows of not uncommon partial and unbalanced implementations of the three tasks, mostly heavy focused on koinonia but less in both martyria and diakonia. The study objective is to assess implementation of the church missions view of drawing general lessons for a more effective implementation. The study was conducted at a small-sized church congregation in an indigenous community in a remote rural local area, using a mixed literature review, field observation and interviews, and conceptual synthesis methodology. The key findings are that mission fields are diverse and wide and requires contextual missions, the diakonia task plays a pivotal role, and a small size of congregation is good for quality-oriented missions, the Strength Gift Based Community Development conducted in a holistic integrated transformational mission is an appropriate approach. The study contributes to interdisciplinary understanding and formulation of basic principles in doing integrated missions by local churches, particularly in rural areas with indigenous community, remote location, and poverty-stricken mission fields.