CONFESSIONAL LOYALTY AND ECUMENICITY

CONFESSIONAL LOYALTY AND ECUMENICITY

VILMOS VAJTA

It is appropriate to begin by calling attention to some of the actual problems involved in the relation of confessional loyalty and ecumenicity . In our day, there are three circumstances which force to reconsider this problem.

1. To begin with that which is of most recent interest, I would like to point to several questions which came to the fore at the New Delhi Assembly of the World Council of Churches, and at other conferences held in connection with it.

It has been known for a long time that the so-called younger churches view with some doubt the confessional cleavage which has been imposed upon them through the work of missions. This has been felt to be a burden hindering the progress of missions. Therefore, the motivation in the quest for unity has not only been “that they may all be one,” but also “that the world may believe” (John 17. 21).

The question of confessional development was also taken up in debate at a meeting of the East Asia Christian Conference in Bangalore in November 1961. Even if there was a certain acknowledgement that the historic Christian confessions also belong to the heritage of the Asiatic Churches, nevertheless, a number of sharply critical questions were addressed to the so-called confessional world organizations in the final report. It was said, among other things in the report, that, “The pecu- liarity of the younger churches is that while they have a confessional origin, they do not have a confessional history of their own. Their history is one with the history of their fellow churches in the lands in which they are situated.” And further on : “World Confessional ties may be vitally useful to enable a church to serve without allowing the demands of a nation to dominate its life.” Furthermore, the report continued with critical questions which bore the title, “Fear and Anxiety.” “At the same time, the very vitality of these confessional loyalties often create serious obstacles in the life of the younger churches. However good the intention, it seems that the expression of world confessionalism

CONFESSIONAL LOYALTY AND ECUMENICITY 27

in increasingly complex institutional structures results in the perpetua- tion and reinforcement of patterns of paternalism and continued exercise of control.” Attention was brought to three concrete phenomena (1) to the human problems in Asia and Africa which, some feel, must be attacked locally and not globally, (2) to the rivalry among the different forms of Christianity, and finally (3) to the mission consciousness of the younger churches which, some feel, lacks confessional perspective.

These critical tones then, were echoed in speeches at the New Delhi meeting. Even the much noted report from the section which worked with the question of unity, took up the problem. Here however, the contribution which the different confessional traditions could make to the ecumenical movement and to unity was considered more positively.

2. The question of confessional loyalty and ecumenicity is of current interest also from the point of view of contemporary theological debate. Though attempts are made in our day to carry on theological work without respect to confessional barriers, it is important to note that the results of theological research pose questions for the confessional situation, such as it is in our day.

On the one hand, we have the conversation with Roman Catholic theology. It is possible to point to the evangelical renewal which has taken place there, especially as a result of intensified biblical research. This has also received support from liturgical studies, and not the least from the endeavours for liturgical renewal. Even in the history of dogma, one can note a certain re-evaluation. The reformation is put in relationship to developments in the late middle ages. It is considered to have been under the influence of nominalism. While nominalism is criticized it is admitted that there were certain correctives in the reformation’s reaction, though even this is judged to have been one-sided. The point in the present evaluation is often this : the corrective of the reformation’s intentions could have stayed within the all embracing Roman Church’s framework. Even the reformation’s central teaching about justification by faith could be tolerated in the event that it be “comple- mented” with the fullness of Roman Catholic theology. Certainly, this opens new perspectives, just at that point where western Christianity is most sorely wounded.

On the other hand, we have the debate which is taking place within Protestant theology today. The thesis that the difference between Lutheran and Reformed theology is only a matter of theological schools is not entirely new, but it appears to lie behind many urgent exhortations

28 THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

to renewed questioning of the split which took place within the churches of the reformation. Is the cleavage between the Lutheran and Reformed confessions valid even today ? Has Reformed theology changed since the reformation ? Or has Lutheran theology ? With regard to the points of controversy, have not at least new ways been opened for understand- ing? Here once again it is the question of Holy Communion which is taken up for debate. The famous Arnoldshain theses, as well as similar documents in Holland and France, have given new hope for ecumenical efforts which do not imply disloyalty to the confessions. One frequently goes on the assumption that differences are no longer between confessionally separate churches, but rather within and through them. Theolo- gians on both sides discover an affinity of theological viewpoints, and want to blaze a new path to unity. Is it true that one stands in the way of a promising ecumenicity if one here raises critical questions based on arguments from confessional loyalty ?

3. Finally, the question of confessional loyalty has also gained ground in the debate around the folk church idea. Here also the terri- torial principle is closely associated. It is not only a question of being born into the Church as a birthright, as the case may be in Sweden. Similar problems were raised by the large population movement which took place in Germany after the war years. Many who had lived within the boundaries of a so-called Union Church, suddenly were regarded as members of the Lutheran Church simply because they had moved. The opposite also happened. A type of “gentlemen’s agreement” has brought about the arrangement that no Lutheran Church can be established within the area of a Union Church (and vice versa). This implies in practice limited church fellowship and intercommunion which nevertheless is not clarified by the parties concerned.

The situation becomes still more complicated if one recalls the almost boundless tolerance which exists in certain churches with respect to public preaching. Here both the Nordic Churches and even the Anglican Church with its “comprehensivenessy’ could furnish numerous examples. Does this tolerance which is practiced within the ranks imply an openness to everything, and does it furnish for all a guide even for the ecumenical situation ? There are not a few who would argue so. But there are also many strong voices which are raised against the attempt to make a sign of deterioration - for thus is the folk church which has lost its confessional character judged - a pattern for the manifestation of the church’s unity.


It appears that one has come to an unfortunate alternative between opening avenues that the gospel may reach out to all men, and the gospel which demands life in discipleship obedience of faith. Has the church opened the floodgates for cheap grace, for the broad way instead of costly grace and the narrow way? These questions have a direct bearing on the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. Here the Lutheran Church’s confessions have not only pointed to a functional concept of the church (to preach and to administer the sacraments) but also in an important way focused debate on the struggle in which the church finds herself for the pure preaching of the Gospel and the right administration of the sacraments (i.e. pure doce- tur . . . recte administranfur). Does confessional loyalty necessarily imply a break with the folk church idea?

1. The problems of confessional loyalty

In ecumenical circles the Lutheran Church is often considered to be the most confessionally bound, and therefore most obliged to act in terms of confessional loyalty. Is it right to place the Lutheran Church in this special position with regard to its confessions ? Perhaps it is meant that the Lutheran Church as a branch of “Protestantism” ought to be willing to engage itself in the ecumenical debate with greater freedom. Certainly it is known that both the Orthodox, the Old Catholic, and even the Anglican Churches act from a carefully fixed loyalty to their standards of faith which in essence correspond to the confessions. But while these churches are allowed to be themselves, questions are often raised with regard to the “confessional” Lutherans. These different attitudes cannot in the long run stand side by side. A clarification on point of principle must therefore take place.

I would like to submit the thesis that every church is characterized by a loyalty to its “confession,” namely, to a confession which forms its appearance to the world, a confession which is its unifying principle, a confession which may be written, orally preserved, or ritually mediated. For every church confesses Christ in its preaching and in the way it administers the sacraments, and by the way in which it discharges its holy call to be the servant of Christ in the world. Every church’s “confession” can be observed in that moment when it begins to function and practice its ministry. But that which interests us most in this instance, is that this “confession,” of whatever type it may be (dogmatic, keryg- matic, ritualistic, or activistic) becomes apparent with special clarity in


that instance in which a church engages in a unity conversation with other churches. Then that point emerges upon which she will not compromise. Then everything else which is not essential to her confession can be easily pared away. She will in an eventual church union give up much that she does not consider essential. But that which she is unwilling to give up to the very last, even to the last judgement (for confessions are made with judgement day in view), that is her “confession.”

This phenomenon I would like to denote as a church‘s confessionality. The gospel of Christ, when it reaches out into the world through the proclamation of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments, is imbedded in the church‘s confession. The church is confessional from its very beginning and to deny this implies a denial of the elementary conditions under which she exists in the world.

But the church’s confession can be formed in many different ways. There can be differences of confession which do not destroy her oneness in Christ. Nonetheless, the church can also express its confession in setting the limits in order to be loyal to the confession she is called upon to preserve.

Hence, in divided Christianity, there is no church without its own confessionality . For even the church which perhaps most repudiates all given historical confessions and hence wants to consider itself as non- confessional, sets its confession as a negation and betrays by this attitude the impossibility of escaping from confessionality. The discussion in the churches’ ecumenical conversation therefore, should hardly be carried on by contrasting “confessional” with “non-confessional” or “confessional” with ‘‘ecumenical.” Instead the problem is rather to find wherein the true confessional element lies, that element given by the Lord for the unification of the church.

But as soon as the inter-confessional debate is directed to this question, one must also admit that the danger for ecumenicity does not rest in the fact that a church is loyal to her confession as it has been formed in history. “Confessionalism” is by no means a ghost which above all must be feared in a church which possesses historical confessions. It can also be found in a church which renounces all confessional writings, and instead exclusively holds to “the Bible” or to a certain concept of the ministry. It is therefore essential to make a distinction between “confessionality” and “confessionalism,” the latter being a legalistic expression of the church‘s confessionality. To unmask the danger of


confessionalism in all attitudes of legalism, belongs to the clarification of elementary theology.

Assuming that every church has its ConfessioAality and that every type of confessionality can in itself run the risk of confessionalism, then it may be asked, what are the criteria for the church‘s expression of a true confessionality ?

First, it must be said that no human guarantees for such can be furnished. The church formulates its confession in an encounter with Christ, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in prayer, hoping that her confession will be such as the Lord expects of her. Even if she cannot live with guarantees, nevertheless, the church has always striven for one thing, and the Lutheran churches are by no means an exception, namely, that her confessions agree with the confession of the Holy Christian Church from its very beginning. In other words, her confession must be in agreement with the apostolic faith, testified to by the Holy Scriptures as it has been proclaimed and has been confessed through all time in a true line of continuity to our day. Hence she has striven that her loyalty be directed to a confession which has an ecumenical dimension.

Consequently, when we consider the problem of confessional loyalty we also meet ecumenicity as its essential component. Instead of setting up a contrast between confessional loyalty and ecumenicity , I want to point out their inner connection and relationship. Hence the problem in the church in view of her unity is to find this ecumenical dimension. It is a tragedy if she instead ignores the ecumenical dimension, and without the background of the apostolic faith establishes a sectarian or schismatic confessionality.

2. The problem of ecumenicity

When the word “ecumenical” is used in our day, one immediately thinks of the so-called “ecumenical movement” which arose about the time of the first world war. Yet the word “ecumenical” has a much richer history than that l . Therefore, it is risky if the word only describes the meeting between the Christian churches, or, as it often happens in our day, the organization (the World Council of Churches) within whose framework the meeting takes place. One must here insist that

See W. A. VISSER ’T HOOFT, on the word “ecumenical” - its history and use (in : A History of the Ecumenical Movement, ed. by R. Rouse and S. Ch. Neill, London, 1954) and E. KINDER, “Der Gebrauch des Wortes akumenisch im Silteren Luthertum” (in : Kerygma und Dogma, 1955).


this organization (even after its integration with the International Mis- sionary Council) does not include all forces which in our day are working in the service of ecuaenicity. It took a long time, unfortunately, before the attempts to work together on the mission field were considered ecumenical. Perhaps it will take a long time before the ecumenical significance of the co-operative efforts of the Orthodox Churches, or the Lambeth Conference, or the Lutheran World Federation is given ecumenical dignity. This last is a step which, in my opinion, more deserves to be called ecumenical than all those attempts which simply bring together representatives from different denominations. There is, in other words, much in our day which goes under the cloak of ecumenicity which is interdenominational but thereby hardly ecumenical.

Modern ecumenicity has often attempted to put all churches in conversation with one another without regard to anything else than that which is expressed in the World Council of Churches’ first basis, namely, to “accept our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour.” Certainly this was a minimum basis upon which to determine what the Church of Christ is, and it was sufficient at least as long as Unitarians, for example, could not be considered part of this Church.

As recently as 1950 a meeting of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches in Toronto revised the ecclesiological declaration concerning the nature of the World Council of Churches. Here the ecclesiological neutrality within the World Council of Churches was formulated and full freedom was promised to all ecclesiological positions to be heard and respected. In spite of all attempts to observe this in the work of the World Council of Churches, its general secretary, Dr. Visser ’t Hooft, was forced to state that the World Council of Churches through its responsible organs has on different occasion taken an ecclesiological position l. Common statements were made which no longer were neutral, that is to say, no longer consistent with all points of view represented within the World Council of Churches.

Two debates came up within the World Council of Churches, which were each in its own way further evidence of this. One was about the new basis of the World Council, and the other about the future of the Faith and Order movement. The question which here interests us most is that in both cases certain concrete formulations have been proposed

VISSER ’T HOOFT, “Various Meanings of Unity and the Unity which the World Council of Churches Seeks to Promote,” in : Ecumenical Review, 1955.


which point to a more decidedly content-filled loyalty to the truly ecumenical, that is to say, to that which throughout all times has been the valid confession of the church. The new basis now points with clear words to the source of the apostolic faith in the Holy Scriptures, and to the confession of the Holy and Triune God. The ancient church’s dogma of the Trinity has received mention as the guiding principle for the exposition of the Holy Scripture. This trend must from the viewpoint of Lutheran theology be greeted with the utmost satisfaction. One can also ask if this positive trend within ecumenicity has contributed to the fact that the Orthodox Church suddenly promised its full co-operation and positive contribution.

The other debate concerns the report of the section “Unity” and its suggestion concerning the oneness of the Church. This question was in preparation for several years. The final formulation in paragraph 2 is to a great degree based on the report which had already been approved the year before by the Central Committee at St. Andrews. It now reads : “(2) The unity which is both God’s will and his gift to His Church is made visible as all in each place who are baptized into Christ and confess Him as Lord and Saviour, are brought by the Holy Spirit into a fully committed fellowship, holding the one apostolic faith, preaching the one Gospel, breaking the one bread, joining in common prayer, and having a corporate life reaching out in witness and service to all ; and at the same time united with the whole Christian fellowship in all places and all ages in such wise that ministry and members are accepted by all, and that all can act and speak together as occasion requires for the tasks to which God calls His people. It is for such unity that we believe we must pray and work.”

We assert that even here place has been left for the Christian confession according to the apostolic faith which together with the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, prayer and the common life in witness and service, marks out the “fully binding fellowship’’ in which the Church of Christ stands here on earth. Even here one comes to a more confessionally oriented position which received the sanction of the whole section. Ecumenicity has perhaps embarked upon a way which was acknowledged as the intention of Faith and Order from the very beginning, but which was hindered by the confrontation

The New Delhi Report. The Third Assembly of the World Council of Churches, 1961, London, 1962, p. 116.

3


of the most diverse traditions of the churches, not the least by an anticonfessional confessionality . This way leads toward a clearer confession of the faith of the ancient church as it has been formulated in the ecumenical creeds.

Are we on the way to an ecumenicity with confessional loyalty? I would like to refer to a point in which such confessional ecumenicity is of burning actuality. Earlier I said that the young churches often raise critical voices against the confessional and look upon it as a burden in their striving for unity, especially of significance in a non-Christian environment. They react against historical confessions because they feel that these have come about within thought patterns other than their own. They face the task of formulating their own confessions with their own thought patterns. But the danger crouching at the door which is even observed in the younger churches themselves, is the risk of syncretism. The question was touched upon in many speeches in New Delhi and has for many years been on the agenda for nearly all conversations with representatives of the younger churches. An amorphous or let us say frankly, a non-confessional ecumenicity which would view the confessions of the Christian Church through all time with a complete neutrality would here do more harm than good.

The defence within the ancient church against all syncretistic ten- dencies and deviations from the apostolic faith was the ecumenical fellowship, in which fellowship confession of the apostolic faith was at the core. This historical lesson can even today point out the way. There- fore, it is a misconception to spurn the “western” confessions as irrelevant for the younger churches. Certainly there must be the possibility of confessing the apostolic faith in other thought-forms than those affirma- tions of the western confessions. Western Christians have shown an increasing willingness to accept this truth. Once they have done so, the question can be turned to Christians in Asia and Africa, asking them to accept the fact that the same faith of the Church which they now express in new forms has also been confessed in Western thought-forms. If they accept this, there is really no reason for objection to a confession made in other thought-forms than one is used to, and the ecumenical fellowship may find its expression precisely in the fact that the same faith is acknowledged in confessions which employ different thought-forms .

It was a long process to find western thought forms to express the Christian faith. Nevertheless, it occurred within the fellowship of churches


which had its expression in the ecumenical councils. It did not take place without bitter strife and mutual excommunications. But the Church conquered both gnosticism and arianism as well as false Judaistic doctrines. It is probable that the younger churches cannot find their thought forms at a cheaper price. For lack of ecumenical councils we can further invite them to a seeking ecumenical fellowship where the basic elements of the apostolic faith are unanimously confessed.

3. The question of the manifestation of oneness

Recently there have been more and more voices raised urging that the ecumenical movement should not only carry on discussions about unity, but also actively engage itself in the organic union of churches. Unity must be a manifested unity. But it is a question as to how this unity should be manifested. If one succeeds in quieting those who feel that a unity is sufficient which is an inner unity in faith without external manifestations, one is still far from reaching a solution as to what form the manifested unity should take. When during the course of this debate, the term “churchly unity” was introduced, there were opinions very dissimilar as to what should be included in the term. Finally the term disappeared, but its intentions are still held in the Unity Section’s report paragraph 2 which has been cited above. If we have expressed satisfaction with the trend that this decision implies then we must also note its shortcomings. It remains a formality which certainly mentions the elements which are necessary for the truly ecumenical oneness of the Church, but then stops short without approaching a substantial decision as to what is meant by the apostolic faith, the one gospel, etc. Instead it would appear that the emphasis is placed on another point, namely, on manifesting oneness “in all places .” In paragraph 7 this is interpreted as meaning geographical places as well as fields or spheres of work. Even the greater unity outside the geographical congregation is men- tioned. The weight which this emphasis carried for the authors of the report is reflected also in paragraph 41 where there are references with regard to the roll of the confessional organizations: “Probably the critical question is whether or not the leaders of confessional bodies agree with the emphasis we have already made upon the priority of unity of all Christians in each place, which must, of course, always seek to be a ‘unity in truth’.”

Zbid., p. 133.


But how is it possible to manifest the oneness in a place as long as there are different opinions as to wherein the manifestation of oneness consists ? One cannot, in other words, plead for a local unity in and for itself as long as the premise, “unity in truth,” has not been explained. Or is it felt that the visible manifestation of unity in church-unions is per se more important than the question whether real unity exists in the common profession of the apostolic faith, the preaching of the gospel, and the administration of the sacraments? Is it really meant that a functional unity is enough so that the world will believe ? Here questions must be asked, which, even if they appear to delay or put off a manifestation of unity, are in themselves put in the service of a true unity which is not content with an illusive fiction.

The younger churches serve on continents where new nations and states have emerged and for whom winning national unity means the fulfillment of a long struggle. That one should in this milieu be tempted to create “national churches” in which one can consider oneself to be truly an “African” or “Indian” Christian is quite natural. But is not the primary task of the ecumenical fellowship to help and to admonish these churches so that their unity is not only a creation of nationalism, but a true manifestation of Christian unity? If such true manifestation of the unity is possible, it is the elementary duty of the confessional families to leave the way of union open for sister churches. If the premises are not acceptable as basis for church union, then the demand is caution against such a manifestation of a fiction. What would it mean for the oneness of the world’s churches if every larger or smaller unity were created without regard to the world-wide or ecumenical fellowship ? Would not this only bring about innumerable geographical spheres of influence and thereby a diversity of confessionality ? Certainly then unity would be manifested visibly in every place but where would ecumenicity have gone ? Where would that ecumenicity be whose inner content is that the Church in the whole world has a fellowship which transcends the limits of nationality, race, and language? Finally, the answer to this question will decide whether or not ecumenicity will deny itself and become a confessionless amalgamation of geographical or national churches, or whether it will work for true ecumenicity and unity of the church in the apostolic faith. The fathers at New Delhi were probably right when they said that we here stand before the decisive question. I suspect, however, that the solution they visualised has not taken the above critical question seriously enough into account. The passing


reference that the geographical unity “must, of course, always seek to be a ‘unity of truth’ ” is unfortunately too accidental, though it indicates the whole problem and would be worthwhile to be elaborated.

First it must bz affirmed that Christians in every place should manifest their unity in the one Holy and Apostolic Church. But such a manifestation must not only consist of good will or fear of disgrace bzfore the unbelieving world. Unity itself must exist, otherwise it cannot bz manifested. What will happen if in spite of all honesty and good will, in spite of a “functional” unity, a true unity of the gospel is still lacking ? Should a church choose its loyalty according to its geographical location, or according to its confessional place ? Certainly a confessional family ought to be so concerned about the church’s true unity that if one of her sister churches, with judgement day in view, is convinced that she has a confessional affinity with other churches in the same place, that world wide family ought to give its blessing to its sister’s union with the others. But if she should discover that this sister church will be weakened in the confession of the apostolic faith, through accepting the invitation of other local churches, then is it not the obligation of the family to advise her to remain apart from the planned union, to warn her, and even to break off fellowship with her ?

* * *

I suppose that we in the ecumenical debate are faced with two basic questions. I shall only intimate them.

The first is of a theological nature. Hitherto the question of unity has so occupied the center of attention that it has been easy to forget that not every schism is unnecessary, sinful and evil. The penitential spirit surrounding the separation cannot hide this legitimate fact which emerges with the proclamation of the gospzl. But the most serious problem of the separation is that so seldom clear lines are drawn, but rather false doctrines emerge in the name of Christ and with the invocation of the apostolic faith. The schismatic part of the church continues to claim that it is the Church of Christ while it no longer is. The time must come - and come it shall when there is more clarity about the apostolic faith as the premise upon which true unity is won - when one will speak not only of “sinful separation” but also about necessary separation for the sake of the gospel.

The other question is of a more practical nature. The World Council of Churches has through its integration with the International Missionary


Council achieved a broad organization striving for an ecumenical unity. There will come as a result of this a more intensive exhortation to “manifest” the already existing “unity” among those churches which work together in the World Council. Pressure toward this end will no doubt be noted within the ecumenical movement in the near future as a result of the different negotiations being carried on toward church union. There will be a tendency to consider exclusively this progress as ecumenical. With a powerful organization’s support, the illusion can be created that everything which does not come within the framework of this type of ecumenicity shall of necessity be against ecumenicity . But in exactly such a situation the significance of the world confessional fellowships will increase for the sake of the ecumenical conversation itself. For the churchly unity which rebus sic stantibus is impossible to manifest between all churches in the World Council, has the possibility to be manifested within and among the churches in the same confessional family. Per- sonally, I should view it as great gain for the ecumenical debate if the ecumenical pattern which has been set by the confessional families should emerge with clearer contours in the future, partly to be corrected in the light of the Holy Scriptures and the apostolic confession, and partly to sharpen up the question of unity and give impetus to a necessary decision in favor of church-unions. As long as clear confessional lines may not or cannot emerge within the work of the World Council, then vigilance must come for the confessional families in order to preserve the principle of the apostolic faith as the content and given basis of true unity. But will they then be accepted as conversational partners in the ecumenical debate on unity? Will it be acknowledged that the pattern of ecumenical world fellowship for which they stand is at least a possibility to be discussed as an alternative to the geographical and national patterns of unity? Will ecumenicity dare to continue to find the unity of confessional loyalty or will it give in to a confessionless movement’s attraction and find itself in an anticonfessional confessionalism ? Will the confessional families be prepared to see the ecumenical dimension in the church’s confessionality as an obligation to search for ways in which to manifest in all places the unity which has promised to be manifested even if it should mean breaking out of the traditional patterns - ad maiorem Dei gloriam !

Documents

CONFESSIONAL LOYALTY AND ECUMENICITY