| The Orthodox delegates to the Sofia Consultation had suggested that "A reference to Baptism should be included in the basis of the Council or at least in the criteria for admission of new members" (cf. Morges Dossier). As a follow-up to this suggestion, Faith and Order was asked by the Executive Committee to compile a dossier of related materials, and to "test" the question with appropriate persons. Below is Faith and Order’s report on this process, compiled by William Lazareth. |
Introduction
The Faith and Order Secretariat was authorized to study the advisability of including a reference to baptism in the Basis of the WCC, as an initial response to one of the recommendations contained in the report of the WCC consultation with representatives of Eastern Orthodox churches held in Sofia, 23-31 May 1981.
First a dossier was compiled which included a dozen documents that dealt with the WCC Basis, its original adoption, interpretation and subsequent revisions, over the last four decades. This material, along with citations of the pertinent actions of the WCC Central and Executive Committees (1981, 1982), was sent out to sixteen experienced and prominent church leaders and theologians, for their comment and reactions. Two subsequent reminders were sent to each of these advisors.
As a result, a total of seven responses were received, two from the eight Orthodox and five from the eight non-Orthodox correspondents.1 The responses varied from two to forty pages in length; all represented careful judgments and some included extensive documentation. There was common recognition of the ecumenical importance of the issue raised as well as deep appreciation for the ecclesial fidelity which prompted its proposal.
Summary of Responses
In sum, all seven responses were opposed to any inclusion of baptism in the WCC basis at this time. Among the many significant issues raised, five were repeated by a number of the advisors and, with some illustrative citations, are deserving of special attention:
1. It would prejudge an ecumenical convergence on baptism in the midst of the recently-initiated reception process of the WCC convergence text on "Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry".
"The results of this study - and of whether the document , in its present or in an altered form, will be received by all - can be decisive in the question of whether a mention of baptism should be inserted in the Basis. Would it not be wise to postpone this last issue until the process of ‘reception’ of ‘Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry’ is completed?’’
"If the baptism qualification for membership were adopted, would not that constitute a prejudging of the ultimate ecclesiological outcome of the ecclesiological dialogue still in progress? It would certainly make ‘sacraments’ of the essence, by reinforcing the ‘eucharistic fellowship’ phrasing added at Nairobi."
"It would seem to me unwise to modify the Basis of the WCC before the replies of the churches to the Lima document have come in. Consequently, I suggest that the Orthodox proposal be not eliminated, but postponed until 1985-86."
2. The Basis is not meant to be a creed or confession of faith.
"When the Basis was expanded at the Third Assembly, considerable reservations were expressed about the proceeding, and the hope was frequently voiced that this would not be a prelude to other expansions which would tend to convert the Basis into a Confession. It is difficult, for example, to believe that one could include baptism in the Basis without proceeding to include also some reference to the eucharist."
"While it is clear (especially since 1961) that the Basis has a confessional character, there is - I believe - a clear logical distinction to be made between the Basis and a credal or confessional statement. It is possible to define an entity in either of two ways - by its centre or by its circumference. In the latter case one knows what is excluded, but one does not know what is the basic structure of the enclosed area. In the former case the limits are open, but the structure is clear. Applied to this case, I understand the Basis in its original and in its present form to be the identification of the centre in relation to which membership is defined; it leaves the circumference undefined. While it excludes those who decline to acknowledge Jesus as the decisive centre of all reality, it does not exclude any who do make that acknowledgement - however far from the centre they may seem to be. The present Basis leaves the member churches free to criticise one another as being (in some respect or other) far from the centre, but it does not draw a line which excludes those who make that acknowledgment."
"The Basis of membership, as has been said on many occasions, is not and was never intended to be a Creed or confession. It is an affirmation of faith, practice and resolve, mutually approved and agreed, on the basis of which the member bodies are able to carry out together the aims and objects of, the Council. It is for the member Churches themselves to define, in credal form or otherwise, what their doctrines and theological beliefs and practices shall be. The other member Churches may or way not agree with these definitions or indeed necessarily recognise other member Churches as Churches, in the full sense of that word. This is no hindrance to their thinking, praying, planning and working together if their membership and relationship with one another are expressed in terms of the existing Basis."
"The answer depends on our understanding of the function of the Basis. In 1954, at the Evanston Assembly, that function was clearly defined (Evans Report, p. 306). The Basis has three functions. It indicates the nature of the fellowship which the churches seek to establish in the Council. It provides the orientation point for the tasks which the WCC seeks to accomplish. It indicates the range of the fellowship formed by the WCC.
"The statement says that the World Council is not a new church and does not perform ecclesiastical functions. The Basis is therefore not to be considered as a creed or confession comparable to those in which the churches have expressed their faith during the course of history.
"Now, to add the reference to baptism to the Basis would seem to go beyond the limits just indicated. The Basis and the WCC would become more heavily ecclesiological. If this reference is added it becomes difficult to explain why other important elements of the Christian faith are not mentioned."
3. The World Council is not a church and should not begin to assume sacramental marks.
"All this and other similar factors indicate that a reference to Baptism in the Basis of the WCC could give rise to very serious problem, both foreseen and unforeseen. Among these is the whole understanding of the nature of the WCC: if one of the most central Sacraments is included into its Basis, this is likely to strengthen the tendency to see the WCC as a kind of "Superchurch", an attitude against which the Orthodox have every reason to work, as it is not acceptable in any sense. The WCC should be a fellowship of Churches, in as clear a way as possible, but it should not itself be understood as a Church.
"An Orthodox theologian cannot fail to see that the proposal carries major difficulties in terms of previous, clearly-stated Orthodox understandings of the nature of the WCC. The Orthodox have consistently refused to consider or define precisely the ‘ecclesial nature’ of the Council, and have insisted (cf. recently, the Sofia consultation) that, for them, the Toronto Declaration of 1950, allowing member-churches not to consider other member-churches as ‘churches’ in the full sense of the word, remains a basic presupposition of their own membership. Consequently, it would seem impossible for the Orthodox to demand that other member-churches accept the signs of authentic ‘ecclesiality’ as the Orthodox understand them."
All this has a bearing on what might be described as ‘the ecclesiology of the World Council of Churches’. I believe that any change of the kind now envisaged ‘would affect deeply, and adversely ‘the common ecclesiological understanding of the Council and lead to unfortunate and unnecessary division within our ranks. The Toronto Statement of 1950 gave clear indication of this in a number of its pronouncements. It pointed out, for example, that there is no intention to impose any particular pattern of thought or life upon the member Churches and that no Church need fear that by entering into the World Council it is in danger of denying its history. There has been much debate about the ecclesiological character of the Council and it has frequently been asserted that it is not itself "a Church far less a super-Church. The Council is a body which embraces Churches with many diverse ecclesiologies without committing itself to any one of them in particular.
I would submit that, to insert into the Basis a statement concerning baptism would appear, to some member Churches at least, a pre-judging of this ecclesiological problem and an assumption by the Council of a status or quality which is foreign to its nature. If the Council were a Church with a clearly defined ecclesiological status and identity, then such an insertion might be deemed to be defensible. But, whatever its precise ecclesiological character way be, it has from the beginning stressed that it is not a Church in any full sense of that word."
4. In considering the baptismal teaching of new applicants, WCC member churches would, in effect, be voting on "matters concerning ecclesiological self-understanding" and the validity of each others’ sacraments - in direct violation of another of the Sofia concerns registered by Eastern Orthodox members.
"But the matter has another aspect, too. If a statement concerning Baptism is added to the Basis, this creates - or at least it is likely to create a very difficult and complicated problem. What are the necessary theological, ecclesiological, ecclesiastical and external conditions acceptable to all and accepted by all? If a certain Church practises a form of Baptism or has a teaching on Baptism, which is not in harmony with the Orthodox tradition, e.g., is it then possible for us to accept such a body into the membership of the WCC? Such an acceptance would in any case probably be interpreted by many as a theological approval of the Baptism performed by the Church in question."
"Orthodox theology has been generally reluctant to speak of ‘recognition’ of sacraments in churches which are not in communion with the Orthodox Church. This reluctance does not imply, however, a denial that such sacraments are real - and, indeed, except in some extreme cases, Baptism performed in the Name of the Trinity, and ordinations enacted within a historical apostolic succession are not repeated if an individual joins the Orthodox Church - but it points to the abnormality of any schism and to the fact that all sacraments are always the sacraments of the One Church."
"This raises the question of the propriety of doing theology by majority vote (something Vatican II sought to avert by incorporating criticism into its revisions. This was so well done that, e.g. the Decree on Ecumenism was accepted with only eleven negative votes.) Is the Basis the proper place for theological decisions, other than the necessary delimitation represented by the Christological statement? Should not that be the only excluding emphasis in the Basis?
5. Such voting could require the retroactive exclusion of some present WCC member churches and would hardly affect any new applicants.
"Quite apart from this ecclesiological issue, I believe that the insertion Of reference to baptism would inevitably raise theological issues which would prove to be divisive. I do not suggest we should avoid such matters simply because they are divisive. I suggest, however, that this is the wrong context within which to raise them. It is inevitable that the insertion of such a reference will raise difficult questions concerning the nature, form and meaning of baptism and the acceptance or otherwise by the member Churches of different forms representing different theologies and different concepts of the Church. Whilst this would be fitting for a ‘Church’ body to require of its members, it is I believe quite unfitting for a body such as the World Council of Churches.
"This matter is of particular significance for Baptists with their practice of believer’s baptism, but even more so for Pentecostalists with their emphasis on ‘baptism in the Spirit’ and also, in quite another way, for such bodies as the Salvation Army and the Society of Friends who, presumably, would be unable to become members of the Council.
"The existing Basis assumes that what unites us is faith in Christ and the confession of him as God and Saviour according to the Scripture. This, I am sure, is a stronger basis for unity than is baptism which, in the present context, may not unite but divide.
I take the point that the suggestion now being made should apply to new members and not to existing members. This, I am afraid, would lead to a duality or even a dichotomy of membership which would weaken rather than strengthen the witness of the Council."
"In practical terms, an eventual insertion of Baptism into the Basis may require, on the part of the entire membership of the WCC, a basic common understanding of the nature of Baptism. This in turn would require - at least on the part of the Orthodox, but certainly others too - a thorough investigation as to the recognizability of the rite of Baptism as practiced by some churches within the WCC membership. It is not clear to me whether such a responsible investigation is practically possible. Furthermore, are the Orthodox ready to demand the exclusion from the Council membership of those churches which do not consider Baptism a condition of church membership (e.g., the Kimbanguists), or which will be eventually found lacking a recognizable Baptism?"
"A reference to baptism would seem to be out of place in this context. It would also be difficult to formulate such a requirement. Should also churches be excluded who, while proclaiming the necessity of baptism, admit unbaptised persons to Holy Communion?
"With regard to the question of de facto excluding some church bodies which have so far participated in the life of the WCC, it is likely that very many church-leaders who themselves believe in the central place of baptism would have strong objections against such a step. The record of the Quakers as faithful witnesses against war and as pioneers in charity is such that other churches cannot fail to feel grateful to them. I would add that there does not seem to be reasons to fear that the number of member churches in the WCC who do not practise baptism will grow, for there are not many such bodies in existence."
Notes