Seventeen theologians of the Lutheran and Reformed traditions met in Strasbourg, March 17-22, 1975, under the chairmen, Prof. Andreas Aarflot, Norway (Lutheran) and Dr Jacques Rossel, Switzerland (Reformed), of the freshly constituted Lutheran-Reformed Joint Committee appointed at the world level by the Lutheran World Federation and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. The following findings are now submitted to the Executive Committees of the LWF and Warc for consideration.

Theological implication of the Leuenberg Agreement

The Committee expresses its appreciation of the discussion so far. It welcomes Leuenberg's attempt to go back to the tap root of the two traditions and to face the divisive issues afresh within the dynamic biblical perspective in the changed ecumenical and social situation. It welcomes the agreement which opens the way to church fellowship in affirming that the present convergence of views concerning the separate Lutheran and Reformed confessions of faith is such that the mutual condemnations of the past contained in those confessions have become irrelevant and that the obstacles to church fellowship have consequently been removed.

Doctrinal differences have played and may still play a considerable role in Europe. Thus the effort to set up doctrinal conversations was of particular importance here and the methodology may perhaps be usefully employed in other areas as well. However, such methodology must not be imposed on churches in other cultures where certain confessional issues as in the European tradition are less relevant. Member churches in different areas should be encouraged to develop their own methodologies with the goals of closer fellowship and more effective common witness.

We appreciate the theological implications of the Leuenberg Agreement (LA), first because it has called our attention to the fundamental nature and function of the Reformation confessions. As part of the confessing church, we need them as a constant reminder in today's mission and ministry. The LA was the result of a process of distinguishing between the message of the living Word of God, Jesus Christ, to which those confessions bear witness, and the confessional writings in their historical setting. In this way, an understanding of the radical nature of the Reformation heritage was preserved. (LA, paragraph 5).

This point has a very pertinent application. We tend to absolutize our confessional positions to such an extent that we even blockade ourselves against God's saving act in Jesus Christ, thus, on the one hand, we believe we are committed to proclaiming a liberating gospel and, on the other, we are constantly tempted to become isolated and enslaved to a system of words in one or other of the confessional writings. But the original intention of the confessions is contrary to such enslavement: confessional writings, that is, are not obligatory in a legalistic sense. Rather, they interact with the proclamation of the Gospel and the challenge to serve our fellowmen in the present and form an "occasion" for our ever new "confessing" of the Gospel (confessio in actu) in the world.

It was clear, however, that regarding confessions this way raises the problem of confessional identity. It is quite understandable that some churches might want to gain a clearer sense of their own identity before assenting to the LA and that they might also feel that such an assent would threaten an identity based on an allegiance to one or other of the confessions.

The position could be so characterised. In Christian faith, we continually experience the tension between "the way of flexibility" and "the way of continuity." The former stresses the adaptability of faith as it experiments in all areas of life - social, political, theological, etc. The latter stresses the view that all major doctrinal decisions - with their implications in ethics, church order, etc. have already been settled in a normative period (or periods) of history and are now transmitted and applied. The way of flexibility finds its identity in openness and freedom; therefore it tends to regard continuity as fixing identity in terms of the past. The way of continuity finds its identity as already given and awaiting contemporary discovery and obedient application; it tends to regard flexibility as adaptation to the present world and its values.

It is suggested that identity needs both to rely on its past and to be sensitive to the present. Yet it also needs the invitation of the future. What we hope for in our present mutual fellowship and service directs our attention to illuminatory elements in our past. And these elements, in turn, enlarge our understanding of the present and provide promises on which our hopes may rest. Confessional identity would be, then, not an absolute, nor something that determines the present from the past. Rather it is one element in a dynamic process. It is the element of reminder and illumination which converges with the elements of the insistent invitation of our hopes and ethical and theological sensitivity to the present. These three elements together combine in our responding to the gracious activity of God.

There are important theological implications arising out the LA (e.g. paragraph 5 and paragraph 39). The present world-wide ecumenical encounters and secular challenges make it clear that the fundamental theological questions relate to the nature of the Gospel, the nature of the Church and the unity of proclamation and service. We suggest that these issues be discussed not only with reference to the confessions of the past, but also with reference to such ecumenical discussions as have taken place for instance in Utrecht (Committed to Fellowship) Bangkok (Salvation Today) and Lausanne (Evangelism). This requires us to broaden our concern in two directions: geographically, from Leuenberg to six continents, theologically, from inter-church agreement to the effective expression of Christian faith in the world.

A universal and conciliar fellowship

The Joint Lutheran-Reformed Committee at its meeting in Geneva in 1971 discussed the question of a universal council. At its meeting from March 17-22, 1975, in Strasbourg, it dealt again with this theme in an intensive discussion.

By way of introduction, Dr G. Müller-Fahrenholz of the Secretariat for Faith and Order reported on the progress of the discussion since 1971. He referred especially to the document which the Commission on Faith and Order produced at its meeting in Accra in 1974, with the title "The Unity of the Church - The Goal and the Way." Dr Harding Meyer commented upon the statement prepared by the Institute for Ecumenical Research in Strasbourg in 1972 and presented under the title "A Universal Council." The report of the Lutheran-Reformed Joint Committee 1971 on "A Universal Council" was also made available.

It was stated in our consideration that the idea of a "universal council" is at present variously estimated, and, given the contemporary ecumenical situation, can scarcely be implemented, but nevertheless represents a hope towards which we should think and aim.

We tried to relate the thought of conciliar fellowship to the last two assemblies of the World Council of Churches. Whereas in 1961 the ecumenical relevance of the local level was emphasized, and at Uppsala in 1968 the accent was upon the world-wide dimensions of ecumenical involvement, we now understand conciliarity as the attempt to relate the world-wide and local levels to each other in creative tension. Conciliarity can only assist in helping to better understand universality, that is, not merely as the dynamic which breaks through national, ethnic or racial barriers, but also as the impetus which helps us to overcome barriers and boundaries at all levels of the life of the church. We emphasize then that conciliarity must take effect at all levels.

In the light of the conciliar process, we learn to understand differently our identity (ethnically, racially, personally, but also confessionally). In the encounter with our fellowmen of a different descent and character we discover that the identity which has accrued to us out of our specific historical heritage is called in question but it is also enriched and deepened. Therefore we believe that our true identity is disclosed and promised in the faith in the triune God.

We are convinced that conciliar fellowship obliges us to seek out the truth of faith. In this, we are fully aware of the fact that this question of truth is not just a matter of right doctrine but just as much the problematic of right acting. At the same time the search for truth is bound up with the responsibility for fellowship among the churches which locally or regionally are our neighbours.

This means that we understand conciliar fellowship as a process of common struggle. Whoever agrees to a conciliar and mutual undertaking must reject non-committal ecumenism which obliges us to nothing.

We underline that in our churches we need education towards conciliar fellowship. That means that we need time in order to work through the consequences, which have been placed upon us, and to anchor them in the life of our congregations.

If we want to deal seriously with the fact that conciliar fellowship must prove itself at both the local and regional levels, then it cannot be our task to prescribe the content of the primary issues. In accordance with the diversity of regional situations the thematic priorities will necessarily change. Nevertheless there are certain issues which condition the process of conciliar fellowship, wherever it is taking place in the world. We are referring to the missionary dimension of our existence in the world which is our commission in spite of and because of the Church's becoming a minority on all continents. We are referring too to the growing interdependence of humanity and the mutual inter-relationships of our life. This means that no problem can be dealt with in isolation but in responsibility to our neighbours, and not merely to our neighbours at the local or regional level, not just to the neighbours who live simultaneously with us on other continents, but also those neighbours who are not yet born. For the universal character of conciliar fellowship is not just spatial but also takes on temporal dimensions.

Area reports

In response to its mandate, the Joint Committee received a series of reports on the present relationship of Lutheran and Reformed churches in various regions of Asia, Africa, Australia, North America and Europe. The overall impression gained from these reports was of a wide diversity of situations reflecting the differences of environmental, cultural and historical settings that characterize the members of the world-wide community of the Reformation, but also of surprising analogies and similarities crossing regional, confessional and other boundaries. From this wealth of detail, we present the following analysis, and offer three recommendations.

Where we now stand: The broad spectrum within the LWF and Warc on the subject of Lutheran-Reformed fellowship shows itself in our observations that, from region to region, enthusiasm for this objective varies widely, that several roads are being followed in its pursuit, and that progress on these routes varies considerably.

Within Europe subscription to the LA has meant for some, as in France, formal recognition of an existent fellowship of altar and pulpit, while for others this represents a new venture.

In Japan, the past to the present de facto state of fellowship has been through a common witness in mission and service, without formal theological accords. In Madagascar, a supra-denominational council brings groups into close working relationship, a cooperation in mission, if not full fellowship. The churches of Indonesia, which have committed themselves to the eventual establishment of one Christian church, are on the road of growing together in unity, through an encouraging degree of cooperation in mission, service and development.

In contrast, the Canadian and American churches have taken a two-fold approach: on the one hand selective worship service and mission endeavours through national and local organisms, and on the other hand theological dialogue, progress in the latter area being hampered by disunity within each confessional family.

Issues confronting us: In analysing the active elements in these diverse situation, we are impressed by the predominance of other than traditionally theological factors. Within the churches, the loss of an institutional and historical and cultural identity is feared as the rise of inter-confessional fellowship. Implementation of agreements reached on theological grounds is hampered by juridical problems imposed by long-standing ties with the State, as in Scandinavia, or within the Church itself, as in Scotland. Many regions of Asia, Africa and Latin American continue to feel the divisive force of past comity agreements between mission societies of differing background and outlook, a situation accentuated where there is financial dependency. Nevertheless despite the power of these factors, we were impressed by the willingness and creative ability of some churches to seek together a new identity in Christ. But the most pressing elements are those of the contemporary environment. The wave of social, economic and political upheaval sweeping our world is affecting our churches both positively and negatively. Nationalism calls into question earlier denominational patterns set along tribal and ethnic boundaries, as for example, in Indonesia and Canada.

Everywhere the attraction of strong faiths is felt - whether of rejuvenated tribal religion, of a newly confident Islam, or of materialistic ideologies - our churches of different traditions feel the pressure to unite for strength of witness as well as mission. In the presence of broad issues that torment whole societies, human solidarity experienced in the common struggle challenges the rigidity of confessional boundaries.

On the other hand, the failure of the churches to react positively and effectively to, or even their implication in, social evils like racist apartheid in South Africa is widening disastrously and quickly the already tragic gulf between fellow Christians, and even between bodies within the same confessional family. And the surge of chauvinistic nationalism and tribalism, the fears awakened among many who sense the shaking of the foundations, are encouraging a retreat behind the barriers that separate us still.

Perspectives before us - In such a world, it is clear that no pattern will fit all situations. The Committee reports with profound gratefulness the accomplishments in the wake of the LA within the European community. At the same time we underline the problems now facing these churches committed to fellowship - indifference at the grass-roots, the danger of a false sense of security in accomplishment, the necessity of proceeding onwards in the resolution of the many problems still evident.

Rejoicing in the numerous positive developments reported in other regions, we sense the urgent need for the undertaking of a process of theological reflection within the concrete environment of each regional community. In Asia, Africa and Latin America there is an impelling need for the development of an indigenous theological thought which expresses itself in a language appropriate to the communication of the Gospel in their time and place.

In every case we see the urgent necessity of reuniting within our Reformation churches proclamation of the Gospel and service closer together in the fellowship given by the Spirit. Only in this way shall we respond adequately to the enormous challenges of the day that are slipping from us.

Recommendations to the LWF and Warc

In the light of our overall work and in keeping with our mandate we make the following recommendations to the LWF and Warc:

That the LWF and Warc encourage the further pursuit of paths towards full fellowship suited to each particular situation.
- study the role of the two families in the life of the Third World churches;
- explore the theological, ecclesiastical common ground (context and method) for church fellowship
  - Asia, Africa setting
  - joint theological study projects;
- explore structural ramifications of "Perspectives before us";
- establish common LWF/Warc case study/reports, e.g. Indonesia, Madagascar, Namibia, Brazil, etc.
That the LWF and Warc express willingness to be officially involved together in local processes of stimulating theological reflection within the churches of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
That the LWF and Warc actualize past cooperation commitments.