The Alliance has engaged in official bilateral dialogues with other confessional traditions at international level since 1973 and more extensively since the general council at Ottawa in 1982.

At present these conversations have been or are still being conducted with the following: Anglicans, Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Lutherans, Mennonites, Methodists, eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics; a survey is given in the report of the Theological Department to the general council. Some dialogues have already produced reports which have been submitted to member churches, while others are still in process. In one case (the dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church) a second round of meetings (1984-1988) has already been completed; in some other cases the question of initiating a second round is under discussion.

Up till 1973 the Alliance concentrated on encouraging ecumenical dialogue undertaken by member churches, and continues to do so. The decision to engage the Alliance in conversations with other churches and confessional families was taken because it had become apparent that dialogue on this level would be a valuable supplement and stimulus to ecumenical exchange, both for the Alliance and for its partners. The aim was to strengthen the theological and ecumenical work of the Alliance as a whole and to provide further input for that work at every level.

These dialogues may be broadly divided into two groups: those with churches which are relatively close to us historically because they too emerged directly or indirectly from the European Reformation of the 16th century; and those with the Roman Catholic and eastern Orthodox churches. The dialogues of the first group hold out more prospect of overcoming our separations in the foreseeable future. Those in the second are part of a longer-term process of improving mutual understanding, one from which major short-term results should not necessarily be expected, but which is an essential element in contemporary worldwide ecumenical relations.

The purpose and value of ecumenical dialogue

The purpose of Alliance-sponsored ecumenical dialogue can best be described in terms of God's saving action in Jesus Christ: to unite a reconciled humanity under his lordship. Thus the mission of the church in the world shapes and energizes ecumenical action, including that occurring through the dialogue process. The unity of the church is pursued for the sake of the unity of humankind. The report of the Anglican-Reformed consultation makes this point forcefully: the church "...contradicts its own nature and calling when its members are unable to live together in a

reconciled fellowship. Concern for the unity of all humanity is the only proper context for the quest of church unity..." (God's Reign and Our Unity, p.12). Ecumenical conversation is not engaged in as something done in addition to the social witness of the church; it is to be seen as a part of that witness.

Ecumenical dialogue is, then, a penultimate activity of the church. As such, it makes valued contributions to the quest for visible expressions of unity. This method makes no claim, however, to be the only, or even the preferred, instrument by which unity is achieved. Nor does it claim to be able to fully accomplish the goal of unity. Like John the Baptist, it prepares the way for something greater than itself. And yet in making it possible for two traditions to explore together matters of faith and practice, and to give careful attention to issues which have been church-dividing, the ecumenical dialogue provides a valuable and in some cases indispensable service to the church.

Four specific contributions made through the dialogue process are worthy of note:

Dialogues clarify the relationship between divided traditions in such a way that both their common ground and real differences are exposed. A number of things have been learned through the dialogue process. In some instances it has been revealed that Reformed churches have been living with distorted impressions of a Christian tradition. Dialogue with the churches of that tradition has prompted the abandonment of such misunderstandings. In other cases it has been discovered that positions held to be church-dividing by our forebears no longer need to be so. Most Reformed and Lutheran theologians in the past, for example, believed that because each tradition understood the presence of Christ in the Lord's supper differently, there could be no reconciliation of the two churches of the Reformation. Today most Reformed and Lutheran Christians would not make this judgement, as the report of the Lutheran-Reformed dialogue indicates. Moreover, a number of unexpected areas of agreement have been discovered. The Orthodox-Reformed dialogue currently in process has shown that the two traditions are closer in their understanding of the Trinity than once was supposed. Finally, even when legitimate differences are found, they are in some instances seen as complementary rather than competing. No better example of this can be found than in the Reformed-Baptist report: "The Reformed emphasis on the priority of God's grace in baptism and the Baptist accent on man's active participation in the baptismal event are, in a sense, complementary and as such contribute to ecumenical rapprochement" (Bapt.-Ref. p.99).
Dialogues often offer realistic proposals for healing division. The possibilities for unity vary among the traditions with which the Alliance has engaged in dialogue. In some instances, the movement toward unity covers ground rapidly as a number of reports indicate. In many cases full mutual recognition has already been achieved in individual countries and it is now a matter of noting, testing and perhaps following this example on the international level. The Reformed-Methodist dialogue specifically recommends that the national churches of the two traditions together seek a common social witness while the report of the Reformed-Disciples goes even further. It recommends among other things the recognition of one another as "visible expression of the true church", regular communication, delegate participation in the other's assembly or general council, and the common engagement of theological work (Ref. World, Dec. 1987, pp.898, 839-841). In other consultations, however, little more than participation in the dialogue itself can be expected. The importance of such an event, however, should not be minimized. When Roman Catholic, or Orthodox Christians, for the first time in history engage in official, church-endorsed conversation with us on crucial matters of faith and practice, this is already a visible expression of unity and ecumenical achievement with the prospect of more constructive future relations.
Dialogues provide a record of ecumenical achievement which may become a valuable resource for future ecumenical conversation both on global and national levels. An ecumenical library is developing through the work of dialogue groups which can provide those involved in ecumenical conversation with both a source of information and a set of precedents. A number of excellent background papers have been published as parts of dialogue reports and, in combination, the reports provide a valuable reference of Reformed ecumenical opinion for Reformed Christians engaged in ecumenical discussion on any level. Dialogue reports may be seen as parts of an evolving ecumenical tradition - as a hermeneutic to be employed for future orientation and guidance.
Dialogues offer churches of the Reformed tradition the opportunity for self-examination, change and growth. The process of examining, analysing and interpreting the faith and practice of Reformed Christianity on behalf of a dialogue partner often sheds new light on our faith. Through this encounter we may discover aspects of the Reformed tradition which have been allowed to wither and fade in significance, but which now take on a new importance. Such encounter may also expose the limitation or exaggeration of our theological perspective, causing us to pursue new lines of theological exploration. It may, for instance, challenge us to face the fact of very wide divergences of theology and practice within the Reformed family. Ecumenical dialogue, however, can also confirm and lend support to aspects of our faith and practice which take on new relevance in the ecumenical exchange. For example, the Reformed conversation with the "catholic" traditions has prompted a new examination of Reformed ecclesiology, and for some, a rediscovery of the importance of the sacraments in our tradition. At the same time the classical Reformed emphasis on the social implications of the gospel has been affirmed by the importance it has been given in the Anglican-Reformed conversation.

It is apparent from this that the dialogues represent a beginning and open up further prospects which deserve to be seriously explored.

The fact that many of these conversations have led to positive results in a relatively short time raises the question of how we engage with the whole world of protestant Christians who do not belong to the organized confessions or confessional families but are in many ways related to the Reformed tradition. Are there ways to meet and exchange with them?
The dialogues concentrate on clarifying the theological questions classically experienced as divisive. They do however also note that many divisions are related to political, economic and social factors. So, for example, the Anglican-Reformed dialogue speaks of the obstacles on the path to unity and observes that in certain countries the question of the establishment of state churches needs to be considered. These differences are especially significant when churches meet on local or national level.
It appears that the dialogues are of less direct interest to our member churches in the third world. Yet the discovery is made again and again that the reports can be of valuable help when relations are established locally or nationally with the international dialogue partner.

Some central issues in the dialogues

The various dialogues between them touch on many different issues, the agenda varying according to the partner and the pattern the conversations have followed. The most frequent pattern has been a series of meetings over a period of years resulting in an agreed report to both communions, but in other cases (Disciples of Christ, Methodists) one or two meetings sufficed to reach an agreed statement. In one case - the Mennonites - there was less a formal dialogue than a meeting resulting in agreement to inform Mennonite and Reformed churches about each other and encourage meeting and exchange wherever possible.

The reports also vary in range and comprehensiveness, some concentrating on a relatively narrow spread of themes which have been seen as divisive, others searching for a wide-ranging theological agreement as a basis for future cooperation and moves towards closer unity. Here too there are obvious differences depending on who the partner is and how close the prospect of full fellowship may be.

Among the themes which appear in one way or another in almost every one of the dialogues are five which are particularly central in current ecumenical discussion: the importance of contemporary witness; the authority and interpretation of scripture; baptism; eucharist/Lord's supper; ministry and ministries in the church. It is no accident that these are also central themes in many of the numerous responses by Reformed churches to the Lima report, "Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry". There is a recognisable affinity between the issues addressed by BEM and the broad programme of the various dialogues. The range of Reformed responses to BEM reveal considerable criticism of aspects of its approach, but demonstrate at the same time that there are many differences and divergences within the Reformed family which cry out for consideration. It may be useful here briefly to raise some aspects of their handling in the dialogue materials.

Confessing the faith today

The need for confessing the faith in terms relevant to the contemporary world is a recurring concern in almost all dialogues. It is the expression of the Reformed conviction that the oneness of the church becomes manifest as it gathers around Christ present in its midst and recognizes his Lordship over both the faithful and the world. Dialogue will lead to unity as it devotes primary attention to the task of confessing the gospel today. The Anglican-Reformed report states: "Orthodoxy is not maintained simply by repeating the same words. In its missionary advance the church is always required to find in the languages of those who are brought to the faith from many cultures, words which direct their minds in teaching and worship to the one true God. Likewise as the church continues to hand on the faith in each new age, it is required to find new words which, in the language of these new generations, will rightly express that faith. Both our communions, receiving the scripture as the authoritative standard of faith, acknowledge the need for this continuing effort of reformulation both in teaching and worship" (Angl.-Ref. § 40). The report with the Disciples draws attention to the need of giving expression together to the apostolic faith received through the centuries: "The church lives by faithful hearing of the word of God, as the testimony of the bible is witnessed to afresh in its bearing upon today and tomorrow. This also involves listening receptively and critically to the witness of past generations to that testimony; but it requires more than merely traditional reliance on past interpretations. The range and power of God's word is not confined to the understanding unfolded in any one age or time - whether the early church, the Middle Ages, the Reformation or the 19th century. We are certainly called to hear and respect the witness of our ancestors in the faith, and to learn from it. But to do this in order to engage in faithful hearing of God's word today. The reason is not simply that times change; it is that the gospel is always calling us forward toward the kingdom of Jesus Christ" (Disc.-Ref. § 9). The report with the Roman Catholics makes an attempt at formulating the common ground we share in terms of a common confession of the Trinity and the mediatorship of Jesus Christ. This emphasis in the bilateral dialogues implies the readiness on the part of the Reformed churches to engage in a constant common effort in giving expression to the gospel. It requires the clarification on the part of the Reformed churches of the ways in which this goal can be achieved.

The authority and interpretation of scripture

In many Reformed responses to BEM uneasiness is expressed about that document's use of scripture, its understanding of the relation between scripture and the tradition of the early church, and what is felt to be an over-emphasis on the word of God. This is not the place to assess how valid these reservations may be, but they do reflect a traditional Reformed sense of the living authority of the word of God, heard, confessed and obeyed in faith, as an essential mark of any authentic church.

In all the dialogues so far published between the Alliance and other communions stemming directly or indirectly from the Reformation this authority of scripture is emphasized. It is "the authoritative standard of faith" (Angl.-Ref. § 40), "the primary authority in matters of faith and practice" (Meth.-Ref. p.824), "the normative source (norma normans)" (Bapt.-Ref. p.11); the church "lives by faithful hearing of the word of God, as the testimony of the bible is witnessed to afresh in its bearing upon today and tomorrow" (Disc.-Ref. § 90). These reports also emphasize that faithful hearing of scripture also requires interpretation and translation, in which we are assisted by the witness of earlier generations.

At this point, however, certain variations of emphasis in different dialogues become apparent. The Anglican-Reformed dialogue stresses the return of Reformers like Calvin to "Scripture and the Fathers" and "our dependence on the credal and liturgical formulations of the earliest centuries" (Angl.-Ref. § 41) as well as "our need to remain open to the witness of Christians from other traditions" (ibid.); similarly the Methodist-Reformed report affirms that we "confess the shared faith of the universal church expressed in ecumenical creeds and by witnesses to it through the centuries" (Meth.-Ref. p.824). The Methodist-Reformed dialogue also notes that for the Reformed "the great confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries...have often operated, under scripture, as subordinate standards for the teaching and government of the church" (Meth.-Ref. p.824). The report of the dialogue with the Disciples of Christ, by contrast, notes that the "way such confessions of faith were sometimes used as exclusive tests of fellowship led Disciples in the 19th century to reject them and to prefer only the simplest confession of faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God" (Disc.-Ref. § 21). The Baptist-Reformed report does not directly discuss creeds and confessions, but underlines the modern problem of hermeneutics: "The great question is...how the results of biblical and historical scholarship can be put to good use in the situation of today" (Bapt.-Ref. p.12).

These brief quotations may serve to suggest that there is room within the framework of a commitment to the supreme authority of the word of God in scripture for a good deal of variety of emphasis on "subordinate standards" and the appropriate contemporary interpretation of scripture. That variety is also certainly reflected within the Alliance itself, not merely a reflex of dialogue with different partners. There is here a theme which deserves further consideration and clarification in the future work of the Alliance.

Baptism

On the meaning and overall importance of baptism a broad measure of agreement can be found in the reports at hand, with certain tensions and questions emerging, mainly regarding the practice of baptism and the issue of infant versus believers' baptism.

The Anglican-Reformed report states that "baptism has not been an issue in dispute between our two traditions" (Angl.-Ref. § 47) but it also recognizes "the failure to draw the proper conclusions from our common baptism" (ibid.). This certainly is of equal importance to all our churches.

Among the common elements of meaning discerned in the various reports are to be mentioned: baptism as the incorporation into Christ; as constitutive of the church; as the beginning of a lifelong process of growth; "As the baptism of Jesus was a beginning...so the baptism of a Christian is likewise the beginning of a process. It looks forward to a life of developing discipleship..." (Angl.-Ref. § 56). Repeatedly the necessity of a response of faith is being stressed from the one baptized as well as from the community of faith. Essential to this is "the care given to the Christian nurture of those baptized as infants" (Angl.-Ref. § 55) because "of course infant baptism implies the challenge of Christian education (Eph 6.4) and Christian living (Rom 6)." (Bapt.-Ref. p.15).

The question of the difference between infant and believers' baptism and relationship of baptism and faith is of great importance to all churches concerned. The reports of dialogues with the Baptists, the Mennonites and the Disciples of Christ concur in confessing God's prevenient grace, but they sometimes differ in their understanding of its consequences for the practice of baptism (Bapt.-Ref. p.15, for instance). However, "the differences...become less sharp when it is recognized that both forms of baptism embody God's own initiative in Christ and express a personal response of faith made within a believing community" (Disc.-Ref. § 23; cf. BEM, § 12,5). Consequently "Disciples and Reformed should refuse to practice rebaptism" (Disc.-Ref. § 27).

The dialogue with the Baptists places "the study of baptism in the wider context of the work of Christ and the mission and nature of the church" (p. 17). It also states "As we look at baptism as being both act of God and act of man, we affirm the unity of the rite and the spiritual reality which it signifies" (p. 18).

The report of the dialogue with the Methodists describes baptism as "the sacrament of adoption into the family of God, incorporation into the body of Christ and reception into the koinonia of the Spirit" (Meth.-Ref. p.827). Here both Methodists and Reformed traditions confess that they have "allowed individualism to undercut their sense and practice of corporate church life" (p. 827). Thus the sacraments are to be understood as sign and seals of faithful participation in the covenant community, and not individualistically" (p. 827).

The convergences and the tensions reflected in the dialogues between different emphases in baptismal theology and practice are very much present within the Reformed family itself. These too could well be given closer study within the Alliance.

Eucharist/Lord's supper

Eucharistic teaching and practice was a major theme in several dialogues (Angl.-Ref.; Disc.-Ref.; Menn.-Ref.). In the conversations with the Anglican Communion special emphasis is placed on the eucharist in the "life of the church". In its description of the presence of Christ this report follows BEM in saying, "We are of course all agreed that in the eucharist God is truly 'with us': that he joins us to himself in Christ in and through created realities. There is a real presence of Christ which 'does not depend upon the faith of the individual', even though, 'to discern the body and blood of Christ faith is required' (BEM p.12, § 13)" (Angl.-Ref. § 66). That apart all the reports affirm that baptism is the presupposition and faith required to receive communion.

On the interpretation of the supper there is general agreement that it is the representation of God's act of salvation, celebration of the living, present Lord in the power of the Holy Spirit and anticipation of the joyful feast with the returning Christ.

Eucharistic fellowship is especially emphasized when it is said (Disc.-Ref. § 13): "For the most part, Reformed churches welcome to the table members of other Christian communities, as do the Disciples. Both traditions recognize that the table is the Lord's, not ours, and that all Christians may approach that table on Christ's own invitation." Whereas Mennonite custom foresees the celebration of the Supper four times a year, the Disciples emphasize weekly communion, a practice to which some Reformed churches in recent times have drawn closer. Both BEM and the dialogues challenge the Reformed churches to reconsider the frequency of celebration of the Lord's supper.

In eucharistic praxis the presidency of an ordained minister is the rule, although the Disciples, like some Reformed churches, hold, "while all things should be done 'decently and in order', which means that under normal circumstances the officers regularly chosen by the church should administer the sacraments, in cases of necessity any person can be set aside by the church as a sacramental officer pro tempore" (Ref.-Disc. p.28). This raises a further question which is becoming acute especially in many areas of the third world. If the celebration of the Lord's supper is closely linked to the presence of an ordained minister, and there are too few of these available, should the congregation nevertheless be permitted to celebrate the sacrament without an ordained minister? - should it rather do without the sacrament? - or should the requirements for ordination to the ministry of the sacrament be reviewed and possibly changed?

These last questions - of eucharistic hospitality, of frequency of celebration and of the presidency at the celebration deserve to be more closely considered in the future theological work of the Alliance.

The understanding of ministry

There is general agreement in most of the final reports that the ministry of the gospel is entrusted to the church as a whole (priesthood of all believers). Undisputed is also the variety of gifts and ministries in the church. Most reports observe that the New Testament offers several models of ministry, none of which can claim exclusive validity. The threefold office of bishop, priest/presbyter and deacon is the most widespread throughout the churches today and can be based on appeal to the tradition of the early church, but is not general in the Reformed churches, which instead generally know some pattern of synodal government and the distinct office of elder/presbyter alongside that of the minister. There is, however, considerable unclarity about the relation of these ministries to each other; as the Disciples-Reformed report observes: "In our traditions ministry within the local congregation has been shared...our churches have developed certain 'offices' eg the minister or pastor, the Reformed 'elder' and the Disciples 'elder' - which in various ways require clarification through further ecumenical dialogue" (Disc.-Ref. § 38).

There is in fact a great deal of diversity within the Reformed family in the understanding of and distinguishing between such offices as minister, elder, deacon.

By contrast, in the conversation with the Anglican Church special weight is assigned to ordination, which "commits to the person ordained the authority to act representatively for the universal church in the ways proper to that particular office" (§ 80). According to Anglican and some Reformed understandings authority to dispense the sacraments is restricted to ordained ministers, while other Reformed churches have adopted a freer practice. This report also notes that "Anglicans preserve continuity or succession through episcopal ordination; in the Reformed tradition it is preserved through ministerial ordination" (Angl.-Ref. § 89). By contrast, the other dialogues with protestant churches find the historic continuity of the church safeguarded by the proclamation of the word and do not raise episcopal succession or episcopal ordination of ministers as a mark of that continuity. This difference of emphasis explains the different recommendations at the conclusion of the reports. The Anglican-Reformed report wishes for the future that new attention be given to the "personal, collegial and communal aspects of oversight...at every level" (§ 6), whereas the conversations with other protestant communions do not raise the issue of episcopacy.

In the dialogues with Anglicans and Disciples the question of the ordination of women is raised. Although all participants see here no fundamentally divisive issue, practice still differs, in that some Reformed and most Anglican churches do not ordain women.

Finally, the report of the dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church does indeed state considerable agreement both on the doctrine of justification and on the nature and calling of the church. At the point of the visible structure of the church, however (Papacy, episcopacy), no agreement could be reached.

All of the subjects raised here - distinction of forms of ministry, ministerial ordination and succession, ordination of women - must belong on the future agenda of the Alliance as much as they do on the wider ecumenical programme.

Proposals and recommendations resulting from the dialogues

The dialogues vary according to the number and the kind of conclusions that they offer. With some partners far-reaching agreements have been achieved, with others central issues are still in discussion, while deepening our own understanding of the Reformed tradition, its emphases, breadth and basic values.

Though it is impossible to enumerate all proposals and recommendations made in the reports that have been issued so far, three of the results may be emphasized.

The dialogue with the Methodists has resulted in the conclusion that the classical doctrinal issues ought not to be seen as obstacles to unity between Methodists and Reformed. Member churches are therefore invited to further local and national cooperation or even to start union negotiations, to consider tackling common tasks and to share human and other resources. A recommended question of importance to all churches reads: "How can the covenant people of God relate to the state and bear faithful witness to their society in a rapidly changing and divided world?"

The report of the Anglican-Reformed dialogue is the most elaborate, dealing in depth with all central issues: the church, life and ministry in the church, the concern for and the form of unity, etc. It ends with a substantial list of recommendations regarding, among others, further discussion on the implications of the common practice and understanding of baptism, exploring the possibility of moving towards the formation of united churches, examining the personal, collegial and communal aspects of the respective ministerial structures, seeking ways in which discrimination may be eliminated and setting up joint discussion groups.

The dialogue with the Disciples of Christ makes its own particular proposals. "There are no theological or ecclesiological issues which need divide us as churches", their report states, and the DECC and the WARC therefore have called upon their member churches "to accept each other as visible expressions of the one church of Christ" (Disc.-Ref. § 37). In anticipation of a growing relationship of unity, they propose several new links, especially sending delegations to each meeting of the DECC's assembly and the WARC's general council.

Recommendations to the general council

In the light of these considerations the general council in Seoul may wish to make the following recommendations:

1. While maintaining its commitment to the multilateral expression of the ecumenical movement the general council affirms the value of bilateral dialogues at the international level as an instrument both for widening the fellowship within the ecumenical movement and for clarifying the understanding of the gospel and the church in the Reformed family.

2. Within the limits imposed on the WARC these dialogues should be continued in future. The significance of dialogues will depend on the degree in which the findings of the reports available are implemented. A further stage can only be entered into if the agreement reached in the conversations is tested in the life of the churches. Among the actions required we draw special attention to the following:

Reformed-Disciples of Christ

The report puts the question to the churches whether they can agree to the statement already quoted above:

"The Disciples of Christ and the Reformed churches recognize and accept each other as visible expressions of the one church of Christ" (Disc.-Ref. § 37)

It is recommended that the general council should adopt this statement and express the wish to pursue the discussion of its implications together with the Disciples of Christ. Special attention should be paid in future contacts to the question of confessing the faith together.

Reformed-Methodists

The report concludes that there are no theological obstacles which prevent union between Reformed and Methodist churches.

It is recommended that the general council endorse this view and suggest that it be implemented.

Reformed-Mennonite

In the dialogue with the Mennonites the Reformed sought to make clear that the condemnations of the Anabaptists contained in certain confessions of faith of the 16th century cannot be maintained. They expressed their deep regret over the fact that they have served in some countries as justification of persecution and repression. They declared that they have been led beyond the convictions underlying the earlier repudiation.

It is recommended that the general council endorse this statement and declare its readiness to engage in common witness with the Mennonites today, especially in a common witness on justice, peace and the integrity of creation.

3. Relations at the international level are inseparable from relations at the national and local levels. The dialogues at the international level build on the experience at the national and local levels. Their results can in turn inspire new initiatives at the national and local levels. Full use

should be made of the opportunities offered by the conversations at the international level for an ecumenical advance at the national and local levels.

The Anglican-Reformed report states this in the following terms: "We are not simply seeking a modus vivendi between two globally organized denominations which would continue their separated though reconciled existence...we are agreed Christian unity must in the last resort be discovered and actualized at the local level. Hence we seek the emergence of reconciled local communities, each of which is recognizable as 'church' in the proper sense" (Angl.-Ref. § 110).

The general council should call on the communion of churches stemming from the Reformation to engage in working together towards that goal.

Appealing to reports arrived at the international level may make possible advances in situations such as the following:

where Reformed and Disciples of Christ live side by side
where Reformed and Methodists live side by side
where relations with the Roman Catholic Church have not yet become possible.

4. Though the dialogues so far conducted cover a wide range of Christian traditions they have their limitations: there is need for different kinds of initiative to relate to spiritual movements which are not organized at the international level. The spiritual challenge they put to the Reformed churches needs to be taken seriously. The general council may want to suggest a fresh initiative to relate to evangelicals and to the Pentecostal movement.

5. In order to strengthen and clarify the ecumenical commitment of the Reformed churches it would be highly desirable to engage in a fuller study of the five themes listed above and to share with the churches representative reports on them.