the dialogue between the Alliance and the Vatican's secretariat for promoting Christian unity, 1970-77, on "The Presence of Christ in church and World";
the "Theological Conversations" sponsored by WARC and the Baptist World Alliance; and
the dialogue (197I-77) among WARC, the Lutheran World Federation and the Vatican's secretariat for promoting Christian unity on "The theology of marriage and the problem of mixed marriages."

Rather than concentrating on these dialogues in their reported form, Workshop III tried to discern what some of the next initiatives and directions are which we should take in the movement toward the greater visible unity of the church. From a wealth of suggestions made, the following questions emerged as deserving careful attention by the Alliance.

What are the ways into greater visible unity of the church, and what are the factors of form and substance which hinder or help that movement?
What is the relation between the experience of Christian unity (koinonia) and theological agreement (consensus)?
What role do confessions play for members of the Alliance in interconfessional and intraconfessional movements toward greater visible unity?
What are the styles of pietas which hold communions together or keep them separate? Is there actually a common Reformed pietas, theological tradition, polity or ethos which holds us together or keeps us apart from others?
What are some of the actual expressions of ecumenical fellowship occurring on the local level, and how can we share and evaluate them to our mutual enrichment?
What initiatives ought we in the Reformed tradition to take next vis-à-vis eastern Orthodoxy, vis-à-vis the church-Synagogue issue, and vis-à-vis the various renewal movements, including "Pentecostalism?"

No effort was made to formulate anything like a position-paper on any of these large questions, since the purpose of the Workshop was exploratory discussion. There were however discernible trends to our discussion, for example on how we may see the relation between koinonia and consensus as exemplified in proposals presently before the Roman Catholics, Anglican and Free churches in England. In discussing this instance, the members of the Workshop moved toward the following general kinds of evaluation.

The church's existence cannot be separated from its mission; and as a step towards the responsible fulfilment of that mission there could be in any area, as is proposed in England, a mutual recognition of membership and ministry.
This need not posit uniformity as the ultimate goal but it does envisage "reconciled diversity" as at least a "station on the way".
This recognition has implications for our understanding of the relationship between koinonia and consensus. To oppose them in favour of the former would be as great a mistake as to oppose them in favour of the latter. There must be a doctrinal basis for the koinonia, but the koinonia can survive and transcend doctrinal differences.
There is clearly a problem here: How much is indispensable basis and how much is variable difference that can be transcended?
So stated, the problem may be insoluble, and it may be that the more fruitful approach is to say that doctrine ought to be, not primarily propositional, but doxological, that it should also be penitential (Lord, I believe: help thou mine unbelief), and that it ought to be eschatological (it is in process towards the fullness of the truth embodied in Jesus Christ).
Given this conception, mutual correction within reconciled diversity becomes a live possibility; and further the function of dogmatic definition becomes more clearly positive, ie not to exclude the heretic but to establish and strengthen the faithful.

We had to face the question, why WARC is engaged in the ecumenical movement at all. The short answer is that this is the will and command of Jesus Christ our Lord. A longer answer is that, faced by a plurality of churches throughout the world, we have a choice between claiming to be the one true church to which all others ought eventually to come and, on the other hand, seeking the fulness of Christ's church by entering into dialogue and fellowship with those other churches which share with us the gospel. If we may not claim a monopoly of the gospel there is for us no alternative to involvement in the ecumenical movement. Further, the church's existence in its plurality of visible churches is inseparable from its mission to the whole world; and a mission which is expressed in a conflict or competition of voices is no true mission. This is not just the psychological point that the world is not likely to be impressed by a divided witness. It is the theological point that the witness and those engaged in it have lost their integrity if they are content with such a divided witness. The commissioning of the church includes not only the command to proclaim the gospel, but the promise of Christ's presence in all generations; and we may not seek to obey his command without seeking the fulness of his presence.

This applies also in particular to the fundamental reason for engaging in that form of ecumenical endeavour which was the subject of our Workshop: interconfessional dialogues. The motivation for them is, ultimately, God's reconciling initiative in Jesus Christ. Though we must confess that we have repeatedly betrayed the vision of Christian unity and continue to do so, Christians in the Reformed tradition have always claimed to be part of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church, and have prayed and worked for its purity and unity. These interconfessional dialogues are part of the unitive pressure inherent in the Reformed tradition. But the motivation to persist in these dialogues and others is surely not a zeal for corporate merger in general nor a sense of loyalty to the ecumenical vision of our predecessors. We must remain in dialogue for the simple reason that we have been freed by Christ for this joyful, painstaking, arduous activity. As members of his reconciled and reconciling people, we are compelled by his word and Spirit to bring to greater manifestation the glory of God in Jesus Christ and in the common life of those he has joined to himself. Conversely, we are freed to work to overcome more barriers to Christian unity which obscure God's glory. These barriers pose a false scandal for a world which finds ecclesiastical divisiveness an almost insuperable obstacle to believing the church's proclamation. That is why the prayer and thoughtful struggle for greater visible Christian unity is inseparable from our social witness, mission and evangelism: all these activities are the inevitable outworkings of Christ's freeing, correcting and renewing presence in and over his church.

The growth in mutual understanding represented in these dialogues is not minimal. To cite only one example of the fruits of these studies, the report of the Reformed-Roman Catholic dialogue says this about the eucharist:

"While we are aware of the serious discrepancy between our claims to common theological understanding and our actual practices, we gratefully acknowledge the way our investigations and discussions have resulted in a greater appreciation of the richness in our respective eucharistic doctrines and practices. We believe that we have reached a common understanding of the meaning and purpose and basic doctrine of the eucharist, which is in agreement with the word of God and the universal tradition of the church. We also believe that the way is clearly opening before us in which remaining misunderstandings and disagreements about the Lord's supper can be cleared up. The terminology which arose in an earlier polemical context is not adequate for taking account of the extent of common theological understanding which exists in our respective churches. Thus we gratefully acknowledge that both traditions, Reformed and Roman Catholic, hold to the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist; and both hold at least that the eucharist is, among other things:

a memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord;
a source of loving communion with him in the power of the Spirit (hence the epiclesis in the liturgy), and
a source of eschatological hope for his coming again".

It is essential to understand that these interconfessional dialogues at the international level are only part of a much larger process which is going on, and must go on, at all levels. Regional and national consultations have contributed to this process, as have the remarkably varied forms of Christian renewal being lived out among believers in local parishes and other gatherings. These reports in no way can supplant the course of interconfessional dialogues which must go on time and time again at the primary units of local gatherings of believers. In fact these reports are intended to help the dialogues at all levels by identifying remarkable areas of convergence and areas in which agreement is not yet possible. We therefore urge the study of these reports by members of the churches of the Alliance, and we encourage and most heartily welcome response to them from all levels. Such study and shared responses are indispensable for the continued task of dialogue which Christ wills for his people.

The members of the Workshop also wished to join in urging the Alliance's executive committee

to recommend these three reports of interconfessional dialogues to our member churches for study in whatever ways are appropriate to each church (and, it is to be hoped, by theological faculties, local churches and committees responsible for interchurch affairs).
to facilitate Reformed participation in forthcoming consultation with eastern Orthodox leaders; and
to take positive action on the suggestion made in the introductory letter of the report "Presence of Christ in church and World".