Summary of responses to Faith and Order Paper No. 198 A. CHURCH RESPONSES Anglican 1. The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia The Nature and Mission of the Church: A stage on the way to a common statement, Faith and Order Paper 198, World Council of Churches, Geneva, Switzerland, Response Document from The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, March 2007, p. 10. The present text is a church response that affirms the overall methodology of TNMC as an ecclesial exercise in ecclesiological reflection. Distinguishing convergent from different perspectives, it encourages theological honesty, although supports that convergences should be articulated rather too confidently, whereas the identification of the differences might be too understated. It is noted that the text uses a genuinely constructive biblical hermeneutic. Moreover, the response indicates that the goal of visible unity still seems to hover just over the horizon of TNMC , as it assumes the primacy of denominational identity over theological identity, failing to offer a methodological model of how dialogue can be opened and maintained between adherents of divergent theological positions, when at the same time, theological differences exist within denominations as well. Some of the most significant contemporary divisive issues cut across traditional denominational distinctions to superimpose new forms of theological identity upon the extant ecclesial identities. It is hoped that the work of the WCC in respect to the focus of TNMC can achieve a significant measure of both understanding and resolution of such issues. The analysis of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia concentrates on responding to questions posed on p12 of TNMC . Regarding the ecclesiological convictions enunciated in the text, the response document supports that they are correctly identified. Concerning the nature of the Church, the stress on the Church as both a divine and human institution is endorsed, whereas the statements on the mission of the church (p24) and the Church as sign and instrument (p27) are considered sound. Thus, they are commended and endorsed. Particular attention is given to box 1 (p15-16), with the analysis focusing on the following thematic areas: 1. The Sacraments: means of salvation or witnesses to salvation? It is noted that it is important that the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is affirmed. 2. The Ordained Ministry, under Episcopal authority . The need to be guided more by principles of NT thinking rather than certain favoured NT texts that support particular denominational structures is underlined, as is the need to apply a dynamic ecumenical perspective within, and to, the churches. Also, the issue of ordination is discussed in conjunction with the exercise of episcope. 3. The value and importance of episcopacy . The importance and value of episcopacy are affirmed in its history and in terms of its spiritual graces and gifts. The distinction is made between a functional and an ecclesial–ontological value. With regard to the issues which TNMC identifies as continuing to be divisive for the Church, specific parts of the text are analyzed: §32, the “visible and tangible signs” of a Christian life; the boxed statements on p 52, 54, 60, differences concerning ordained ministry, governance, leadership. In addition, Section IV: In and for the World (p62), is said to raise concerns, especially §110, which speaks of evangelisation in such a way that proclamation is effectively identified with it. There is no clarification as to whether or not evangelisation is to be equated with proselytising. (See also comments on §115). What is emphasised here is the need for the F&O perspective to be addressed on the beliefs and identities of other religions. According to the response, much of the substantive portrayal of the nature and mission of the church in the document is uncontroversial, particularly the emphasis on the church as koinonia . A tension is noted in the description of the action and purpose of the Eucharist in §79. Also, it is stated that §50 appears to identify individual, cultural and historical conditioning as part of the (negative) “conditions of the world” which constrain the life of the church. Regarding the significant matters in which the concerns of the particular church are not adequately addressed, five specific areas of concern are highlighted: 1. Cultural diversity, 2. Admission to the Eucharist, 3. Gender and Sexual orientation, 4. Reclaiming Mary, 5. The Environmental Context. Concerning the study’s assisting the ecumenical cause of unity in the particular context, it is considered that it suggests a basis for a reconciliation of difference and disagreement of interpretation and concept that respects and allows for diversity: the possibility for a wider and even more inclusive vision of what it means to be the body of Christ. In addition, the particular ecclesial experience of honouring the distinctive identities of the two predominant indigenous cultural streams, Maori and Polynesian, as well as the European, gives local expression to the theme of dynamic unity as expressed in TNMC . References and Acknowledgements follow. 2. The Church of England A response to The Nature and Mission of the Church from The Faith and Order Advisory Group of the Church of England, Council for Christian Unity, p. 14. The first two sections of the response describe TNMC : 1. The nature and purpose of this study and the questions posed by it. 2. The contents of this study: I. The Church of the Triune God; II. The Church in History; III. The Life of Communion In and For the World (regarding the exercise of primacy, it is noted that in recent years there seems to have been an increasing willingness to discuss the possibility of a universal ministry in support of the mission and unity of the Church, whereas on the issue of authority, the points made by TNMC are considered rather disconnected); IV. In and for the World; Conclusion. In the third section, a response to TNMC is attempted through six points that respond to the questions posed: First, the study does not seem to correctly identify a set of common ecclesiological convictions held by the churches involved in the ecumenical movement. This is proved by comparing what is said in this study with the ecclesiological statements, both historical and contemporary, that have been produced or agreed by the individual churches, and also with the material to be found in bilateral and multilateral ecumenical conversations and agreements. Second, there are a number of areas in which further development of the main text would be helpful: 1. The material in Chapter II does not fit together easily as a single unified chapter; 2. The material should be less abstract, with reference being made to specific examples to illustrate what is being said; 3. In §24-34 and §57-59, where extensive use of the word koinonia is made, there should be more clarity on the use of the word; 4. The question of who is the subject of the Church needs to be addressed; 5. There needs to be discussion about the origin and end of the Church; 6. Reference needs to be made to the importance of worship and liturgy in the life of the Church; 7. It would be helpful for the study to begin with Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom of God, briefly referred to in §109; 8. There should be a more extensive examination of what “church” means in the NT with the material in §13-15 considerably expanded; 9. It should be noted that the Church is a foretaste as well as sign and instrument of the kingdom; 10. A greater emphasis should be placed on the dynamic character of the Church along the lines suggested in §14; 11. There should be more reflection on the nature of the Church’s unity, including a discussion about the relation of particular theological traditions, denominations and worldwide 2 groups of churches to the Church as a whole; l2. §65 should be expanded to address the debate about whether the local church derives its existence from the Church universal or vice versa; 13. There needs to be discussion on the issue of the importance of the consensus fidelium ; 14. The discussion of authority in §105-108 is far too brief. Third, work needs to be done on the issues on which the churches are still divided. Eight areas in particular are noted that are either not covered or not covered in sufficient detail: 1. The goal of the ecumenical process; 2. The relationship between the Apostolic Faith as witnessed to by Scripture and the traditions of the churches; 3. The relationship between the different ways in which churches are ordered and their understandings of the Church’s nature and mission; 4. The appropriate level(s) for decision making in the Church; 5. The issue of territoriality; 6. The relationship between Church and State; 7. The relationship between women and men in society; 8. The relationship between ethics and ecclesiology. Fourth, while a number of areas, over which there are concerns in the Church of England and which require more adequate treatment, have already been highlighted in what has been said about the study’s coverage of divisive issues, there are also two other areas of concern to Anglicans which are not necessarily divisive, but which are thought to be helpful for the study to address: a. The distinction between the Church visible and the Church invisible, and b. The question of the role of the Church in salvation. In addition, it is noted that (fifth point) the way the material is made available needs to be considered, and that (sixth point) if there was widespread study and discussion of a revised version of the material in TNMC in the Church of England, this would help the Church of England to continue to take concrete steps towards unity.