Church union: an answer to its post-modern despisers (1).

Best, Thomas F.

It is a privilege and a pleasure to contribute these reflections (2) on the occasion of Konrad Raiser's retirement as general secretary of the World Council of Churches. Throughout his distinguished career, Konrad has reminded the churches that they are accountable to one another--and ultimately to Christ--for their work for the visible unity of the church and for their common confession, worship, witness and service to the world. Thus it seems especially appropriate that I write from the perspective of the church union movement, reviewing the challenges which it faces and the contribution which it has to make to the wider ecumenical movement today.

This is not the place to review and recite the well-known arguments--biblical, theological, ecclesiological, historical, psychological, organizational and financial--on behalf of church union. The accounts of the seven international consultations of united and uniting churches, (3) and the series of surveys of church-union negotiations, (4) make clear the rationale and witness of both the church-union movement and the worldwide family of united and uniting churches.

Nor do I present, or try to refute, the familiar objections to church union arising from a host of impulses: the need to preserve traditional church identities, to conserve institutional energy, or to avoid further divisions with those who refuse to enter the new union. The accounts of the numerous bilateral church discussions, and the increasing self-confidence of the Christian world communions (5)--both factors which presuppose the continuation of the existing separate traditions and denominations--give ample evidence of how many churches can imagine only a future in which they continue to exist in their present, divided forms.

The historic positions both for and against union, then, are well known and need not he rehearsed again. My aim is rather to address what is claimed to be the new argument against church union today, based on what is understood to be a new philosophical basis for understanding the world and how we act within it. I refer, of course, to the "post-modern" world-view which, according to some, renders the classic goals of church union irrelevant and unattainable--if not somehow oppressive.

Post-modernism and the possibility of church union

The notion of post-modernity, as seen "full strength" in (for example) Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, is a vast and complex topic. (6) Various interpretations of post-modernism have been used as a lens through which to view virtually every aspect of culture from architecture and literature to politics and science. Fortunately it is not necessary to consider this in detail here; what is important for the discussion on church union is the principles which are being taken from post-modern thought and applied to the churches and their search for visible unity.

Of these principles, the following seem most relevant to the discussion of church union. Philosophically, post-modernism denies all claims for objective or impartial knowledge on the grounds that no perception of reality is "innocent", that every perception of reality is coloured by the observer's presuppositions and preconceptions. This implies that reality itself is socially constructed, in the sense that it represents the sum of individual perceptions and valuations, each of them reflecting the context--and self-interest!--of that particular observer. There is no Archimedean vantage-point "outside the system", and thus no way to say that any particular perception is more valid than any other. Allied to this is the rejection of "grand narratives" (over-arching descriptions of the world, or value-systems) which claim to integrate all of experience and to give "the" meaning of the world. Thus post-modernism results in a deep suspicion of all philosophical and religious--but also political, cultural and social--systems, as far as they claim to give an objective description of reality, to explain the meaning of the world, or to represent a view of the world which is more true than any other.

Post-modernism has far-reaching implications culturally as well. The emphasis on each subject as perceiving his or her "own" reality, together with the rejection of over-arching explanations of the world, has two implications which are important here. First, this world-view favours individualism (whether of persons or groups) rather than the commitment to a higher or more inclusive social context. Of course, persons continue to think of themselves as social beings, but with reference to their own immediate circle (the family, or neighhourhood) where the social interactions are most visible and concrete, rather than with reference to a higher or more abstract level such as the nation. By analogy, closely knit groups of persons, bound by ethnic or other ties, will relate within their own immediate social framework, rather than at a larger or more abstract level. The result is that persons and closely knit groups are increasingly reluctant to recognize, much less commit themselves to, institutions beyond their own "horizon".

Second, this post-modern world-view favours pluralism over the attempt to define a set" of unified or common values. Diversity is considered good in its own right, not merely because it contributes to some larger whole. Each individual or group defines itself through its own distinctive qualities and perspectives on the world, has its own integrity apart from others, and is entitled to flourish in its own way. Thus difference, particular identity and individual expression are celebrated, whereas any efforts to unify diverse elements--whatever appears to absorb one thing into something larger--are deeply suspect. To take the next logical step: if all values are constructed, if all are equally worthy of expression, and if there is no objective criterion for judgment, then things are just different, not "better" or "worse". Claiming that "my" value is better than another would he to impose "my" perspective--and self-interest!--upon others. The expression, by each individual or group, of their own identity is what counts--not the search for a common expression of a larger, shared social identity.

Post-modernism has raised profound questions about the understanding of truth and the social order. In some respects it has been positive; for example, by providing a philosophical basis for minorities to discover and celebrate their own identity, and to defend their legitimate interests against those who would overlook and marginalize them. And it has encouraged a healthy scepticism against grand political schemes, noting that these frequently serve mainly the interests of those in power. Yet post-modernism has also raised deep concerns. If values are just "different", and not better or worse, do we not end in pure relativism? And if conflicts between values cannot be solved by an appeal to a higher or objective standard, are we not back to the law of the jungle, where the more powerful interests prevail? As Anthony Thistleton puts it, "Once truth is 'made' rather than discovered, what cannot be done in the name of socially constructed truth?" (7)

Yet whatever our attitude to post-modern thought, we do have to deal with the post-modern values which prevail in Western culture. Analysts note, for example, a growing suspicion of political and cultural institutions beyond the local level, and of appeals beyond local perspectives in the name of "grand values". They note the growing readiness of individuals and groups to defend their right to self-expression, and their reluctance to sacrifice themselves for the sake of some larger good. Analogous developments are seen within the churches. In many Western countries there is a growing emphasis upon loyalty to the local congregation, and a declining commitment to the denomination, i.e. the church at the national level. For example, congregations are ready to support missionaries whom they know personally in service abroad, or to enter into direct partnership with a congregation in a faraway country--but they are increasingly reluctant to contribute to the foreign missions agency of their own national church. Church-goers prefer to contribute financially to their own local congregation rather than the national church, reflecting the growing alienation from institutions at the national level. And if church institutions at the national level are suspect, then the union of churches at the national level must be doubly suspect! Unity, say some, does not "matter"; we already have enough of it at the local level. At the national level unity may mean the loss of identity; it is not worth the effort, and may only lead to further divisions. (8)

To sum up, church union today faces a hostile philosophical and cultural climate. Appeals to union can no longer be supported by the cultural assumptions of earlier generations, which favoured society as a whole over the individuals and groups which make it up. Today the appeal for church union falls on ears which have been trained by post-modern assumptions: that unity means uniformity, and thus the loss of particular identities; and that pluralism and diversity are preferable to unity.

Any appeal for church union today, then, must address these assumptions or be accounted irrelevant, even oppressive. Is it possible to make a serious appeal for union today? Can the church union movement speak to the churches today, in today's post-modern culture? I believe the answer is "yes", and I want to show this by looking at the nature and experience of the united and uniting churches, letting them speak for themselves wherever possible.

Church union: for the sake of diversity

Let us review first the question of unity and uniformity in relation to the particular identities of the churches. Consider the "charter" of the church-union movement as given at the second world conference on Faith and Order at Edinburgh in 1937. In speaking of "corporate union" or "organic unity" the conference noted,

 These terms are forbidding to many, as suggesting the ideal of a
 compact governmental union involving rigid uniformity. We do not so
 understand them, and none of us desires such uniformity. On the
 contrary, what we desire is the unity of a living organism, with the
 diversity characteristic of the members of a healthy body.

And went on to say,

 The idea of "corporate union" must remain for the vast majority of
 Christians their ideal. In a church so united the ultimate loyalty
 of every member would be given to the whole body and not to any part
 of it. Its members would move freely from one part to another and
 find every privilege of membership open to them. The sacraments
 would be the sacraments of the whole body. The ministry would be
 accepted by all as a ministry of the whole body. (9)

That is, the term "organic" is used not to impose uniformity but precisely to guard the diversity and distinctive gifts of the churches coming together into union. The goal is not to do away with individual identities, but to find a unity "which can take up and preserve in one beloved community all the varied spiritual gifts which [God] has given us in our separations". (10)

Let us test this vision against the reality of the family of united and uniting churches--does it show diversity and variety, "even though"(!) it is a family of united churches? To do this, we review briefly the main types of united churches around the world, noting the most recent activity in each category: (11)

1. There are the original church unions in Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia which unite Reformed and Lutheran elements. Characteristic of the 19th and early 20th centuries, these began with the Old Prussian Union (1817, now continued in the Evangelische Kirche der Union). These have been ecclesiologically significant as forerunners of Reformed-Lutheran rapprochement (cf. the Leuenberg agreement 1973). Uniting impulses are evident in the fusion of the Evangelische Kirche der Union and the Arnoldshainer Konferenz within the UEK, the Union Evangelischer Kitchen in der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (2003). And the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (2004), at this moment in process of formation, would fall into this category because of the churches involved.

2. Another group of church unions began with the United Church of Canada (1925) and is found mainly in North America, the United Kingdom and Australia. This includes unions formed from various combinations of Protestant ("free") churches, most commonly Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists and Disciples of Christ. The most recent developments in this group are the union of the Congregational Union of Scotland with the United Reformed Church (2000), and the formation of Churches Uniting in Christ in the US (in 2002, with no fewer than nine member churches working to resolve ecclesiological and racial differences).

3. Another group includes unions formed throughout the 20th century from these same denominations, but in Asia (Church of Christ in Thailand, 1934), Africa (United Church of Zambia, 1965), and the Caribbean (United Church in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands, 1992). These unions have often pioneered the indigenization of the church as several mission-founded churches, funded from abroad, give way to a single locally led and funded church. Recent moves include the covenant of partnership (looking towards eventual union between the United Church of Christ in the Philippines and the Iglesia Philipina Independiente, 1999).

4. A fourth group of unions, beginning with the Church of South India (1947) and so far limited to the Indian sub-continent, has incorporated Anglican churches and, therefore, episcopal structures of governance. This group also includes the most theologically comprehensive union, the Church of North India, with former Anglican, Baptist, Congregational, Disciples, Methodist, Brethren and Presbyterian churches. The Communion of Churches in India links the Church of South India, Church of North India, and Mar Thoma church with a view to union.

5. A final group includes intraconfessional unions, i.e. of churches within the same confessional tradition, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (1988). The most recent example is the formation of the Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa (1999), formed from the multiracial, but mainly white Presbyterian Church of Southern Africa and the black Reformed Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa. And, of course, crucial talks continue today between the various churches of the Dutch Reformed tradition in South Africa.

This survey makes clear that--despite all stereotypes about uniformity and the loss of identity--the united churches form the most widely diverse family of churches in the world today. The unity achieved in united churches has not imposed a uniformity; taken as a whole, they incorporate a wide spectrum of theological positions and church orders, each seeking the most authentic form of union for the particular traditions gathered into that union in its particular historical and cultural circumstances. They are different and diverse precisely because they seek to be faithful to their own local situation and traditions. The post-modern concern to preserve diversity is indeed honoured within the united church family.

One could almost say: to find diversity and ensure variety where different traditions are honoured--form a united church!

Church union: a challenge to post-modernity

Yet diversity is not the final world, for in church unions diversity is held together within a larger unity. And at this point church unions part company with post-modernism and its favouring of diversity over unity. Post-modernism is content with pluralism--the acceptance of diverse views alongside each other, with no need to integrate or reconcile them. By contrast, the special calling of church unions is to offer a sign of integration and reconciliation to the world, achieved as positions which are not "just different" from one another, but have old histories of separation from--and sometimes literally murderous hostility to--one another. Despite everything, church unions seek and achieve a greater unity.

A sign of integration

The united and uniting churches believe that the unity of the church is normative and the present, so-called "normal" state of division among the churches is wrong. They take seriously the fact that Christ wills the unity of the church however inconvenient, or indeed impossible, that may appear. For example, the United Church of Christ in Japan (the Kyodan) was united during the second world war by action of the Japanese government, to render the churches more "governable". Jong Sung Rhee, a Korean, said about this,

 After the war some church leaders hoped to return to their previous
 denominations and a few churches actually left the Kyodan. Yet those
 who remain in the Kyodan firmly believe it is God's will that this
 unity be maintained for as long as possible. (12)

This echoes the conviction of the Church of South India that it united not because it seemed the convenient or clever thing to do, but because it believed that unity was the will of God.

Organic union creates links--not just personal and spiritual, but also structural and institutional--among the churches involved. As Martin Cressey noted so signally, it calls for nothing less than the full mutual accountability of Christians and churches:

 To belong with other Christians in an ecumenical organization,
 local, regional or worldwide, is to accept them as brothers and
 sisters in Christ. Yet there is still a certain distancing of
 ourselves from one another ... the step of union closes that gap
 and removes the possibility of that self-distancing. In the united
 church I have to take responsibility for the views and actions of
 fellow-members. Of course, there will be matters on which we can
 agree to differ, within the constitution of the united church, but
 there will also be a common commitment. (13)

This is precisely the strength of organic union, and the challenge it poses to the post-modern world-view- not to mention to the churches themselves. It is just too easy to leave church unity to local congregations, or to be satisfied with a "spiritual unity" that has no real provision for mutual accountability or common decision-making--much less serious structural implications. Institutions do matter, and church institutions have to be held responsible for their divisions. This does not mean that union is really about joining church bureaucracies, however important the legal arrangements of union may be. The great Asian ecumenist D.T. Niles reacted to the language being used about church unions at the World Council of Churches founding assembly in Amsterdam (1948):

 It gave him some concern, when [assembly section V] spoke of the
 discovery of new life in the younger churches in regard to Christian
 unity, that the statements were almost all negative. He referred
 specially to the sentence, "some notable, schemes of union have come
 about". No schemes of union had come about: the churches had united.
 (14)

Union is not a matter of "schemes", but of the churches uniting in their lives, structures and their will to do God's will. And this is all within a broader context of mission, since the ultimate aim of church union is to foster God's mission in the world. Thus Niles added, "In the statement about evangelization it should be said that all the Faith and Order discussions should take place in terms of evangelization". (15)

Strikingly D.T. Niles also signalled, in language as unmistakable as it was polite, the impatience of the churches of the southern hemisphere with the ecumenical movement's focus on the theological and historical divisions of their northern hemisphere "parents":

 ... Mr Niles felt that the older churches were discussing the
 reasons and circumstances which had led to their earlier divorce:
 the younger churches were only just getting married and did not wish
 to be asked their opinion on the subjects which had led to the
 quarrels between the older churches. (16)

A sign of reconciliation

The united churches' witness to reconciliation is particularly clear in the formation of the Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa in 1999. As noted above, this brought together a predominantly white church and a black church which had been divided long before in order to ensure the separation of the races. The preparatory material for the seventh international consultation of united and uniting churches had this to say about the event:

 It is sometimes forgotten that the goal of church union is not to
 unite church bureaucracies; nor are they merely for the sake of
 efficiency or, indeed, survival. Church unions are not the end, but
 the beginning, of a process whose goal is to heal wounds, to witness
 to the justice and reconciliation effected by Christ (in both the
 church and in the world!), and to enable more effective witness and
 service to the world. As Alastair Rodger wrote in the previous
 church union survey for 1996-99, reflecting on the formation of the
 Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa: "... this union is a
 step in faith. It does not mean that the old divisions and all the
 hurts, suspicions and fear that go with them have suddenly been
 overcome, but it does demonstrate a willingness to allow God to take
 us a stage further in the healing process." (17)

It was clear to these divided churches that nothing less than full organic union would do. That is, no amount of common worship, joint parishes, common programming, "creative partnerships" or "intentional sharing"--none of this would make the witness that has come through the full structural integration of these divided church bodies. What full organic union, the structural union of these previously divided churches means is that now, in a South Africa still struggling to overcome the vestiges of apartheid, these white and black Christians have committed themselves to making their reconciliation work. As Martin Cressey put it: they have "removed the possibility of that self-distancing" (18) by committing themselves to being one church, materially and structurally as well as spiritually.

But what about the fresh divisions which arise during some union processes? It is true that, in some cases, small groups in at least one of the uniting churches do remain outside the union. But while this is regrettable, it usually only makes explicit an unresolved theological or historical division which has been present in that church all along. That is, it points to a reconciliation not yet achieved within one of the churches now called to a wider union. Each union process must decide in its own specific context whether that internal divison within one of the churches justifies all the churches in the union process denying their call to union, with its potential for other, wider reconciliations. It should also be noted that the very process of separation, difficult as it is, may clarify issues which were being "covered over", and this may enable a process of reconciliation with the group which has not accepted the union.

Thus organic union makes a powerful witness to integration and to reconciliation, and is in this respect a clear challenge to the post-modern world-view. Of course organic union is not possible in every context. For example, it is not yet practical for Churches Uniting in Christ in the US, with its nine member churches struggling to overcome the legacy of institutional racism, and with their serious ecclesiological differences on the question of episcopacy. But where full organic union is possible, then "spiritual" unity is just not enough.

Church union: a continuing hope

In conclusion, it is worth emphasizing that this vision of diversity held within unity, of mutual accountability within one body, is not "passe" but remains attractive and compelling today. We noted above several of the church unions Which have been consummated within the past ten years. And we can count almost fifty churches which are currently involved in some 13 more-or-less active union processes in Africa, Asia, Europe and North America; some--such as Samen op Weg in the Netherlands--hoping to come to fruition very soon, others over the next ten years.

This vision of organic union has recently been renewed at the seventh international consultation of united and uniting churches, held at Driebergen, Netherlands, in September 2002 and hosted by Samen op Weg. Under the theme "With a Demonstration of the Spirit and of Power (1 Cor. 2:4): The Life and Mission of the United and Uniting Churches", the consultation explored the themes of unity, mission and identity, receiving strong input from local church union efforts around the world, not least in the Netherlands itself. (19)

At Driebergen the united and uniting churches stressed their interdependence, not only among themselves but in relation to their partners: to mission and development agencies, funding sources, Christian world communions, the World Council of Churches and its Faith and Order commission. This is a kairos moment in the ecumenical movement, when Christians and the churches are renewing their commitment to the unity of Christ's church and seeking new and creative ways of relating to one another in common confession, worship, witness and service. And at this moment the family of united and uniting churches would offer words of encouragement--and challenge--to the ecumenical movement and to all the churches, reminding them that

 They seek bonds of sharing and support, both spiritual and material,
 which can sustain their common life and strengthen them when they
 become weary. They look together to the Source of their faith and
 life, longing to be a sign, to both church and world, of the power
 of the gospel to unite that which is divided and to reconcile that
 which is estranged. Together they hope to experience, and to be,
 truly "a demonstration of the Spirit and of power". (20)

(1) With apologies to Friedrich Schleiermacher and his Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers! (1893; the German original, Reden uber die Religion, appeared in 1799).

(2) In addition I am grateful to the organizers of the Craigville Colloquy (an annual United Church of Christ pastors conference) for their invitation to develop these thoughts in an English-speaking context, for presentation to the colloquy in July/August 2003.

(3) At Bossey, Celigny, Switzerland, 1967 (Mid-Stream, vol. 6, 1967, report pp.10-15, notes from the discussion, pp.16-22; German: see Kirchenunionen und Kirchenqemeinshaft, Reinhard Groscurth ed., Frankfurt am Main, Otto Lembeck, 1971, report pp. 115-121); Limuru, Kenya, 1970 (Mid-Stream, vol. 9, 1970, report pp. 4-12, notes from the discussion, pp. 13-33; German: see Kirchenunionen und Kirchenqemeinshaft, report pp. 123-31, notes from the discussion pp. 133-51); Toronto, Canada, 1975 (Mid-Stream, vol. 14, 1975, report pp.541-63, see also What Unity Requires, Faith and Order Paper no. 77, WCC, 1976, pp.18-29); Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1981 (Growing Towards Consensus and Commitment, Faith and Order Paper no. 110, WCC, 1981, report pp.l-35; see also Unity in Each Place... In AII Places...: United Churches and the Christian World Communions, Michael Kinnamon, ed., Faith and Order Paper no. 118, Geneva, WCC, 1983, report pp.101-35, and Called to be One in Christ: United Churches and the Ecumenical Movement, Michael Cinnamon and Thomas F. Best ends, Faith and Order Paper no. 127, Geneva, WCC, 1985; German: report Watchmen imp Consensus und in deer Verpflichtung, Colombo, 1981, Berlin, Kirchenkanzlei der Evangelischen Kirche der Union, 1982); Potsdam, GDR, 1987 (Living Today Towards Visible Unity: The Fifth International Consultant of United and Uniting Churches, Thomas F. Best ed., Faith and Order Paper no. 142, Geneva, WCC, 1988, report pp.1-20; German: see Gemeinsam auf dem Weg zur sichtbaren Einheit, Reinhard Groscurth ed., Berlin, Kirchenkanzlei der Evangelischen Kirche der Union, 1988, cf. pp.10-11, 20-24, 27-28); Ocho Rios, Jamaica 1995 (Built Together: The Present Vocation of United and Uniting Churches (Eph. 2:22), Thomas F. Best ed., Faith and Order Paper no. 174, Faith and Order Commission, WCC, 1995, report pp.6-31); Driebergen, Netherlands, 2002 ("With a Demonstration of the Spirit and of Power [1 Cor. 2:4]: The Life and Mission of United and Uniting Churches", the Seventh International Consultation of United and Uniting Churches, "Message from the Consultation", in The Ecumenical Review, vol. 54, no. 4, Oct. 2002, pp.525-29; further publication forthcoming).

(4) The series goes back, in various forms, to at least the 1950s. Most recently see the accounts for 1983-85/86 (Faith and Order Paper no. 133, The Ecumenical Review, vol. 38, no. 4, Oct. 1986), 1986-88 (no. 145, ER, vol. 41, no. 2, April 1989, pp.281-302), 1988-91 (no. 154, ER, vol. 44, no. 1, Jan. 1992, pp. 131-55), 1992-94 (no. 169, ER, vol. 47, no. 1, Jan. 1995, pp.70-103), 1994-96 (no. 176, ER, vol. 49, no. 2, April 1997, pp.223-62), 1996-99 (no. 186, ER, vol. 52, no. 1, Jan. 2000, pp.3-45), and 1999-2002 (no. 192, ER, vol. 54, no. 3, July 2002, pp.369-419).

(5) See for example Growth in Agreement II: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level, 1982-1998, Faith and Order Paper no. 187, Jeffrey Gros, Harding Meyer and William G. Rusch eds, Geneva, WCC Publications, and Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 2000.

(6) From a theological and religious perspective see Anthony C. Thistleton, "postmodernity, postmodernism", in A Concise Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Religion Anthony C. Thistleton ed., Oxford, Oneworld Publications, 2002, pp. 233-35; more generally, Bernd Magnus, "postmodern", in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 2nd ed., Robert Audi ed., Cambridge, Cambridge UP, 1999, pp.725-26.

(7) Postmodernity, postmodernism" in A Concise Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Religion, p.235

(8) To their great credit, the presentations to the seventh international consultation of united and uniting churches (Driebergen, Netherlands, 2002) from persons involved in the Samen op Weg process are completely realistic about these suspicions of union. See Bas Plaisler's sermon given in the consultation's closing worship service, and Leo J. Koffeman, "The Impact of Unity--A Case Study". Publication of the consultation papers, sermons and report is forthcoming.

(9) The Second World Conference on Faith and Order, Leonard Hodgson ed., New York, Macmillan, 1938. pp.252.

(10) Ibid.

(11) Thomas F. Best, "United and Uniting Churches", article in Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche, Freiburg im Breisgau, Herder, publication forthcoming, in German; and the schema given by Martin Cressey in "Where and Whither? An Interpretive Survey of United and Uniting Churches", in Minutes of the Meeting of the Faith and Order Standing Commission, Rome, Italy, 1991, Faith and Order Paper no. 157, WCC Faith and Order commission, 1992, pp.59-60.

(12) Jong Sung Rhee, "The Quest for Unity in Asia", in International Review of Mission, vol. 59, no. 254, April 1970, pp.206-14, see p.208. I have treated this theme also in Thomas F. Best, "The United and Uniting Churches: A Distinctive Witness for Unity", in The Ecumenical Implications of the Discussion of "The Global Nature of the United Methodist Church", New York, General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns, United Methodist Church, 1999, pp.111-22.

(13) Martin Cressey, "Where and Whither? An Interpretive Survey of United and Uniting Churches", pp. 61; see also Report of the Fifth International Consultation of United and Uniting Churches, para. 37, in Living Today Towards Visible Unity, p. 37.

(14) See The First Assembly of the World Council of Churches, W. A. Visser 't Hooft ed., London, SCM Press, 1949, p.62.

(15) Ibid.

(16) Ibid.

(17) Thomas F. Best, unpublished; the quotation from Alastair Rodger is from the "Survey of Church Union Negotiations 1996-1999", see The Ecumenical Review, vol. 52, no. 1, 2000, p.29.

(18) Cressey, "Where and Whither?", p.61.

(19) In addition to the sermon by Bas Plaisier and the case study by Leo J. Koffeman referred to above, see the consultation's theme papers and case studies in "Unity, Mission, and Identity: The Challenge of the United and Uniting Churches Today", publication forthcoming in 2004.

(20) Adapted from the report of the seventh international consultation of united and uniting churches, 2003, "Conclusion: Moving Forward Together", in "Unity, Mission, and Identity".

Thomas F. Best serves on behalf of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) as a programme executive in the Faith and Order team of the WCC. Among his responsibilities are relations with the family of united and uniting churches. This paper is based on an article which appeared in Dutch: "Kerkvereniging: een antwoord aan wie haar postmodern varachten", translated by Leo Koffeman, in Kerk en theologie, vol. 54, no. 3. July 2003, pp.216-27. The author is grateful to Leo Koffeman and other members of the editorial hoard of Kerk en theologie for the permission to reflect on these issues in the Dutch context, pregnant as it now is with the fact of church union.