The Church: Towards a Common Vision.

Gibaut, John St-Helier

Part I. Toward Theological Convergence

A. Introduction: North American Contexts

My thanks to Professor Mitzi Budde for her invitation to present The Church: Towards a Common Vision (TCTCV). (1) Presenting this particular text to a Canadian and American (2) audience is especially important for me, because what I present here is the culmination of what I left Canada to do seven years ago. My sense of Canadian--if not North American--identity has been shaped by being out of this context in this time.

As a Canadian at the World Council of Churches (WCC), I am constantly caught off guard by assumptions from my own context that call me to step back, to be mindful of the diverse ecumenical contexts from which we all come, and to name some ways that our particular region might be ahead of other parts of the world and have something to share, (3) as well as other ways in which we might lag behind and have something to receive. (4)

Both Canada and the United States have their particular histories of living ecumenically, going back to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The Great Awakenings are an American phenomenon. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, with its clear distinction between church and state, cannot be reduced to Enlightenment ideology. It was an American way of dealing with the colonial experience of divided churches by ensuring that no one church is "established," leaving the others as disadvantaged "dissenters." (5) In Canada, the granting of religious liberties to Roman Catholics in the 1770's (6) was not recognized in Great Britain for another seventy years.

This is not the place to rehearse the background of North American ecumenical contexts. I would simply like to underscore that our histories and our particular ecumenical struggles and achievements are different from the European experience of living with a divided Christianity, and they are distinct from other colonial and post-colonial experiences of Christian disunity, not to mention Middle Eastern, Slavic, and other contexts, which are even more diverse. The experiences of estranged churches in North America are different, depending on which side of the border one lives, and they differ in various regions of both countries.

B. Introduction to Faith and Order

Before I begin any presentation on the work of Faith and Order, I have found it worthwhile to explain the very language of "faith and order," which can easily be misunderstood, especially in English-speaking contexts, particularly in North America, and even among the most ecumenically minded. I note that the Canadian Council of Churches' Faith and Order Commission became the "Faith and Witness Commission." The words "Director of Faith and Order" and "Commission on Faith and Order" for many people conjure up visions of theology police. At the end of 2007, when I left Saint Paul University, a pontifical university, a colleague asked me in all seriousness whether I was going to be the "new Cardinal Ratzinger of the WCC"! Faith and Order is something entirely different. It is not the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for the WCC; our Roman Catholic equivalent and major partner is the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

Since the goal of the ecumenical movement is to recover the visible unity of Christ's one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, there needs to be a space to discuss the issues that divided Christians and keep us apart. That is what Faith and Order has provided for over eighty years: a forum to dialogue about divisive issues of the "faith" and the "ordering" of the churches. By "faith" I mean doctrine: what we believe about God, the Trinity, the person of Jesus Christ, the Bible, salvation, the sacraments, ministries, or the nature of the church. By "order" I mean the structure of the church. How are churches ordered or organized? Is it the local congregation served by its minister of word and sacrament? Or, is it a diocese with a bishop? What is the relationship between and among the local, national, regional, and international levels of the churches?

Questions of "order" can equally be issues of "faith," such as differences over ordained ministries and diverse expressions of leadership in the churches. For instance, Roman Catholics do not think that the papacy is a helpful business model to lead an international community of believers; they believe that communion with the Diocese of Rome and its bishop is Christ's will for the Church. Congregationalists do not think smaller is better for administrative purposes; they believe that the local congregation is the fullness of what the New Testament understands as being the church of Christ. Anglicans and Orthodox do not insist on episcopacy as a good structural model of church governance; they believe that having bishops in apostolic succession belongs to the apostolic nature and mission of the church.

Questions about the exercise of authority in the church are equally about "faith" and "order." Who makes decisions, and how? Beyond the Bible, what other sources are authoritative for Christian decision-making? Our differences and divergence on these questions of "faith" and "order" surface today largely around ethical questions and moral discernment. As North American Christians know, perhaps more acutely than those in any other region, questions about human sexuality--who can be married, who can be ordained, and just as importantly, who decides--are church-dividing questions of both faith and order. Thus, the agenda of Faith and Order is vast, but the starting point is Christian disunity. The aim is "to call the churches to the goal of visible unity in one faith and in one eucharistic fellowship." (7) The methodology is informed, open, and respectful dialogue on the divisive theological issues in order either to seek their resolution or to limit their capacity for being church-dividing.

Although the beginning of Faith and Order is usually associated with the first World Conference on Faith and Order in Lausanne, Switzerland, in 1927, its actual creation lies in the October, 1910, General Convention of the Episcopal Church of the United States (ECUS). The idea of a Faith and Order conference began with Charles Brent, Canadian-born bishop of the ECUS, who made the link between the call of the Edinburgh Conference (8) for Christian unity and the need to resolve issues of faith and order in the divided churches. The ECUS General Convention called for a conference of the representatives of all the churches "for the consideration of questions pertaining to the Faith and Order of the Church of Christ." (9)

The planning for a world conference on Faith and Order began in 1910, but it was not held until 1927, largely because of the First World War, not to mention the logistics a century ago to design a global gathering. Theologians and church leaders from the broadest spectrum of churches met each other officially for the first time at Lausanne in the summer of 1927. They discovered, much to their surprise, that on questions of "faith" divided Christians were much closer than they had imagined. It was around questions of "order" that things became more complicated.

There was extraordinary excitement and momentum from that gathering. Naively, perhaps, participants left the conference convinced that Christians of good will could resolve the issues of faith and order within a generation. As a movement, Faith and Order became more widespread and more organized. At its second World Conference in 1937, it made the decision, along with its twin movement Life and Work, to constitute the WCC. When the WCC was established in 2948, Faith and Order became a commission of the Council, as it has been ever since. National and local councils of churches similarly formed Faith and Order commissions, many of which achieved significant progress. Until the 1960's, Faith and Order was the only forum where formal theological dialogue took place. The bilateral dialogues emerging between churches after the Second Vatican Council followed the same faith and order agenda.

The WCC's Commission on Faith and Order is now a fifty-member commission of theologians formally nominated by their churches, with a secretariat of six in Geneva. The commission represents the global breadth of churches within the WCC and beyond; its membership also includes non-WCC-member churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, Pentecostal and Evangelical churches, Historic Peace Churches, and others. Accordingly, Faith and Order has been identified as the most comprehensive theological table in the world. As such, it is the unique context in which to reflect on the issues that divide us and is perhaps the only theological community capable of producing a common vision of the unity of the church that is both global and ecumenical.

Faith and Order questions and methodology are often dismissed as "European" and "academic," thus a luxury that the rest of the world can ill afford. It is important to recall that the deepest roots of Faith and Order are neither European nor academic, but American and contextual, arising from the U.S. Civil War. American churches--especially Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians--were torn apart by that war and by religious differences on slavery in the decades preceding it. Some churches, such as the Presbyterian Church-USA (PCUSA), healed Civil War divisions only as recently as the 1980s.

After 1865, American churches knew that they needed to recover the Christian unity that was disrupted by the Civil War. American Protestant churches acknowledged that their disunity from one another also needed to be healed more widely. So, a nineteenth-century proto-ecumenical movement happened in the U.S. to recover what was lost in the Civil War and to promote a larger vision as well. Various churches proposed schemes of reunion, but one gained worldwide attention: the Chicago Quadrilateral proposed by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in 1886 (10) and adopted by the Anglican Communion at the 1888 Lambeth Conference. It became the basis of the 1920 Lambeth Conference's "Appeal to All Christian People" and played an influential role in the first planning meeting in 1920 for the upcoming World Conference on Faith and Order, setting the agenda that is reflected in Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (BEM), (11) in the Apostolic Faith study, in the work on hermeneutics, and in Faith and Order's lengthy reflection on ecclesiology. What was initially a national initiative to promote visible unity in the American churches became a global strategy.

There is another distinctly American focus in Faith and Order. At the second World Conference in 1937, American theologians raised the issue of "non-theological factors" leading to Christian disunity, beginning with racism from the nineteenth-century American divisions over slavery to racial segregation in the 1930's. It also extended to new divisive issues of human sexuality (contraception and divorce) and the rise of totalitarianism in Europe. It would be decades before theologians, notably European, would regard nontheological factors as part of the agenda of Faith and Order, and not until 1968 when so-called nontheological factors such as racism and apartheid were recognized as profoundly theological and patently church-dividing.

C. Ecclesiology: Why It Matters

The canons, bylaws, and books of order of any given church or the mission statement of congregations and parishes all in one way or another reveal a particular understanding of what the church is and what the church does or ought to do. These statements are about the meaning and purpose of the church or, to use the technical term, ecclesiology. Ecumenical texts such as constitutions of councils of churches, full-communion agreements between churches, the texts of the Consultation on Church Union (COCU) and Churches Uniting in Christ (CUIC), or even the texts of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity are inescapably ecclesiological.

Ecclesiology means "the study of the church" or "what we say or believe about the church," from the Greek "ekklesia"--"those called to assemble"-and "logos," meaning "word," "verb," or "speech." What can we say together about this people convoked to assemble by the God who raised Jesus Christ from the dead? Ecclesiology is a relatively new discipline. While the New Testament, the ancient teachers of the church, and the Medieval and Reformation theologians certainly say much about the church, there was little systematic theological reflection on the church until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when the churches began to encounter and assess one another in the emerging ecumenical movement. We wondered about our ecumenical partners' self-understanding as churches. What was necessary to be in communion with these other churches? In the end, what is essential to be the church?

An image or metaphor that I find helpful in introducing ecclesiology and why it is so vital for the ecumenical movement is drawn from the world of computers and smart phones. Most of us are very interested in programs, applications, and "apps." Most of us are probably not so at ease in the world of operating systems. Yet, we know that if our computers or smart phones are using incompatible operating systems, then we cannot communicate with each other, work with one another, or even recognize each other. That is what ecclesiology is--the operating systems of Christian communities. The ecumenical question is whether we have compatible ecclesiastical operating systems and can recognize "church" in the other and can receive from one another and, indeed, receive one another as Christ has received us. (12)

Some people have told me that their churches do not have any ecclesiology. That is like saying they have no sociology either; they may not use--or know--either term, but observable sociologies and ecclesiologies are always there, because every human community has an operating system. All Christian communities have an inherent ecclesiology, whether they use the term or not. Every church relates to the world, the state, and the culture in particular ways. Every church relates to issues of justice and peace, service, and the environment in particular ways. Every church relates to other churches--and other religions--in ways that both shape and reflect its self-understanding. These are all part of ecclesiology, making it a practical-indeed, a pastoral--discipline. "Church" is not just a noun seeking a definition but also a verb, seeking mutually recognized ways of being and acting in the world as a faith community.

The biggest fear in the ecumenical movement has been that when divided Christians speak of the "church" they mean irreconcilably different things. Accordingly, the root cause of historic--and, indeed, of current-divisions of the church are divergent ecclesiologies or, to put it another way, incompatible operating systems. Moreover, as a consequence of living in the abnormal state of ecclesial division, Christian communities have developed further ways of expressing what it means "to be the church" that are suspected of being not only different but even incompatible.

For instance, who is welcomed to receive Holy Communion at the celebration of the eucharist in the Anglican or Episcopal Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church, or the United Church, or the Mennonite Church, and who is not? Behind the rules that dictate such things are deeper layers of ecclesiology. If I say that my understanding of the church is that it is simply a group of people who choose to get together because they agree on certain religious tenets, but you say that belonging to the church, the body of Christ, is necessary for salvation, we have two irreconcilable views. If you say that the church is called to be in the world for service and witness and advocacy and being engaged in political struggle when necessary, but I say that the church is a refuge from the world, a place of comfort and prayer, which must never be political--again, these are two conflicting understandings and expectations about what it means to be the church. If you say that your church is inclusive of people of diverse languages, cultures, colors, and points of view, and I say that my church is for people who look, talk, and think as I do and in my language, again we have opposing views of what it means to be church. Each of these theological perspectives comes with distinct ways of being and acting in the world.

I have always been saddened to meet members of churches that once belonged to the WCC but left in the 1970's over the WCC's decision to support the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Their decision to leave on the grounds that the church should not be engaged in political struggle reflects a particular ecclesiology. To those churches that supported the South African people and their churches in their struggle against the government-sponsored program of apartheid, apartheid was deemed not simply to be an unjust violation of human rights, but it was also condemned as heretical. The position of those churches that supported the policy--and indeed, initiated it--understood apartheid as violating the fundamental biblical and creedal understandings of what "church " means. From this extraordinary action, in ecumenical ecclesiology "church" is not just a noun seeking a mutually recognized, common definition, but it is also a verb, seeking mutually recognized ways of being and acting together in the world as the body of Christ. Accordingly, some ways of "doing" church can be judged as stances of illegitimate diversity.

When Christians disagree on their understanding and praxis of church, it becomes difficult to speak of the unity of the church, problematic to be a communion of churches, and a challenge to be a council of churches such as the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, the Canadian Council of Churches, Christian Churches Together, or even the WCC. The ecclesiological question is a major, if not the major, challenge for the ecumenical movement as a whole today.

If the thesis is correct that churches are irreconcilably disagreed on the fundamental meaning about the nature and purpose of the church, then the ecumenical enterprise as we know it is in serious trouble. If this thesis is not true, then what can the churches say together--theologically--about the nature and mission of the church today? If there are things that we can say together, is it a sufficient enough basis for the churches to continue to grow into that unity we seek?

There is, however, an important prior question. Is the thesis or fear of irreconcilable ecclesiologies true or not? How would such a thesis be tested in order to determine how close or distant we are in our understandings of the nature and purpose of the church? These are the questions to which the Faith and Order Commission seeks to respond. The tool it developed to test where the churches are on their self-understanding is TCTCV.

D. Faith and Order Reflection on the Church

An important stage in Faith and Order reflection on the church began after 1982 with the formal responses of the churches to BEM, the first Faith and Order convergence text. Faith and Order received 186 responses from churches around the world that were published in six large volumes. This degree of transparency enabled the churches to see one another's responses and to note for themselves their convergences with one another.

Six responses to BEM were received from Canada: (13) the Anglican Church of Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the United Church of Canada, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Canada, and the Canadian Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends. Fourteen responses to BEM were received from the U.S: (14) the Lutheran Church in America, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) USA, The Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, the Moravian Church in America Southern Province, the Moravian Church in America Northern Province, the United Church of Christ, the Orthodox Church of America, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the PCUSA, the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Church in America, the American Baptist Churches in the USA, and the Church of the Brethren USA.

Canadian and American churches whose leadership is based outside or beyond North America were also represented in the responses to BEM elsewhere, especially the Orthodox and Roman Catholic responses, as well as those of the Salvation Army and the Seventh-day Adventists.

I was a student at the Toronto School of Theology in 1982 when BEM was published, and I remember its place in the academic curriculum and the general mood of ecumenical excitement. In those days we could almost taste the unity that was so close! BEM was not simply a received theological text but was also received as a vision of renewal into the very lives of the churches in North America and beyond, and it shaped our relationships with one another. I note in particular the growing mutual recognition of baptism; a common liturgical renewal reflecting the convergence in BEM, especially around the eucharist; and the effects of BEM on new series of full and intercommunion agreements between churches. While perhaps the least-well-received part of BEM was the section on ministry, especially its teaching on episcopacy, it had an impact on Lutheran-Anglican relationships in both countries. The 1989 COCU text on Churches in Covenant Communion, for instance, has much in common with the direction of BEM, especially around the role of bishops.

Globally, the responses to BEM revealed substantial convergence on baptism and the eucharist, with somewhat less agreement on ministry. The responses also registered an anxiety about whether there was agreement on ecclesiology between the churches, for divergent or irreconcilable ecclesiology would render the progress achieved in BEM ineffective. (15) Thus, ecclesiology became the major emphasis of Faith and Order following BEM. The 1993 World Conference on Faith and Order at Santiago de Compostela, Spain, marked the new stage of focused reflection on ecclesiology that would lead to TCTCV twenty years later.

The first preliminary text on ecclesiology was the 1998 text on The Nature and Purpose of the Church (TNPC). (16) It was sent for response to churches, ecumenical institutes, faculties of theology, and others. By 2004, fifty-four responses had been received and studied by Faith and Order, including from Canada the Presbyterian Church in Canada and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto; and from the U.S. the Ohio Council of Churches, the Massachusetts Commission on Christian Unity, the Massachusetts and Rhode Island State Councils of Churches, the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College, Eden Theological Seminary, Phillips Theological Seminary, Lexington Theological Seminary, the American Baptist Churches USA, Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh, the PCUSA, and the Assemblies of God. Significantly, only three churches responded from the U.S.: the Assemblies of God, the PCUSA, and the American Baptist Churches USA.

On the basis of the fifty-four responses to TNPC, that text was significantly revised and then published in 2005 as The Nature and Mission of the Church (TNMC). (17) Faith and Order received eighty-two responses from around the world to the 2005 text, including a pan- Orthodox response and a very detailed response from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. An in-depth study of the text also took place at the 2009 Faith and Order Plenary Commission.

Canadian responses to TNMC were received from the United Church of Canada and a bilateral response from the Anglican Church of Canada and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada. U.S. responses were received from the Disciples of Christ, the PCUSA, the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the Southern California Ecumenical Council Faith and Order Commission, the Vermont Ecumenical Council and Bible Society, and a group of Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Episcopalians in New York City; academic responses came from Fuller Theological Seminary, the Boston Theological Institute, and the School of Divinity at Regent University. More North American churches responded to TNMC than to its predecessor, with a different constellation of councils of churches and academic responses. (18)

On the basis of these responses, in 2010 the Commission began the final phase toward a common statement. The work was completed by the Standing Commission on Faith and Order in june, 2012, at Penang, Malaysia, and TCTCV was approved by the Commission as a convergence text. It was then sent to the 2012 WCC Central Committee meeting, where it was received and commended to the churches for study and formal response.

The final version was published and launched in March, 2013. To date, the text exists in at least 16 different languages (19) and has been presented in Europe, North America, Latin America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Australasia. Churches around the world have begun the study process.

E. The Church: Towards a Common Vision

TCTCV is a relatively short text: sixty-nine paragraphs, forty pages, in four chapters, followed by a historical note. It represents a synthesis of twenty years of reflection by thousands of theologians, pastors, lay people, and church leaders from around the world to uncover this common theological understanding about the church.

The first chapter, "God's Mission and the Unity of the Church," is about "church" as a verb. It looks at the church in history, beginning with the ministry of Jesus and the mission of the apostolic community. It notes both the church's achievements and its failures, including its own disunity. The first chapter ends with the ecumenical movement and the journey toward Christian unity, which the text frankly admits may "depend upon changes in doctrine, practice and ministry within any given community." (20)

The second chapter, "The Church of the Triune God," the most theological chapter, looks at the church as a noun: what church "means," that is, the nature of the church. While using a number of biblical images--prophetic, priestly, and royal people of God; the body of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit--the central or governing biblical image throughout the entire text is "communion" or koinonia. The church as a communion in unity and diversity is rooted in the koinonia of love within the triune God; the church is described as sign and servant of God's design for the world, "to gather humanity and all creation into communion under the Lordship of Christ." (21)

The third chapter, "The Church: Growing into Communion," sets out the things that are deemed necessary in ecumenical dialogue to grow into the church as described in Chapter II, that is, the church as the sign and servant of God's communion. It does so under the categories of common faith, common sacraments, and common ministry. The church growing into communion is described as the "already ... but not yet." (22)

The final chapter, "The Church: In and for the World," returns to the mission of the church "in and for the world." The church is the sign and servant of the triune God's design of koinonia for the whole of creation. As such, koinonia impels the churches to strive for healing and reconciliation, justice and peace, and the integrity of creation, together with all people of good will. "The world that 'God so loved' is scarred with problems and tragedies which cry out for the compassionate engagement of Christians. The source of their passion for the transformation of the world lies in their communion with God in Jesus Christ. They believe that God, who is absolute love, mercy and justice, can work through them, in the power of the Holy Spirit." (23) It also compels them to make their communion with one another visible, that is, to be in one eucharistic fellowship.

TCTCV is not a "blueprint," a theological definition, or a sociological description of what the church is but a vision of what the church could be in its theological self-understanding, life, and mission. Drawing on the best insights from the diverse churches, Faith and Order has produced an ecumenical vision that challenges the churches to grow more into what God calls the church to be in terms of self-understanding, witness and mission, and unity. As a vision of what the churches could be, the text is not a "lowest common denominator" but quite the opposite.

F. What Is New in the Text?

After twenty years of dialogue within the Commission, and between Faith and Order and the churches, I am often asked what is new in TCTCV. As I am too close to the text, I am not the person who ought to be answering this question; in fact, at times none of it seems new to me. I am more interested in what readers have to say, but I will signal five things, as a start.

First, it is a convergence text of the Faith and Order Commission, the second such text in eighty years. When the Commission can agree on anything as a convergence, it is new. There are two convergences: what we can say together about the church, and what we agree we cannot say, that is, the open questions. Thus, a convergence text does not claim complete agreement. As the Latin root suggests, a "convergence" is "to incline or come together." As with koinonia, it admits communion in unity and legitimate diversity. As such, a convergence text is an "active" text that invites dialogue, comparison, response, and reception--hence, the subtitle, Towards a Common Vision.

Second, the footnotes of the text are new and were much resisted by our publisher, who feared it would make the text look too academic. We kept them because they identify the broad convergences on ecclesiology. TCTCV is a "harvesting" text, drawing together the insights of the earlier studies of the Commission such as BEM and the responses to BEM, Confessing the One Faith, Church and World: The Unity of the Church and the Renewal of Human Community, and One Baptism: Towards Mutual Recognition. The text notes the convergences on ecclesiology from the international bilateral dialogues, and it harvests insights from contemporary missiology, especially the concept of the Missio Dei. In a sense, as a harvesting text TCTCV brings together ecclesiological insights that have already been expressed, which are also not new--but the harvesting is new.

Third, Faith and Order does something new with the concept of "koinonia." Communion ecclesiology is not new, of course. It has long been proposed by theologians and is reflected in regional and international bilateral dialogues and in the Christian World Communions. However, naming koinonia ecclesiology as a convergence and then proposing it to the churches as normative is new. If the churches embrace the vision of koinonia as expressed in TCTCV, the potential consequences are enormous.

Fourth, Faith and Order does something new with authority in the church. Authority in the church derives from Jesus, whose entire ministry was characterized by the word "exousia":

   The distinctive nature of authority in the Church can be understood
   and exercised correctly only in the light of the authority of its
   head, the one who was crucified, who "emptied himself" and
   "obediently accepted even death, death on the cross" ... Thus, the
   Church's authority is different from that of the world....
   Authority within the Church must be understood as humble service,
   nourishing and building up the koinonia of the Church in faith,
   life and witness; it is exemplified in Jesus' action of washing the
   feet of the disciples. It is a service (diakonia, of love, without
   any domination or coercion. (24)

The text asks how this kind of authority can be recognized. Here, TCTCV adds something new: "[A]uthority in the Church ... reflects the holiness of God.... Such authority is recognized wherever the truth which leads to holiness is expressed and the holiness of God is voiced 'from the lips of children and infants' ... Holiness means a greater authenticity in relationship with God, with others and with all creation." (25) With some bravado, the section concludes with a claim for the authority of ecumenical dialogues: "Accordingly, a certain kind of authority maybe recognized in the ecumenical dialogues and the agreed statements they produce, when they reflect a common search for and discovery of the truth in love ..., urge believers to seek the Lord's will for ecclesial communion, and invite ongoing metanoia and holiness of life." (26)

Fifth, Faith and Order does something new with the old debates on the sacramental nature of the church. In TNMC, this issue is identified as an area of disagreement. That 2005 text described the church as "Sign and Instrument of God's Intention and Plan for the World." (27) "Instrumentality" was seen by some as too close to Lumen gentium; to others, particularly the Orthodox, it sounded too "instrumental" in the utilitarian sense of the word. TCTCV rephrases this slightly but significantly to "The Church as Sign and Servant of God's Design for the World," understood as koinonia. (28) This change is more than a matter of semantics but represents a vision of the church rooted in both mission and communion. The church as God's "sign and servant" is deeply related to the theme of authority in TCTCV as exousia and a diakonia of love. (29)

G. Reception

TCTCV is now before the churches, councils of churches, ecumenical organizations, and the academy. Faith and Order's aims in sending it out for study, formal response, and reception are twofold.

I will start with the second and more immediate objective, which is theological agreement on ecclesiology. TCTCV is commended to the churches to test Faith and Order's convergence on ecclesiology and to discern the level of convergence that currently exists between the churches. In the introduction to the text five questions are posed to the churches to test the convergence achieved by Faith and Order. The WCC has requested that the churches submit their responses to TCTCV by the end of December, 2015. The responses will be analyzed by Faith and Order and published together by the end of 2017.

The formal responses of the churches either will or will not register a level of convergence on ecclesiology among the churches. If there is significant disagreement with the text, then either the lengthy Faith and Order process was flawed, or there really is no convergence on ecclesiology. Either way, the ecumenical venture is in serious trouble. However, if there is a significant convergence among the churches, then we can identify a "Common Vision," and thus a major obstacle to the visible unity of the church is overcome. Restored unity will not be an immediate result. However, growth toward mutual recognition of one another as churches and eventual mutual reception of one another as churches will have a new foundation in a mutually recognized ecclesiology.

I have noted the relatively low number of responses from North American churches to Faith and Order work on ecclesiology, particularly from my own country; the responses from the academy and councils have been more encouraging. Today, I would ask all members of the North American Academy of Ecumenists to be agents of reception for TCTCV from the perspectives of your schools and ecumenical organizations and, above all, your churches. Encourage them to read and reflect on the text, in order to be challenged and encouraged by it. Use the text in teaching; publish articles on it. Be of service to your churches in their response processes, urging them to respond--even non-WCC-member churches. Submit responses from your councils of churches and your ecumenical and academic institutes. I am delighted and excited for the plans for the 2015 NAAE conference, which is being designed to be an intensive hands-on working session to generate a formal NAAE response to TCTCV. (30) This is good news, indeed!

BEM changed the church; TCTCV has the same capacity. This is a historic moment: The next generation is being presented with such a window of ecumenical opportunity! Because North America is a distinct ecumenical region, both Canadian and American responses to TCTCV are vital to the global reception of this text. As the only region-wide response from North America, the response from the NAAE will play a significant role.

The primary and longer-term process of receiving TCTCV has to do with moving beyond theological agreement to living into the text, in the ways that churches received BEM by living into its vision. I would make one remark to American colleagues whose churches are members of Churches Uniting in Christ (CUIC); I believe that TCTCV can assist these churches to move to a new place and to live into the "eight marks of commitment," which are also expressions of koinonia. Insofar as TCTCV reflects a common search for and discovery of the truth in love, urges believers to seek God's will for ecclesial communion, and invites ongoing metanoia and holiness of life, its deepest objective is renewal. I will return to this primary level of reception in my second presentation.

Some churches, upon reading TCTCV, may find that they are challenged to live more fully the ecclesial life; others may find in the text aspects of ecclesial life that have been neglected or forgotten; still others may find them selves strengthened and affirmed. I think that all churches will be challenged by this vision of the church in terms of growth and renewal, a renewed commitment to each other, a renewed commitment to justice and peace, a renewed commitment to mission, and a renewed commitment to unity. As we draw closer to God, we draw closer in visible communion to one another. Renewal is about growth in communion; koinonia is about renewal.

Part II. Toward Pastoral Reception

A. The Reception oF TCTCV as a Theological Text

I concluded my first presentation by outlining the two aims of Faith and Order in sending TCTCV to the churches, ecumenical partners, the academy, and beyond. I noted that the second and more immediate goal of the reception of TCTCV is to test with the churches the theological convergence reached by the Commission on Faith and Order. Is there a common vision of the church or not? Is there a convergence, or even a degree of convergence, or not?

The responses from the churches are expected by December, 2015 (and likely a little beyond). They will be analyzed and published by Faith and Order, following the same process used for BEM a generation ago. And, then we will know whether there is a convergence on ecclesiology or not, or to what extent. Subsequently, Faith and Order and the wider ecumenical movement will begin to live into the consequences, one way or the other.

This is the first level of reception, but, in the long run, it is secondary in terms of impact on the lives of the churches. Obviously, it is too early to tell what the responses to TCTCV will tell us, but here are some of the "outcome indicators" about the reception process in the first eighteen months since March, 2013, when TCTCV was launched:

* TCTCV exists in sixteen languages.

* TCTCV was published in the WCC 2013 Assembly resource book.

* TCTCV was the topic of an ecumenical conversation at the WCC Assembly.

* Forty-eight churches have begun a formal response process.

* Fourteen councils of churches have started to study the text.

* Twenty-seven faculties of theology or seminaries are using it in teaching.

* TCTCV has contributed to ten regional and international bilateral dialogues.

* TCTCV has been presented in every WCC region: North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Middle East, Asia, and Australia and New Zealand.

* As of September, 2014, there have been 8,894 visits to TCTCV on the WCC website and 170,000 Google results!

I hasten to repeat that these numbers represent only "some" outcome indicators. These instances represent what churches have told me, what Faith and Order commissioners and staff members have reported, and what we have found by surfing the Internet. It indicates only what we have found, rather than the fullest picture of what is actually going on in the churches in terms of the reception of TCTCV, but it gives us hope!

B. The Reception of TCTCV and the Renewal of Ecclesial Life

I ended my first presentation by proposing that the primary and longer-term reception of TCTCV will be a pastoral one that will go beyond theological agreement. The longer-term reception will be living into the "common vision" in the ways that churches lived into the vision of BEM.

I have met people who were part of Faith and Order who were present at Lima in 1982 when BEM was approved as a convergence text. I ask these ecumenical veterans whether in 1982 they had any idea about the impact of BEM on the pastoral lives of the churches in terms of renewal of theology and practices around Christian initiation, the eucharist, and ministry. The common answer is that they had no idea that BEM would be received so profoundly and organically into the lives of many churches.

Similarly, in 2014 we have no idea how TCTCV will be received into the lives of the churches in the next thirty years. However, following the experience of BEM, Faith and Order produced TCTCV with the hope of a similar kind of organic reception by the churches. Insofar as TCTCV reflects a common search for and discovery of the truth in love, urges believers to seek God's will for ecclesial communion, and invites ongoing metanoia and holiness of life, its explicit objective is renewal. I believe that TCTCV has the capacity to challenge every church in terms of renewal: a renewal of ecclesial life, a renewed commitment to justice and peace, a renewed commitment to mission, and a renewed commitment to unity. The ecumenical movement itself is a renewal movement, and renewal implies change. To quote TCTCV: "Visible unity requires that churches be able to recognize in one another the authentic presence of what the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople (381) calls the 'one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church.' This recognition, in turn, may in some instances depend upon changes in doctrine, practice and ministry within any given community." (31)

I am using this second presentation to play a little in my imagination about what a pastoral reception of TCTCV might look like. These musings are my own and reflect neither the text of TCTCV nor any intentional plan from the Commission on Faith and Order, although both the text and the Commission inform my thoughts.

C. TCTCV and Koinonia

As I noted in the first presentation, TCTCV is shaped by koinonia or communion ecclesiology. We know that communion ecclesiology is not new, having long been proposed by theologians, and is reflected in regional and international bilateral dialogues and in the Christian World Communions. TCTCV builds on all of this and links it with other aspects of being church that broaden it. What is truly extraordinary about TCTCV is that, for the very first time, it proposes to the churches communion ecclesiology as a normative way of thinking about the church and about " doing church."

Although frequently translated as "communion," there is a preference in ecumenical ecclesiology for the original Greek word "koinonia" that bears a broader understanding from the "verb meaning 'to have something in common,' 'to share,' 'to participate,' 'to have part in' or 'to act together,"' (32) or "to be in a contractual relationship involving obligations of mutual accountability." (33) As TCTCV notes, koinonia "appears in passages recounting the sharing in the Lord's Supper (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16-17); the reconciliation of Paul with Peter, James, and John (cf. Gal. 2:7-10); the collection for the poor (see Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8:3-4); and the experience and witness of the church (see Acts 2:42-45)." (34)

This communion or koinonia has a fourfold relational dimension: communion within the triune God, the communion of the church (including the communion of saints), the communion among human beings, and communion with creation. I cannot imagine that theological agreement about communion or koinonia ecclesiology will be difficult, although communion ecclesiology may be new for some, or even many, readers of TCTCV. If the churches embrace the vision of koinonia as expressed in TCTCV, the potential consequences are enormous.

I would like to explore some examples of what a reception of koinonia might look like in the broad categories of the "faith '' of the church and the "ordering" of its life. There is where research stops and imagination begins. I begin with how receiving koinonia theology with TCTCV might renew how we believe and teach about God, creation, sin, salvation, eschatology, and the church.

1. Trinity

While in ecumenical discourse koinonia emerges in relationship to the churches, theologically it is predicated on the communion of love within the eternal being of the Trinity, its source and its end. God in God's own triune life is a communion/koinonia of persons. For a visual image, think of Andrei Rublev's icon of the angelic Trinity.

The trinitarian starting point is vital, because it defines communion not as a human or even an ecclesial achievement but as a gift flowing from the life of God. The trinitarian starting point is vital, because it insists on communion in unity and diversity. The koinonia within the Trinity is a communion of love, which means that it is not morally neutral; it is a communion of absolute justice and peace. The communion of the triune God is inclusive, expansive, shared, and showered on all creation.

* In what way could our God-image be renewed through the lens of koinonia?

* How could the experience of our relationship with God be renewed through the theology of koinonia?

2. Creation

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (35) Within a hermeneutic of koinonia, creation is the reflection of the overflowing gift of love within the communion of the Trinity--its foundation and completion.

This koinonia is at the heart and fabric of the cosmos, an unstoppable force that creates and sustains the universe.

This communion of love spills into creation and thus into history. In the biblical narrative of creation, human beings are fashioned in God's image; thus, we bear an innate capacity and longing for communion with God, with one another, and with creation. Within this vision shaped by koinonia theology, history is neither cyclical nor linear but a spiral of communion from, with, and toward its source and living fountain, the triune God.

* How do our understandings of ecology correspond with a theology of koinonia'!

* How might Christian anthropology be enhanced by a theology of koinonia!

3. Sin

Again, as a communion of love, the koinonia of the triune God has a moral character; it is a communion of absolute justice and peace. While we can affirm that koinonia is at the heart of creation, a divine gift that we can neither create nor destroy, it is tragically obvious that it is a gift that can be denied, distorted, withheld, corrupted, and ignored, either corporately or individually. Within a hermeneutic of koinonia, whatever denies or distorts or rejects koinonia or the fullness of koinonia for and with another community or by one person against another person is sin, the inverse of love in justice and peace.

Racism, sexism, casteism, colonialism, or any other kind of "ism" that oppresses or abuses others is a violation of communion. Hatred, revenge, or refusing to seek reconciliation denies communion. Violence, war, and killing become the most blatant refusals of koinonia. If creation itself is part of God's expression of koinonia, then the harm we inflict on the earth is also a violation of communion. Lastly, from the perspective of communion, idolatry of any kind is the rejection or distortion of koinonia with the triune God.

* In our churches today, there are many people who are fixated on sin. Perhaps as a reaction, other people refuse to think about it at all. How might sin in relation to koinonia lead to a healthy middle point?

* What might the season of Lent look like through the hermeneutic of koinonia!

4. Salvation

The principle of koinonia is an important lens through which to understand salvation. As TCTCV crisply states, "The dynamic history of God's restoration of koinonia found its irreversible achievement in the incarnation and paschal mystery of Jesus Christ." (36) All that limits, rejects, or distorts communion, such as the classic divisions of the ancient world--male and female, Greek and Jew, slave and free, sin and righteousness, death and life--are overcome in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. If sin can be recast as the denial, distortion, or rejection of koinonia with or for another person or community, then pardon, forgiveness, and reconciliation are about restoration of communion. Koinonia is the goal of salvation!

There is something deeply eschatological about the forgiveness of sin. Think about where it appears in the Creeds: at the very end, linked with the resurrection and the life of the world to come. Forgiveness can be seen as not identifying a person on the basis of his or her past or present but by granting that person a future--a future relationship in communion in spite of his or her past or present. It seems to me that this is what Truth and Reconciliation commissions seek to achieve. When we forgive others as God forgives us, we open a future for communion with another or others that would otherwise have been impossible. When forgiveness happens, it is an effective sign that the eschaton is already breaking in.

* From the perspective of koinonia, from what do we need to be saved?

* From the perspective of koinonia, for what do we need to be forgiven?

* How does a theology of koinonia assess the expectation to "forgive and forget"?

5. Eschatology

As with the topic of sin, many people in some of our churches are fixated on the end times, the eschaton. Many other people never think about it and get nervous when others do. For some people, the eschaton conjures up medieval images of judgment and condemnation. For others it may lead to thoughts of the "rapture" and furtive apocalyptic images. Or, it may simply be a gloomy reminder of death and endings. All of this finds its way into the complicated season of Advent and especially into preaching at Advent.

A theology of communion invites us to see the eschaton in other ways, namely, the culmination of God's design to bring all "humanity and all of creation into communion under the Lordship of Christ," (37) the Realm of Heaven. This is the fullness of koinonia in love, justice, and peace that is and that is to come to each of us with all creation.

* In what ways is Christian hope an expression of koinonia?

* What might funerals look like within a theology of koinonia?

* What might the season of Advent "feel" like through the lens of koinonia?

6. Church

There are many New Testament images to describe the church: the body of Christ, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, and the prophetic, royal, and priestly people of God. The biblical images are many; the reality is one. The controlling image used in TCTCV is, of course, the church as koinonia.

Koinonia ecclesiology has gained extraordinary ecumenical interest. First, it understands church not merely or primarily as an institution or organization but as the "fellowship" or "communion" of all who are called together by the Holy Spirit and who in baptism confess Christ as Lord and Savior. They are thus "in communion" with Jesus and with one another.

Communion is not just what the church is but also what it does in terms of its mission. As TCTCV puts it: "Communion, whose source is the very life of the Holy Trinity, is both the gift by which the Church lives and, at the same time, the gift that God calls the Church to offer to a wounded and divided humanity in hope of reconciliation and healing." (38) In this way the church is the sign and servant of God's design for the world: "It is God's design to gather humanity and all of creation into communion under the Lordship of Christ." (39) Communion and mission are inclusive of the life of the church; in fact, they define it, but the church cannot exclusively contain them either. The church is not the goal of communion; the Reign of God is.

Mission is not about bringing people into the church but into the mission of God--the missio Dei--for the fulfilment of creation.

* How might an ecclesiology of communion renew understandings of "church" as a building, a "denomination," or an "institution"?

* How might an ecclesiology of communion renew the mission of the church?

* How does communion interpret the oneness, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity of the church?

D. Living into the Common Vision of Church as a Communion

So, if Christians who read and reflect the New Testament language of koinonia received in TCTCV begin to live into a vision of the church as communion, what might that church looklike? I would like to reflect on the following areas: the ecumenical movement, and justice and peace. Lastly, I would wonder about how a reception of communion ecclesiology would lead renewal of the church in terms of its pastoral and liturgical life in baptism, prayer, and, consummately, the celebration of the eucharist. In other words, how might the reception of TCTCV play a role in the renewal of the life of the churches?

1. The Ecumenical Movement

Sometimes I think of the ecumenical movement like one of those high priority updates that I get on my computer or iPhone. But, it is an update that has only downloaded sixty-eight percent. Yes, it has accomplished much, and so we are quite content with the download and forget that more needs to be received. Furthermore, we cannot begin to imagine the capacities of the full download. I think that the biggest challenge to the ecumenical movement is its own success. It has been received so well that we can barely remember the state of divisions just a generation ago, so we are no longer scandalized by the divisions that remain--and we can live with the sixty-eight percent download. In fact, we are surprised, if not bemused, by the idea there is still a vital thirty-two percent left to go.

* What does it mean to receive the statement in TCTCV that "[t]he dynamic history of God's restoration of koinonia found its irreversible achievement in the incarnation and paschal mystery of Jesus Christ," (40) when Christians cannot recognize each other as members of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church or recognize each other's baptisms or ordained ministries?

* In other words, how can we proclaim the Good News of God's restoration of koinonia when we are in imperfect, impaired, or limited communion with one another?

* In what ways does the "sixty-eight percent download" of the ecumenical movement received so far reflect the prayer of Jesus "that they may be one"? (41)

The ecumenical movement is an invitation to become what we are, to receive one another as Christ has received us, to make visible our unity or communion, which is already given. Christian communities, parishes, and congregations need to ask themselves, "With whom are we in communion or koinonia?" and "With whom are we not in communion, and why not?" and "With whom has God already called us into koinonia?" The visible unity of the church is fully realized when the churches are in eucharistic koinonia with one another. The visible unity of the church in one faith and in one eucharistic fellowship is never an end to itself, but it is related to the church as sign and servant of God's design for the world, the koinonia of all.

* How does the theology of koinonia recast our approach to Christian unity?

* How is Christian disunity understood within an ecclesiology of communion?

2. Justice and Peace

At the Busan Assembly, the WCC committed itself to join with others on a Pilgrimage of Justice and Peace. There is a hidden ecclesiological pre supposition here that TCTCV has already addressed in terms of communion. Communion ecclesiology holds together the "being" and "mystery" of the church, as well as its missional, prophetic, and pastoral activity. TCTCV treats questions around the presence and activity of the church in the world in terms of communion ecclesiology. Again, communion "is both the gift by which the Church lives and ... the gift that God calls the Church to offer to a wounded and divided humanity." (42)

The culmination of TCTCV's reflection on koinonia is in the final chapter, "The Church: In and for the World," wherein the expression and consequence of the church's koinonia is diakonia. Its categories of care for the vulnerable, mission and evangelism, justice and peace, protection of the environment, interreligious cooperation, peace-making, advocacy, healing, and reconciliation are evidence of being the sign and servant of God's communion. Within TCTCV, the concept of koinonia binds together in a single reality the "church of the triune God" and the "church in and for the world."

* Is koinonia a compelling reason for commitment to justice and peace?

* By contrast, what does lack of commitment to justice and peace signal about our understanding of koinonia?

3. Baptism

One of the unexpected outcomes of the pastoral reception of BEM was the renewal of baptism, in different senses. The first was a dramatic increase from the 1980's of the mutual recognition of baptism between churches, as they noted their convergences with one another in the published responses to BEM. This mutual recognition between churches and within councils of churches continues to this day, as a visible sign of communion between the churches.

If the churches similarly receive TCTCV, what might be its pastoral consequences? I am thinking especially of the accent on baptism and koinonia, which, given its date, simply was not a feature of BEM. Building on the theological and pastoral insights of BEM, understanding baptism fundamentally as a sacrament of communion with God and within the communion of the church will have consequences for how people are prepared for baptism and how they are received by the Christian community. Baptism in the name of the Trinity roots our communion with God, irreversibly restored in the paschal mystery of Jesus. It becomes clear that a baptism is something that happens not only to a person but also to the community, whose koinonia expands every time it celebrates baptism.

* With whom does our baptism place us in communion?

* How can the link between baptism and communion be made visible?

4. Prayer

One of the things that the baptized are to do is to pray and to pray for others. Why pray? How does prayer work? Oliver Tomkins, Anglican bishop and former moderator of Faith and Order, remembering the earliest days of the WCC, wrote this about prayer:

   I shall always remember the service in the Cathedral of St Pierre
   in Geneva during the first post-war meeting in 1946 of the
   Provisional Committee. There were three preachers--all of them
   having recently spent long years in prison. The first of them was
   Martin Niemoller who spoke of how, when he was finally arrested by
   the Gestapo and taken to prison, his old father had said to him:
   "Be of good cheer, my son. Remember that there will be Christians
   praying for you from Greenland to the Pacific Islands", and of how
   that knowledge, in the next eight years, many of them in solitary
   confinement, had kept him not only sane but even joyful. The second
   preacher was a Chinese who had been imprisoned in Japanese-occupied
   Shanghai throughout the Sino-Japanese war. He told of how,
   occasionally, his Japanese gaoler had proved to be a fellow
   Christian and, when they discovered it, they would kneel in prayer
   together in his cell. The third speaker was Bishop Eivind Berggrav,
   the splendid Primate of Norway, who for his part in leading the
   church resistance had been kept under house-arrest in the forest.
   He told of how the man who brought the rations to the cottage
   whispered through the window: "My old woman and I were listening to
   the BBC last night and we heard the Archbishop of Canterbury pray
   for you by name." And Berggrav concluded: "God has been saying to
   us, during these war years, 'My Christians, you are one. Now behave
   as if that were true.'" In that spirit, the World Council was born.
   (43)

I think koinonia ecclesiology offers a renewed rationale for intercessory prayer. In the ancient church, one of the signs of being in communion with a person or with another church was prayer for the other. I think most of us know from our own experience that not praying for another person (or being unable to pray for that person) remains a sign of broken communion.

* How might an ecclesiology of communion renew and clarify intercessory prayer?

* How might the words "pray for those who persecute you" (44) be understood within a communion ecclesiology?

5. Eucharist

In the final paragraphs of TCTCV, Faith and Order suggests an image of koinonia:

   The liturgy, especially the celebration of the eucharist, serves as
   a dynamic paradigm for what such koinonia looks like in the present
   age. In the liturgy, the people of God experience communion with
   God and fellowship with Christians of all times and places. They
   gather with their presider, proclaim the Good News, confess their
   faith, pray, teach and learn, offer praise and thanksgiving,
   receive the Body and Blood of the Lord, and are sent out in
   mission. (45)

One of the reasons that theologians often prefer to speak of "koinonia" rather than "communion" is that the primary point of reference to the latter can too easily be limited to the celebration of the eucharist and, more specifically, to receiving Holy Communion. While eucharistic communion cannot signal the totality of koinonia, the language of communion--the receiving of Holy Communion--does point to eating and drinking of the sacramental body and blood of Christ as a privileged moment of encounter of koinonia between a Christian and the Risen Christ within the church. When we are in sacramental communion with Christ, we are in sacramental communion with one another.

In ecumenical life, however, questions of who may receive eucharistic communion, where, and from whom signals a certain reception of koinonia ecclesiology. At the same time it signals quite painfully the unfinished agenda. When diverse practices of eucharistic hospitality collide, Christian disunity hurts.

The number of full-communion agreements between churches shaped by the Reformation that are not in united churches and the practice of eucharistic hospitality to baptized Christians of other churches that are not in any kind of communion agreement are often pitted--unfairly, in my opinion--against different practices in the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church. What we sometimes fail to appreciate is that each of these different options is a positive affirmation of communion ecclesiology.

For many, but not all, of the churches shaped by the Reformation, communion agreements between churches that are not in organic union, or open eucharistic hospitality to members of other churches, are based on a conviction that, by virtue of baptism, even in the abnormal situation of ecclesial division we are already in communion with each other. Furthermore, sharing Holy Communion with one another is seen as a way of moving toward visible unity in one faith and in one eucharistic fellowship. I can think of many examples of such eucharistic hospitality that have led to the creation of united and uniting churches.

For Orthodox ecclesiology, such eucharistic hospitality is neither theologically nor ecclesiologically possible while churches are not in communion with each other; eucharistic communion is fundamentally about relationships of churches to one another, rather than the relationships of individuals. Between churches there is no partial, full, or imperfect communion--only communion. The Orthodox commitment to restored communion is a vision held before us, and it leads Orthodox leaders and theologians to commit such extraordinary energy to theological dialogue, where the issues of faith and order that divide us need to be healed as a prelude to eucharistic communion.

Roman Catholic practice is grounded in the ecclesiology of Unitatis redintegratio, which teaches that those "who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect." (46) Eucharistic communion is the sign of the fullness of communion with the See of Rome, a communion that already exists, albeit imperfectly or incompletely. The eucharistic vision of the koinonia of the church is upheld, but the real but imperfect communion that we do share makes much possible. For instance, the Code of Canon Law permits Christians from other churches to receive sacramental ministry, such as receiving Holy Communion, from Catholic clergy in situations of pastoral necessity (albeit this is not the case in the other direction).

Although appearing contradictory, each of these positions seeks to protect and uphold the visible unity of the churches in one faith and in one eucharistic fellowship. Each seeks to promote communion in unity and diversity. Each position is open to critique and commendation.

While I appreciate the centrality of Holy Communion within the celebration of the eucharist, it reminds me why the language of koinonia is preferable to "communion," because it is simply broader than Holy Communion. Receiving Holy Communion, cannot, however, be seen as the only experience or expression of our koinonia with Christ and with one another, even within the eucharist itself. This is important for communities who seek to deepen or renew their eucharistic spirituality. This is also a helpful ecumenical point, important when Christians of different churches attend one another's celebrations of the eucharist, and are confronted in often-painful ways with different practices around who may and may not receive Holy Communion.

The simple fact of gathering together as a community in and with the triune God is the foundational sign of koinonia. This is signalled by beginning in the name of the Trinity, or with: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." (47) This trinitarian greeting underlines that the communion of the gathered community is with the communion of the Holy Trinity.

* How could the sense of ecclesial koinonia be strengthened if we translated it as "communion"--as is the case in the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible--rather than by "fellowship"?

Hearing the Word of God together is a sign of communion. I am always astounded when Christians--especially from traditions shaped by the Reformation--can dismiss ecumenical prayer as "just" a liturgy of the word. This Word, this gospel is the foundation of our common faith and hope, which TCTCV identifies as an "essential element of communion." (48) For many churches, it is the encounter with Christ in the opened scriptures that constitutes the weekly encounter with Christ in the church. I think that the experience of the biblical Word of God as a bond of communion has been strengthened enormously by ecumenical or common lectionaries, common Bible study, ecumenical biblical scholarship, and ecumenical translations of the Bible.

* How do we make communion with one another in the scriptures visible?

* In what ways do Christians obscure the Bible as a sign of koinonia?

The Intercessions or Prayers of the People are liturgical expressions of communion, of the sort that Tomkins described above. But, for whom do we pray? For what churches do we pray? Cycles of prayer can seem a bit tedious, but behind them is the principle of prayer as an expression of koinonia.

* Through the lens of koinonia what do our petitions indicate about our varied relationships of communion?

* How is the communion in prayer reflected in making communion visible?

The sign of peace can express many things, but whether it is linked with penitence or offertory or a preparation for Holy Communion, it is always a visible sign of koinonia.

Just as prayer for one another is a sign of communion, so is prayer with one another. Even when we cannot share eucharistic communion together, we can pray the eucharistic prayer together and proclaim the great Amen together. As the classical liturgies make clear, the eucharistic prayer belongs to the whole church in time and space: with angels, archangels, and the whole company of heaven. It is the prayer of the communion of saints.

The eucharist, with all its diverse elements, points to a diversity of expression or visible signs of communion. To borrow an expression from Celtic Christianity, when we experience "communion," we are in the midst of "thin places" between heaven and earth, between time and space, and between our day and the eschatological day that is already breaking through when koinonia is made visible.

The Christian vocation is not to create communion but to recognize and name it. The Christian vocation in terms of mission is to expand communion, release and restore communion, and struggle to overcome any and all who deny, reject, or distort communion--in other words, to make koinonia visible.

* How might eucharistic celebration in its many expressions of koinonia train us to become mindful of the diverse experiences of communion in all areas of our lives?

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would like to return to the eucharist and the diverse practices around eucharistic communion or hospitality. When we are mindful of the disciplines of our own churches and the disciplines of other churches, there will inevitably be occasions where eucharistic communion is real and patently imperfect. However, that does not mean that communion does not happen; by gathering together to praise God, proclaiming the scriptures together, praying for the church and the world together, exchanging the sign-act of peace together, and praying the eucharistic prayer together--we have indeed been in communion and have been a visible sign of koinonia together.

When all churches are in (full) communion with one another, eucharistic communion may become even more painful, for the closer we draw together toward one another, the closer we become the community that Jesus prayed for on the night before his suffering and death. Then we live into the fullness of our costly vocation as the sign and servant of God's design for the world. Then we live into the vision of TCTCV of communion as "both the gift by which the Church lives and, at the same time, the gift that God calls the Church to offer to a wounded and divided humanity in hope of reconciliation and healing." (49)

(1) The Church: Towards a Common Vision, Faith and Order Paper 114 (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2013); hereafter, TCTCV.

(2) Throughout this essay, "America" and "American" refer to the United States of America. While I realize that this distinction is largely contested in Latin America, it is normative in North America.

(3) E.g., theological education, common liturgical resources, relationships with Roman Catholics, social justice/human rights.

(4) E.g., new monastic communities, Kirchentag, commitment to global ecumenism, conciliar fellowship, environmental issues, and transnational agreements, such as the Porvoo Communion and the Leuenberg Agreement.

(5) First Amendment (1791): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." "Thus." quoting Thomas Jefferson, "building a wall of separation between Church & State."

(6) Cf. the Quebec Act of 1774. The principal components of the act were that the oath of allegiance was replaced with one that no longer made reference to the Protestant faith; it guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith; and it restored the Roman Catholic Church's right to impose tithes.

(7) From the 2014 By laws of the Commissionon Faith and Order. See also the Constitution and Rule of the World Council of Churches, section III, Purposes and Functions; available at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/assembly/2013-busan/adopted -documents-statements/wcc-constitution-and-rules.

(8) The Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910 is considered to mark the beginning of the modern ecumenical movement. The initial accent on cooperation between missionaries and mission organizations led to the insight that Christian disunity was an impediment to mission and that Christian unity and mission were interdependent.

(9) In G. K. A. Bell, Christian Unity: The Anglican Position (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1948), p. 154.

(10) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the revealed Word of God; 2. The Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith; 3. The two Sacraments--Baptism and the Supper of the Lord--ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him; 4. The Historic Episcopate locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church.

(11) Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry, Faith and Order Paper 111 (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1982).

(12) Cf. the AV translation of Rom. 15:7.

(13) There are seven WCC member churches in Canada.

(14) There are twenty-four WCC member churches in the U.S.

(15) The responses pointed to six areas of work on ecclesiology: the role of the church in salvation, koinonia, church as the gift of the Word, church as sacrament, church as pilgrim people of God, church as eschatological sign. See "Historical Note" in TCTCV, p. 43 and Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry, 1982-1990: Report on the Process and Responses (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1990), pp. 147-151.

(16) The Nature and Purpose of the Church, Faith and Order Paper 181 (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1998).

(17) The Nature and Mission of the Church, Faith and Order Paper 198 (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2005).

(18) I hope that my fellow Canadians are as embarrassed as I am by the obvious imbalance of responses from our churches and academic institutions.

(19) There are translations of TCTCV in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Italian, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish, Finish, Czech, Romanian, Korean, Greek, Mara (Myanmar), and forthcoming in Armenian.

(20) TCTCV, [section]9.

(21) Ibid., [section]25.

(22) Ibid., [section]33.

(23) Ibid., [section]64; emphasis added.

(24) Ibid., [section]49

(25) Ibid., [section]50.

(26) Ibid.

(27) NMC, [section][section]43-47.

(28) TCTCV, [section][section]25-27.

(29) Anglicans, e.g., struggle with language to describe the roles of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates' Meeting, and the Anglican Consultative Council. The language of "instruments of communion" has largely been unsatisfactory, but understanding these personal, collegial, and communal institutions as "signs and servants of communion" recasts them in a different and more helpful way.

(30) This meeting will be held September 25-27, 2015, at the Mt. Carmel Spiritual Centre in Niagara Falls, Ontario, for a week-end of intensive work with a facilitator, building from the 2014 conference to create a formal NAAE response document.

(31) TCTCV, [section]9

(32) Ibid., [section]13.

(33) TNMC, [section]28.

(34) TCTCV; [section]i3.

(35) Gen. 1:1, R.E.B.

(36) TCTCV, [section]1.

(37) Ibid., [section]25.

(38) Ibid., [section]i.

(39) Ibid., [section]25.

(40) Ibid., [section]1.

(41) Jn. 17:21.

(42) TCTCV, [section]1.

(43) Oliver Tomkins, "Amsterdam 1948: A Personal Retrospect and Assessment," in 7he Ecumenical Review 40 (July-October, 1988): 319.

(44) Mt. 5:44.

(45) TCTCV, [section]67.

(46) Unitatis redintegratio, no. 3; available at http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_coun cils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_ en.html.

(47) 2 Cor. 13:13

(48) TCTCV, [section]37.

(49) Ibid., [section]i.