A tale of two Edinburghs: mission, unity, and mutual accountability.

Best, Thomas F.

   Most of all do we need to lament that we carry about with us so
   small a sense of the harm that is wrought by our divisions, and so
   little pain for our lack of charity. (1)

The World Missionary Conference held in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1910 gathered 1,215 delegates, including 207 women. Preference in attending the meeting was given to "those of long experience and mature years," (2) as is amply borne out by the photographs of the event. (3) Yet, looking back at these pictures across 100 long years--pictures of stem-looking, late-Victorian gentlemen (and, yes, some ladies) in their stiffly starched collars--should not blind us to the passion that marked this decisive ecumenical gathering.

This was a passion not least for the unity of the church--passion arising from the convictions that both unity and mission are intrinsic to the nature and life of the church, that the unity of the church is necessary for effective mission, and that mission must bring persons not only into this or that confession or denomination but into the church, the one undivided body of Christ. I hope to convey some of this passion for unity by examining issues of mission and unity raised at Edinburgh, by comparing the vision of unity raised at Edinburgh 1910 with key points in the work on unity within the Faith and Order movement, by looking at mission and unity as developed at the centennial of the World Missionary Conference at Edinburgh 2010, and, finally, by suggesting the notion of "mutual accountability" as a way forward in the effort to integrate mission and unity.

Edinburgh 1910: A Passion for Unity

Edinburgh 1910 is remembered as a new beginning, but it must be understood first in terms of continuity with earlier developments in the mission field. For example, as early as 1806, William Carey had proposed "an international and interdenominational world missionary conference," "a general association of all denominations of Christians from the four quarters of the world," to be held in Capetown in 1810. (4) A second example: The right of local, mission-planted churches to determine their own identity had been firmly stated by the London Missionary Society:

   [I]t is declared to be a fundamental principle of the [London]
   Missionary Society, that its design is not to send Presbyterianism,
   Independency, Episcopacy, or any other form of Church order and
   government ... and that it shall be left ... to the minds of the
   persons whom God may call into the fellowship of His Son ... to
   assume for themselves such form of Church government as to them
   shall appear most agreeable to the word of God." (5)

The planners of Edinburgh 1910 thought in terms of continuity; that is why they originally proposed that the title should be "The Third Ecumenical Missionary Conference" (following conferences in London in 1888 and New York in 1900)--"ecumenical" here referring to broad geographical, rather than confessional, scope. (6) Edinburgh itself was preceded by three preparatory meetings: the South India Conference at Madras in 1900, the all-India Decennial Conference at Madras in 1902, and the Centenary Conference of Christian Mission in China in Shanghai in 1907 (as we shall see, the last of these was to have a strong influence on the discussion of mission and unity at Edinburgh 1910).

But, the most significant preparation for Edinburgh 1910 was a survey sent widely by Commission VIII--on "Co-Operation and Promotion of Unity"--to missionaries in the field. The commission felt that "the main substance of its report should consist of a careful statement of the actual facts relating to movement in the direction of Co-operation and Unity in the mission field." (7) Eighteen detailed questions asked whether local united conferences of missionaries from different mission societies existed; what their actual experience of success or failure was; the actual extent of common work, and how it was practiced and understood; and, significantly, whether there was cooperation with the Roman Catholic Church in cooperative endeavors. (8) One question asked whether there were any steps toward "closer ecclesiastical union" and asked respondents to if "possible please distinguish clearly between the foreign and the native view of the question." (9)

It is important to remember that the Edinburgh Conference was marked by two significant exclusions. First and probably most important, divisive issues of doctrine and church order were off-limits. This was put nicely by the Bishop of Southwark in speaking to the Report of Commission VIII: "Therefore it was wisely and indispensably resolved that 'no resolution shall be allowed at the Conference which involves questions of doctrine or Church polity with regard to which the Churches or Societies taking part in the Conference differ among themselves.'" (10) That is to say, the conference explicitly excluded from its deliberations every topic on which the churches might differ. (11)

A second exclusion: The Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England insisted, as a condition of its participation in the consultation, that discussion of "all missions to Catholic populations, whether in Latin America or elsewhere, should be excluded from the conference." (12) This meant that anything that might smack of proselytism in Roman Catholic or Orthodox "lands" (notably, the whole of Latin America and much of the Middle East) was absent from the conference participants and program.

Behind this lay a deeper dynamic, namely, the fact that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches--by their own decision and, in 1910, inevitably--were not present at the conference. Nevertheless, the conference had made contact with Russian Orthodox Archbishop Nikolai in Tokyo. (13) And, through a personal contact with Silas McBee, a prominent Episcopalian layperson, it received well wishes from Catholic Bishop Geremia Bonomelli of Cremona. (One of the intriguing sidelights to Edinburgh 1910 is the fact that Bonomelli had suggested to a young priest friend in June, 1908, that it might be time to summon "a great ecumenical council" within the Roman Catholic Church. The young priest's name was Angelo Roncalli, the future Pope John XXIII.) (14) This exclusion both of theologically divisive issues and of the most ancient churches of Christendom became one of the driving forces behind Bishop Charles Brent's leadership toward the first World Conference on Faith and Order, held in Lausanne in 1927. (15)

Now, let us look more closely at the reflection on mission and unity at Edinburgh 1910. To be sure, specific means to achieve unity could not be discussed, because the churches differed in that area, and actual union plans were, in any case, the sole responsibility of the churches involved. However, once the mission consultation was underway, the challenge of unity was everywhere. I suspect that persons spoke more readily about unity precisely because they knew that no actual proposals or decisions would be made at the conference in that area. More importantly, the conference had heard from the churches in the mission field in what must have been the most extensive exercise in "listening" to what was actually happening among the churches until the 1980's, when the World Council of Churches study, "Community of Women and Men in the Church," and, in a different way, the response process to Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry, drew comparable interest.

Missionary after missionary, from church after church, in country after country said that unity was essential if mission was to be effective; they produced an astonishing number and range of examples of local cooperation and efforts toward some sort of local unity among churches. (16) This was the immediate background of the Report from Commission VIII on "Co-operation and the Promotion of Unity." This report was the first sustained and significant reflection on unity in the modern ecumenical era, and it cannot be stressed too highly that, rather than being an abstract and theoretical discussion, it was rooted in the concrete experience of churches in the field that had actually been seeking unity together.

Besides the call to unity, the report introduced two complex and sensitive themes. The first was the disjunction between the ecclesial agenda of the Western, mission-planting churches and that of the mission-founded churches in the field. Dr. William Imbrie of Tokyo reported that, "From the beginning, the Japanese desired a brief, simple creed; but in deference to the wishes of the Missions they accepted as standards of doctrine the Westminster Confession, the Canons of the Synod of Dort, the Shorter and Heidelberg Catechisms." (17)

This point was taken further in the famous plenary speech on the Commission VIII report by Chang Ching-Yi, then assistant pastor of the Mi-shih Hutung church in Beijing, then twenty-eight years old and not yet ordained. He stressed, "The Church of Christ is universal, not only irrespective of denominations, but also irrespective of nationalities--'All one in Christ Jesus.'" (18) Yet, the church exists in a local, indigenous form, namely, a united Chinese church:

   Chinese Christians... are watching with keen eyes, and listening
   with attentive ears what this Conference will show... Speaking
   plainly we hope to see, in the near future, a united Christian
   Church without any denominational distinctions. This may seem
   somewhat peculiar to some of you, but, friends, do not forget to
   view us from our standpoint, and if you fail to do that, the
   Chinese will remain always as a mysterious people to you!

      ... Speaking generally, denominationalism has never interested
   the Chinese mind. He finds no delight in it, but sometimes he
   suffers for it!...

      From the Chinese standpoint there is nothing impossible about
   such a union. Such difficulties as may be experienced will be due
   to our Western friends and not ourselves* These difficulties ...
   must not be allowed to overshadow the advantages of the union I
   speak of." (19)

This was not universally welcomed. Anglican Bishop Charles Gore suggested, in his contribution to the debate on the report of Commission II, that "if we as foreign missionaries, are to hand over Christianity to the Church of China, and Japan, and India with a good courage, then we must have done more than at the present moment we seem ... inclined to do, to contribute a definition of what the Church is, the definitions of its essentials or real Catholic features." (20)

As a second complex and sensitive issue, Commission VIII insisted on what we would today call a "holistic" approach, linking problems in the mission field with the divided state of the churches "at home." There was, of course, "the problem of organisation" (that is, the confusion and inefficiency caused by church divisions in the mission field), but behind this stood the "deeper problem presented by the ecclesiastical divisions of western Christendom. This problem has not been created by the situation in the mission field. The divided state of the Church is a source of weakness in its work at home. It represents a grievous falling short of the purpose of our Lord Jesus Christ for His Church." (21)

The core of the commission's report was its analysis of the "movements towards unity" already underway in the mission field. Reviewing the replies received to the survey sent in preparation for Edinburgh 1910, the commission identified two "distinct methods" of work toward unity: "The first endeavours to combine, in a close and organic union, Churches which have similar antecedents or share a common polity ... The second method aims at combining in a flee federation all the Christian communities in a particular area, and has regard to geographical relations more than ecclesiastical affinities." (22)

Under the first method, "organic union," intraconfessional unions in Asia and Africa among Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, Congregationalists, and Baptists are surveyed in no fewer than twenty-five pages; then, efforts toward "wider unions" are reviewed, with pride of place given to India, where they find "the first instance of a clear organic union between bodies having a different form of Church polity." (23) Under the second method, that of "federation," are surveyed situations where organic union is "impracticable or undesirable," but churches want "closer relations than exist at present." (24) For Commission VIII the first approach seemed more natural to churches that "lay stress upon organisation and Church polity"; (25) the second, to churches "which lay no special stress on Church organisation," rather than those "which are, e.g., inherently papal, episcopal, or presbyterian." (26)

Given the number and variety of such efforts toward union, it would be unreasonable to expect precise definitions of either term. "Federation" is more than mere cooperation but "not necessarily more than co-operation extended to the point of full inter-communion between sister Churches" (27)--a maximalist understanding of "federation" by anyone's standard. "Organic union," which seems to involve full structural integration of the churches concerned, desires to present "as rich and full and complete an interpretation of Christianity as possible," while leaving "full room for diversity." (28) In any case the broad outlines of each view are clear enough to provide two distinct trajectories, which we will trace in later ecumenical developments.

The commission's deepest concern was not the nuances of "what unity involves and requires" but the primal urgency of the search for unity. In the final chapter of its report, the commission's members made clear that they regarded a united church as the ultimate missionary goal and saw such united churches as the sign and symbol of future church union "at home." This remarkable statement deserves to be quoted at length:

   [W]e desire to express our whole-hearted agreement with those who
   took part in the great Conference at Shanghai [1907], in holding
   that the ideal object of missionary work is to plant in every
   non-Christian nation one united Church of Christ. The realisation
   of the idea may lie in the far distance: and the difficulties to be
   surmounted may be overwhelmingly great; but it is something to have
   felt the stirring of a hope so rich and so wonderful. The Church in
   western lands will reap a glorious reward from its missionary
   labours, if the Church in the mission field points the way to a
   healing of its divisions and to the attainment of that unity for
   which our Lord prayed. (29)

These convictions were to energize the emergence of united churches in Asia and around the world, as well as the development of national councils of churches. (30)

It is impossible to say how far the conference as a whole shared this passion for unity. The conference was intended to issue no recommendations at all; only after sensitive negotiations did Commission VIII secure the right even to propose its recommendation establishing a Continuation Committee, understood to be a purely advisory body without any independent authority. (31)

Yet, something larger did happen, even to delegates who were not interested in the issue of Christian unity. There was the discovery of fellow Christians across barriers of confession, country, and race. Arthur J. Brown, Presbyterian Mission Secretary from the United States--not incidentally, he seconded the motion for the adoption of the resolution to establish the Continuation Committee--testified: "Last November in Asia I met a distinguished Bishop of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. He told me he had come into contact with Methodist and other missionaries, and was surprised to find what decent chaps they were." (32)

But, for many of the participants, something far deeper emerged: the realization that, as members together of the one, worldwide body of Christ, we need one another across all barriers of confession, country, and race. John R. Mott, a principal organizer of the consultation, put it this way:

   Gathered together from different nations and races and communions,
   have we not come to realise our oneness in Christ?... Our best days
   are ahead of us because we have a larger Christ, even one who
   requires, as we have learned increasingly these days, all of us,
   and all nations, and races, and communions through which adequately
   to express His excellences, and to communicate His power to our
   generation. (33)

This was echoed powerfully by persons from mission-founded churches, not least the great V. Samuel Azariah, co-founder of first Indian missionary society, in one of the evening addresses: "The exceeding riches of the glory of Christ can be fully realised not by the Englishman, the American, and the Continental alone, nor by the Japanese, the Chinese, and the Indians by themselves--but by all working together, worshipping together, and learning together the Perfect Image of our Lord and Christ." (34) This sense that all of us, all Christians around the world, need one another to build up and complete the one Body of Christ was perhaps Edinburgh 1910's deepest legacy to the later ecumenical movement. This primal common commitment of Christians to one another became the background against which the ecclesiological search for unity could be seen as important--indeed, necessary.

The Search for Unity: A Developing Passion

While the First World Conference on Faith and Order in Lausanne in 1927 was convened explicitly to deal with the issues of doctrine and church order that had been excluded at Edinburgh in 1910, Lausanne also saw itself in direct continuity with Edinburgh. Brent, preaching during the opening worship at Lausanne, began by saying: "We are here at the urgent behest of Jesus Christ. We have come with willing feet. All the prayers and desires and labours of seventeen years [from Edinburgh 1910] meet in this hour." (35) Section I of the Lausanne Report, "The Call to Unity," echoed Edinburgh 1910 in asserting: "More than half the world is waiting for the Gospel.... Already the mission field is impatiently revolting from the divisions of the Western Church to make bold adventure for unity in its own right." (36) This was more than echoed by participants from mission-founded churches--no more numerous, but also no less eloquent, than those at Edinburgh 1910. Once again it was India and China that led the way. Bishop Azariah of Dornakal insisted:

   We do not ask any one to deny its past spiritual heritage, we
   cannot demand the severance of fellowship of any of these Churches
   with the Churches in Europe or America that have planted them. But
   we must have one Church. We want a Church of India...

      ... Be patient with us if we cannot very wholeheartedly enter
   into the controversies of either the sixth or the sixteenth
   centuries. (37)

Timothy Tingfang Lew reinforced the theme from Edinburgh 1910 that "denominationalism, instead of being a source of inspiration, has been and is a source of confusion, bewilderment, and inefficiency," (38) and repeated the hope that distinctive Chinese insights into the gospel "should become the possession of the whole Church Universal," thus enriching our understanding of the one Body of Christ. (39)

Though Lausanne did not produce a definition of unity, it did venture a statement about ministerial orders that was prophetic of much later reflection, affirming that:

   episcopal, presbyteral and congregational systems.., must all,
   under conditions which require further study, have an appropriate
   place in the order of life of a reunited Church, and that each
   separate communion, recalling the abundant blessing of God
   vouchsafed to its ministry in the past, should gladly bring to the
   common life of the united Church its own spiritual treasures. (40)

Again, there is the sense--this time in ecclesiological language--that different parts of the Body of Christ need one another to be whole, to build up together the one Body of Christ.

The Second World Conference on Faith and Order, held at Edinburgh in 1937, tackled issues of unity more directly. Its report began by reviewing "Ten Years Progress" in the field of church union since Lausanne 1927, (41) declaring that "the trend toward unity is... marked both in magnitude and in character. It is widespread throughout the world. It occurs in a wide variety of forms. It is vital, relevant to actual situations." (42) Of central importance for later ecumenical thought, however, was Edinburgh 1937's explication of "corporate" or "organic union." Noting that "these terms are forbidding to many, as suggesting the ideal of a compact governmental union involving rigid uniformity," Edinburgh insisted:

   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" ... 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. (43)

The essential, and often forgotten, point is that the word "organic" is used not to suggest uniformity but, precisely, to guard the diversity of the body of Christ. What concrete form might such a unity take? Edinburgh 1937 was not clear, suggesting that "some measure of organisational union" would be necessary and that some application of "the 'federal' principle" would seem necessary, applied so as to preserve "the relative autonomy of the several constituent parts." "In particular ... we do not believe that a Church, 'corporately' united, could be an effective international community without some permanent organ of conference and counsel, whatever might be the authority and powers of that organ." (44)

From this point we can trace a Faith and Order and W.C.C. "trajectory" that develops the notion of organic union that was originally suggested at Edinburgh 1910 and amplified at Edinburgh 1937. The W.C.C.'s New Delhi assembly in 1961 began a tradition of defining unity not through principles for structural union but through identifying practices that would mark the life of a church united. Thus, unity would become visible as "all in each place" share a single faith rooted in the scriptures, a common eucharistic and other worship life, acceptance of ministries and members, common witness and service, and organs for common decision-making. (45) The W.C.C. assembly in Nairobi in 1975 (drawing on Faith and Order discussions at Salamanca in 1973) (46) spoke of organic union as a "conciliar fellowship of local churches which are themselves truly united," (47) with their unity being expressed, "from time to time, by councils of representatives of all the local churches at various geographical levels." (48)

The W.C.C. assembly at Vancouver in 1983 built upon work at the Faith and Order Plenary Commission in Bangalore in 1978, (49) speaking of three "marks" proper to "a strong Church unity": a common understanding of the apostolic faith; a common confession of the apostolic faith, including full mutual recognition of baptism, the eucharist, and ministry; and common ways of decision-making and teaching authoritatively. (50) The first two of these reflected Faith and Order work in progress (the Apostolic Faith study and Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry, respectively)--whereas the third area, common decision-making and teaching, has yet to be addressed fully, though the current Faith and Order studies on "Authority and Moral Decision-Making" and "Tradition and Traditions" are finally beginning work in this area.

While the theme of mission has not been prominent in efforts to define organic unity up to this point, Vancouver 1983 spoke of the unity of the church in relation to its witness and service to the world, calling for "a witnessing unity, a credible sign of the new creation." This reflected shifts in mission thinking that put the missio ecclesiae--the church's mission of evangelism--into the broader, eschatological content of the missio Dei--God's overarching mission to reconcile humanity and the creation to Godself. (51)

At this point, we may notice a second trajectory in the development of thought on unity, this one associated with the Christian world communions and developing the notion of "federation" originally suggested at Edinburgh 1910. Whereas organic unity had not clarified the place of the historic churches within a future church united, this trajectory foresaw the continued existence of the historic confessional expressions of the church. The notion of a "communion of communions," proposed in 1970, (52) saw each of these as a typos, or distinct constellation of theological, liturgical, and spiritual life; these would be preserved for the enrichment of the church as a whole but would be set within a larger ecclesial framework. In its original formulation this included common sacraments and dogma, as well as a basic structure for ministry--in which the Bishop of Rome would exercise a unique ministry on behalf of unity.

A second such model, "unity in reconciled diversity," (53) as proposed in 1974, understands the present confessions as legitimate expressions of diversity within the one Body of Christ, each preserving certain aspects of Christian faith and life for the benefit of the church as a whole--these aspects to "lose their divisive character and [be] reconciled to each other." (54) It was understood that such a unity in reconciled diversity should be "ordered in all its components in conciliar structures and actions," (55) though these were not fully spelled out. It has to be said that neither of these models of unity develops the theme of mission to any great extent.

At this point the notion of "koinonia" came into its own as a framework for reflection on Christian unity. It is even less specific about the concrete forms of unity than other models; rather, it suggests the quality of relationships to be sought among the churches. As a biblical term used to indicate sharing or participating in spiritual things (for example, the gospel, Phil. 1:15; faith, Philem. 6) and also material things (Paul's collection for the "saints" in Jerusalem, Rom. 12:13, 15:26-27; 2 Cor. 8:4, 9:13), it is ideally placed to indicate "the intimate, mutually sustaining and challenging bonds--both spiritual and material-linking them within, and to, the one Body of Christ." (56) Furthermore, koinonia had been an important concept for both Faith and Order's multilateral work (it had emerged at the W.C.C.'s New Delhi assembly in 1961 as a way of speaking about the nature of the church) (57) and for the bilateral discussions of the Christian world communions (for example, the Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue, ARCIC I, 1981, made koinonia "fundamental to all reflection on the nature of the church" and "the base on which the whole report rests"). (58)

Thus, the term was ideally suited to bridge the two trajectories of reflection on unity--as organic union and as federation--and, indeed, to bring them together at the W.C.C.'s seventh assembly at Canberra in 1991. The unity statement from the assembly, prepared by Faith and Order, "The Unity of the Church as Koinonia: Gift and Calling," famously identified the unity of the church as

   A koinonia given and expressed in the common confession of the
   apostolic faith; a common sacramental life entered by the one
   baptism and celebrated together in one eucharistic fellowship; a
   common life in which members and ministries are mutually recognized
   and reconciled; and a common mission ... full communion is realized
   when all the churches are able to recognize in one another the one,
   holy, catholic and apostolic church in its fulness. This full
   communion will be expressed ... through conciliar forms of life and
   action. In such communion churches are bound in all aspects of
   their life together at all levels in confessing the one faith and
   engaging in worship and witness, deliberation and action. (59)

With this statement, the role of mission has been restored to its proper, central place in reflection on the unity of the church: "a common mission" as an inescapable mark of a church united, and the churches "bound in all aspects of their life together"--not least in common mission.

This renewed awareness of the mission and unity's belonging inescapably together has been taken up in the latest Faith and Order work on the church. The flagship text, The Nature and Mission of the Church, affirms that "Mission thus belongs to the very being of the Church. This is a central implication of affirming the apostolicity of the Church," (60) which has direct implications for the church's life and witness, put here in strongly eschatological terms that

   the Church is called to proclaim faithfully the whole teaching of
   Christ and to share the Good News of the Kingdom... with everyone
   throughout the entire world. Thus the Church seeks faithfully to
   proclaim and live the love of God for all, and to fulfil Christ's
   mission for the salvation and transformation of the world, to the
   glory of God. (61)

Edinburgh 2010: Expanding the Discussion

Let us turn now to the Edinburgh 2010 conference on the theme, "Witnessing to Christ Today." This discussion will be briefer than that on Edinburgh 1910. The former has had 100 years in which to unfold its "meaning," whereas the latter lies just a year in the past. We do not yet have multiple interpretations of the event to help us gain perspective on it, and, most importantly, we cannot yet see what developments in the understanding of mission and of unity it will spur. Beyond this is the fact that Edinburgh 2010 had, in fact, much less to say about unity and mission than did its predecessor a century ago.

Some 300 delegates from over sixty countries gathered in 2010. Numerically, the gathering was much smaller than that in 1910, for financial and organizational reasons, but, crucially, the participants were far more diverse and far more representative of the diverse forces presently engaged in mission: The W.C.C., the World Evangelical Alliance, the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Orthodox churches were all present and active, as were Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, African Instituted Churches, and a diverse range of mission organizations. In this sense it was truly a world conference on mission today; in particular, it brought on board all the major groups that were not present at Edinburgh 1910. There were, nevertheless, significant gaps, including fundamentalists and groups with no sense of mission as (in whatever form) a common task--as Jacques Matthey noted, these bodies had absented themselves already before Edinburgh 1910--as well as neo-charismatics. (62)

Edinburgh 2010 was emphatically aware of the major developments in the church and mission situation over the past century, including the shift of the Christian world population to the Southern hemisphere; the rise of missions from the South to the North; the effect of migration in dispersing populations all over the world; the rise of independent churches in former "mission" lands and efforts to promote genuine partnership among former "sending" and "receiving" churches; a holistic view of mission, taking into account the need of peoples to grow in all areas of life; a growing awareness of the Holy Spirit as active in mission; the growth of Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, and in some areas the relative decline of others; a growing sense that mission needs to be conducted with humility and in a spirit of dialogue; and a new awareness of other faiths as an essential part of the context for mission.

For all this awareness, however, some have noted the absence of other factors: The Christian world may have been present at Edinburgh 2010, but the world itself was not. As the prominent Dalit theologian Deenabandhu Manchala has pointed out, the 100 years between the two Edinburgh gatherings was a time of wars, violence, social upheaval, destruction of the environment, hunger, and HIV/AIDS; these realities were also the context for mission in the twentieth century, yet they were largely invisible at Edinburgh 2010. (63)

Once again it was Theme VIII that tackled "Mission and Unity," with the sub-title "Ecclesiology and Mission." (64) The study document issued in preparation for work in his area, "Towards Common Witness to Christ Today: Mission and the Visible Unity of the Church," (65) was based on a text from the Working Group on Mission and Ecclesiology of the W.C.C.'s Council on World Mission and Evangelism. It stresses the need for churches "to identify ways of witnessing in unity, of partnership and cooperation, and of responsible relationships in evangelism.... Mutual recognition of baptism (as expressed in the WCC's Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry text) can be the foundation for Christian unity and common witness." (66) This led the Council on World Mission and Evangelism to make the remarkable plea that the theme of Edinburgh 2010 be changed to read "Common Witnessing to Christ Today." They noted, "From an Ecumenical point of view, 'common' should be added to the theme, because one of the most important legacies of Edinburgh 1910 has been 'mission and evangelism in unity.'" (67) It is also noteworthy that the study text returns to Edinburgh 1910's hope for unity in mission as a foretaste and sign of the final, eschatological unity that is God's will; thus, it calls for "a mission of healing and of reconciliation" as "an approach to mission that can both express the unity that is already present in the churches' mission and also prepare the way for a greater unity to come." (68)

The preparatory text for Theme 8, then, is a strong plea that the question of unity should play a prominent role in the discussion of mission at Edinburgh 2010 and in its results. What was the response to this plea? To be sure, there must have been significant discussions among the participants in this section of the conference, enlivened as it was by the diversity of the participants and the desire to bring the search for unity into dialogue with the new challenges facing mission today. However, listening to the public voice of Edinburgh 2010--the "Common Call" issued by the consultation--I am not so sure that unity received its due. The relevant portion of the text reads as follows:

   8. Recalling Christ, the host at the banquet, and committed to that
   unity for which he lived and prayed, we are called to ongoing
   co-operation, to deal with controversial issues and to work towards
   a common vision. We are challenged to welcome one another in our
   diversity, affirm our membership through baptism in the One Body of
   Christ, and recognise our need for mutuality, partnership,
   collaboration and networking in mission, so that the world might
   believe. (69)

The opening reference to the unity that Christ desires for the church is very positive, as is the stress on our common baptism into the one Body of Christ. Beyond this, the call is for cooperation, conflict-resolution, and a common vision: Our diversity is affirmed; unity is to be found through mutuality, partnership, collaboration, and networking. Whether "the world might believe" on the basis of "mutuality, partnership, collaboration, and networking" remains to be seen, and I personally would have preferred a much stronger emphasis upon unity as the wellspring of mission, along with an explicit challenge to pursue mission as an expression of the church's unity. Considering that the conference, for all its diversity, could call for "critical reflection on systems of power, and to accountable use of power structures," (70) it is a pity that the language used of unity could not have been at least as strong.

Judging the text in its context may yield a different result. The goal of Edinburgh 2010 lay in bringing a much broader group of mission-oriented Christians into contact than at Edinburgh 1910. Sometimes what is said is not as important as who has said it; given the great diversity of participants, and the fact that for many of them the search for visible unity is simply not a priority, (71) perhaps one should be grateful that the participants were able to say together so much about unity. (72)

Mutual Accountability: A New Approach to Issues of Unity and Mission?

Following a century of debate about the relation between mission and unity, the time may be ripe for a new approach, and I would like to suggest the notion of "mutual accountability" as a way forward. Elsewhere I have suggested that, given the degree of mutual recognition widely prevailing, it is now high time for the churches to move from mutual recognition to mutual accountability. (73) By "mutual accountability" I mean the churches' taking responsibility for their own actions over against their partner churches, for considering the impact on other churches of actions that they are considering, (74) and for acting continually with other churches so as make our unity in Christ more visible and more effective in witness and service in the world. Mutual accountability is not new on the ecumenical agenda; it has already been expressed by the churches in a wide range of ways, as the following four examples (arranged in roughly chronological order) make plain.

Our first examples come from the united and uniting churches movement. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the United Church of Christ have formed a common organization to pursue overseas mission work on their mutual behalf; each church invites representatives from the other to its highest governing body, with both voice and vote. The most complete embodiment of mutual accountability is found in church unions, in which previously separated churches have fused structurally in order to form a single new ecclesial body: "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 [to live together within a single ecclesial structure]." (75)

A second example of mutual accountability comes from multilateral work among the still-divided churches. Reflecting on the relation between ecclesiology and ethics, the churches were asked:

   Is it enough to say ... that ethical engagement is intrinsic to the
   church as church? Is it enough to say that, if a church is not
   engaging responsibly with the ethical issues of its day, it is not
   being fully church? Must we not also say: if the churches are not
   engaging these ethical issues together, then none of them
   individually is being fully church? (76)

"Engaging ethical issues"--including sensitive, even potentially divisive issues--together does not mean the churches will always agree on which course of action best corresponds to the gospel. However, mutual accountability would mean that, when churches differ, they continue to feel responsible to one another to continue the dialogue, to seek to understand the other's position, and to work together toward common witness to the world.

A third example may be seen in the bilateral discussions between the Anglican Church of Canada and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, as expressed in the Waterloo Declaration, on the basis of which the two churches entered into full communion in 2001. The Anglican-Lutheran International Working Group reported on this dialogue as follows:

      48. Commitment 5 of Waterloo commits the churches "to establish
   appropriate forms of collegial and conciliar consultation on
   significant matters of faith and order, mission and service".
   Commitment 6 is "to encourage regular consultation and
   collaboration among members of our churches at all levels, to
   promote the formulation and adoption of covenants for common work
   in mission and ministry, and to facilitate learning and exchange of
   ideas and information on theological, pastoral and mission
   matters". Commitment 7 is "to hold joint meetings of national,
   regional, and local decision-making bodies whenever practicable".
   (77)

Thus, consultation should become the norm, rather than the exception, between partner churches and should lead to concrete examples of common life and action among the churches. It is noteworthy but not surprising that mission plays a prominent role in these commitments, though the specific consequences of this for the churches are not spelled out. It is also significant that "joint meetings of. ... decision-making bodies" at all levels of the church's life are mandated, picking up calls from W.C.C. assemblies at New Delhi in 1961 and Vancouver in 1983. (78)

A fourth example comes from a very broad multilateral context: the text Called to Be the One Church, which was adopted unanimously at the W.C.C. assembly in Porto Alegre in 2006 as "[a]n invitation to the churches to renew their commitment to the search for unity, and to deepen their dialogue." (79)

   7. The relationship among churches is dynamically interactive. Each
   church is called to mutual giving and receiving gifts and to mutual
   accountability. Each church must become aware of all that is
   provisional in its life and have the courage to acknowledge this to
   other churches. Even today, when eucharistic sharing is not always
   possible, divided churches express mutual accountability and
   aspects of catholicity when they pray for one another, share
   resources, assist one another in times of need, make decisions
   together, work together for justice, reconciliation, and peace,
   hold one another accountable to the discipleship inherent in
   baptism, and maintain dialogue in the face of differences, refusing
   to say "I have no need of you" (I Cor. 12:21). Apart from one
   another we are impoverished. (80)

This is the most nuanced description yet produced of mutual accountability; its core idea is the churches' interdependence with one another, and indeed it may be seen as the ultimate consequence of Edinburgh 1910's primal affirmation: that Christians and the churches, in every place and time, need one another in order fully to manifest the one Body of Christ.

These examples show that the notion of mutual accountability has challenged and motivated the churches in a wide variety of contexts.

Let us ask, finally, what mutual accountability would look like when practiced in the field of Christian mission today. The churches in the ecumenical movement already have some experience with this, namely, through the comity agreements of the nineteenth century, by which churches exercised restraint in their mission activity if other churches were already present in a given area. What would mutual accountability look like in the more complex and diverse mission scene today? What would it mean for churches to plan and carry out mission together, rather than separately, in full awareness of their interdependence as members together of the one Body of Christ? Would the practice of mutual accountability in mission not teach the churches something about the intrinsic unity of unity and mission?

(1) "General Review and Conclusions," in Report of Commission VIII: Co-operation and the Promotion of Unity with Supplement: Presentation and Discussion of the Report in the Conference on 21st June 1910, World Missionary Conference, 1910, vol. 8 (Edinburgh and London: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier; New York, Chicago, and Toronto: Fleming H. Revell, n.d.), p. 138 (hereafter, Report of Commission VIII').

(2) Brian Stanley, The World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910, Studies in the History of Christian Missions (Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), p. 73.

(3) Ibid., cover photograph, and photograph 4, between pp. 166 and 167.

(4) William Richey Hogg, "Edinburgh, 1910--Ecumenical Keystone," Religion in Life 29 (Summer, 1960): 340.

(5) C. Home Silvester, The Story of the LMS (London: John Snow & Co., 1894), p. 16; cited in Roderick R. Hewitt, "A Present Vocation in Mission and Service: The Challenge to United and Uniting Churches," in Thomas F. Best, ed., Built Together: The Present Vocation of United and Uniting Churches (Ephesians 2:22)--The Sixth International Consultation of United and Unitmg Churches, Faith and Order Paper 174 (Geneva: Faith and Order Commission, World Council of Churches, 1996), p. 53.

(6) Stanley, Worm Missionary Conference, pp. 18-19.

(7) Report of Commission VIII, p. 1.

(8) Ibid., pp. 1-2.

(9) Ibid., p. 2.

(10) Ibid., p. 232.

(11) This principle was reinforced by speakers on the Commission VIII report to the extent that it became a mantra. J. H. Oldham wrote years later to Ruth Rouse, noting that, if Bishop Charles H. Brent--an Episcopalian missionary to the Philippines, who was known as an advocate for the issue of unity--had raised such issues in his response to the report, "the conference would at once disintegrate" (J. H. Oldham to Ruth Rouse, April 22, 1950, Edinburgh 1910 folder, Floyd Tomkins Papers, Archives of the Episcopal Church, Austin, TX; cited by John F. Woolverton, Robert H. Gardiner and the Reunification of Worldwide Christianity in the Progressive Era (Columbia, MO, and London: University of Missouri Press, 2005), p. 109, n. 4.

(12) Stanley, Worm Missionary Conference, p. 55. As the distinguished Evangelical Rose Dowsett pointed out, this meant in practice "countries where a high rate of infant baptism still prevailed" (Rose Dowsett, "Cooperation and the Promotion of Unity: An Evangelical Perspective," in David A. Kerr and Kenneth R. Ross, eds., Edinburgh 2010: Mission Then and Now, Regnum Studies in Mission (Eugene, OR: Wipfand Stock, 2009), p. 254.

(13) Report of Commission VIII, p. 4.

(14) J. M. Delaney, "From Cremona to Edinburgh: Bishop Bonomelli and the World Missionary Conference of 1910," The Ecumenical Review 52 (July, 2000): 420.

(15) Brent's intervention during the discussion of the Commission VIII report was an appeal for constructive engagement with the Roman Catholic Church. See the following: Report of Commission VIII, pp. 198-199; Brent's evening presentation to the consultation: Charles H. Brent, "The Sufficiency of God," in The History and Records of the Conference together with Addresses Delivered at the Evening Meetings, World Missionary Conference, 1910, vol. 9 (Edinburgh and London: Oliphant, Anderson, & Ferrier; New York, Chicago, and Toronto: Fleming H. Revell, n.d.), p. 334; and Charles H. Brent, "The World Missionary Conference: An Interpretation," in Charles H. Brent, The Inspiration of Responsibility and Other Papers (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1915), pp. 55-68; also included in The Eastandthe West, vol. 8, no. 31 (1910).

(16) See the replies to the Commission VIII questionnaire on moves in the mission field toward cooperation and unity. The eight large, closely typed volumes of these now march across the shelves in the World Council of Churches library in Geneva.

(17) Report of Commission VIII, pp. 88-89. Interestingly, the church finally settled upon the Apostles' Creed, introduced by a statement noting additional theological themes that were especially important in the Japanese context.

(18) Ibid., p. 197.

(19) Ibid., p. 196.

(20) The Church in the Mission Field with Supplement, Presentation, and Discussion of the Report in the Conference on 16th June 1910: Report of Commission 11, World Missionary Conference, 1910, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier; New York: Fleming H. Revell, n.d.), p. 355. In fairness to Gore, he in fact understood "catholicity" to require the contributions of truly indigenized forms of Christianity, not least from mission-founded churches around the world. See Stanley, Worm Missionary Conference, pp. 194-197.

(21) Report of Commission VIII, p. 8.

(22) Ibid., p. 87.

(23) Ibid., pp. 88-103 and 104-105. The different polities were Presbyterian and Congregationalist; in 1910 these appeared far more widely divided than they did later when, e.g., the World Alliance of Reformed Churches included churches of both persuasions.

(24) Ibid., p. 107; see discussion of federation, pp. 107-115.

(25) Ibid., p. 116.

(26) Ibid., p. 117.

(27) Ibid., p. 118.

(28) Ibid., p. 135.

(29) Ibid., p. 131.

(30) See Brian Stanley, "The Pursuit of Church Union in Asia," in Stanley, World Missionary Conference, pp. 310-312. See also Thomas F. Best, "Councils of Churches: Local, National, Regional," in Nicholas Lossky, et al., Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, 2nd ed. (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2002), pp. 256-258 (hereafter, D.E.M.); and Thomas F. Best, "reunion," in F. K. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), pp. 1390-1392.

(31) Report of Commission VIII, p. 202-204. For the recommendation, see pp. 202-203, n. 2.

(32) Ibid., p. 205.

(33) John R. Mott, "Closing Address," in History and Records of the Conference, pp. 347-348.

(34) V. S. Azariah, "The Problem of Co-operation between Foreign and Native Workers," in History and Records of the Conference, p. 315.

(35) H. N. Bate, ed., Faith and Order. Proceedings of the Worm Conference, Lausanne, August 3-21, 1927 (New York: George H. Doran Co., 1927), p. 3.

(36) Ibid., p. 461.

(37) Ibid., pp. 494-495; emphasis in original.

(38) Ibid., p. 496.

(39) Ibid., p. 499.

(40) Ibid., p. 469.

(41) Leonard Hodgson, ed., The Second World Conference on Faith and Order: Edinburgh, August 3-18, 1937 (New York: Macmillan Co., 1938), p. 220. The reference is to H. Paul Douglass, A Decade of Objective Progress in Church Unity, 1927-1936 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1937).

(42) Hodgson, Second Worm Conference, pp. 222-223.

(43) Ibid., p. 252, emphasis added.

(44) Ibid., p. 253.

(45) W. A. Visser't Hooft, ed., The New Delhi Report (London: SCM, 1962), [section]2, p. 116.

(46) "The Unity of the Church: Next Steps"--Report of the Consultation on "Concepts of Unity and Models of Union," in What Kind of Unity? Faith and Order Paper 69 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1974), p. 121.

(47) "Report of Section II: What Unity Requires," in David M. Paton, ed., Breaking Barriers-Nairobi, 1975: The Official Report of the Fifth Assembly of the World Council of Churches, Nairobi, 23 November-10 December, 1975 (London: SPCK; Grand Rapids, MI.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), [section]3, p. 60.

(48) Ibid., [section]5 p. 61.

(49) Minutes and Supplementary Documents from the Meeting of the Commission on Faith and Order, Faith and Order Paper 93 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, Commission on Faith and Order, 1979), pp. 40-42.

(50) David Gill, ed., Gathered for Life: Official Report, Sixth Assembly, World Council of Churches (Geneva: W.C.C.; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983), [section][section]5-8, p. 45.

(51) See ibid., [section][section]5-9, p. 45.

(52) See the address of Cardinal Johannes Willebrands at Great St. Mary's Church, Cambridge, U.K., January 18, 1972, during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, in Called to Full Unity: Documents on Anglican-Roman Catholic Relations, 1966-1983 (Washington DC: United States Catholic Conference for the Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, National Conference of Catholic Bishops; and the Ecumenical Office, Executive Council of the Episcopal Church, 1986), pp. 45-53.

(53) Harding Meyer, "Reconciled Diversity," in D.E.M., pp. 960-961.

(54) "Statements of the Assembly: 3. Models of Unity," in Ame Sovik, ed., In Christ--A New Community: The Proceedings of the Sixth Assembly of the Lutheran Worm Federation (Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 1977), [section]15, p. 174.

(55) "Statements by the Seventh Assembly: Statement on 'The Unity We Seek,'" in Carl H. Mau, Jr., ed., Budapest 1984: Christ--Hope for the World, Official Proceedings of the Seventh Assembly of the Lutheran Worm Federation, LWF Report 19/20 (Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 1985), p. 175.

(56) Thomas F. Best, "Unity, Models of," in D.E.M., p. 1174; and most recently, Lorelei F. Fuchs, Koinonia and the Quest for an Ecumenical Ecclesiology: From Foundations through Dialogue to Symbolic Competence for Communionality (Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2003; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008).

(57) "The word 'fellowship' (komonia) has been chosen because it describes what the church truly is" (Visser't Hooft, New Delhi Report, [section]10, p. 119).

(58) J.-M. R. Tillard, "Koinonia," in D.E.M., pp. 646-652.

(59) Michael Kinnamon, ed., Signs of the Spirit--Official Report, Seventh Assembly: Canberra, Australia, 7-20 February 1991 (Geneva: WCC Publications; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991), pp. 172-174.

(60) The Nature and Mission of the Church: A Stage on the Way to a Common Statement, Faith and Order Paper 198 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2005), [section]35, p. 25. Note that the name of the text was changed from "The Nature and Purpose of the Church" in order to stress the importance of mission for reflection on the church, its being, and its task in the world. Cf. the earlier The Nature and Purpose of the Church: A Stage on the Way to a Common Statement, Faith and Order Paper 181 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, Commission on Faith and Order, 1998).

(61) Nature and Mission of the Church, [section]41, p. 26.

(62) In addition to the texts cited, I have gained much from discussion about Edinburgh 2010 with Jacques Matthey, former W.C.C. senior staff for mission, who is a leading missiologist.

(63) Deenabandhu Manchala, "Edinburgh 2010: A Walking Back to Walk into Time!" People's Reporter (July 10-25, 2010), p. 7, cols. 1-2.

(64) Kirsteen Kim has suggested that the theme of unity and mission was missing from the original list of study sections produced in 2005 and was added only later. See her lecture, "Edinburgh 1910 and Edinburgh 2010: Different Theological Worldviews?'" given at the Henry Martyn Centre [at Westminster College, Cambridge, U.K.], January 27, 2010; available at: http://www.martynmission.cam.ac.uk/pages/hmc-seminar-papers.php.

(65) "Theme Eight: Mission and Unity--Ecclesiology and Mission," in Daryl Balia and Kirsteen Kim, eds., Edinburgh 2010, vol. 2: Witnessing to Christ Today, Edinburgh 2010 Series (Oxford, U.K.: Regnum Books International, 2010), pp. 199-221; hereafter, "Theme Eight."

(66) Ibid., p. 213 (emphasis added), citing the W.C.C. Central Committee document "Towards Common Witness: A Call to Adopt Responsible Relationships in Mission and to Renounce Proselytism" (1997), [section]2, par. 3. The latter text is available in Jacques Matthey, "You are the Light of the World": Statements on Mission by the Worm Council of Churches 1980-2005 (Geneva: WCC, 2005), pp. 39-58.

(67) "Theme Eight," pp. 214-215; emphases in original.

(68) Ibid., p. 218.

(69) "Edinburgh 2010: Common Call," Statement from the Consultation, June 6, 2010, [section]8; available at http://www.edinburgh2010.org/fileadmin/files/edinburgh2010/files/ conference-docs/Common_Call_final.pdf.

(70) Ibid, [section]4.

(71) Or, indeed, no longer a worthwhile option. For a much more critical interpretation of the Edinburgh 1910 Commission VIIl's view on unity, coupled with a deep skepticism about the possibility-and relevance--of organic union today, see Dowsett, "Cooperation and the Promotion of Unity," pp. 250-262, esp. 260-261. But; see also the recent remarkable and courageous call for Evangelical engagement with issues of unity and mission: John H. Armstrong, Your Church Is Too Small: Why Unity in the Christ's Mission Is Vital to the Future of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010).

(72) Edinburgh 2010's emphasis on inclusion echoes other recent efforts to bring a wider range of Christians together. In a national context, see Christian Churches Together in the USA at www.christianchurchestogether.org/; in the global context, see the Global Christian Forum at www.globalchristianforum.org/. These have provided a platform for building awareness, trust, and common action in noncontroversial areas, among widely diverse Christians, churches, and groups. So far, they have avoided potentially divisive theological issues.

(73) This section develops ideas from my article, "From Mutual Recognition to Mutual Accountability: A Next Step for the Ecumenical Movement," to appear in a forthcoming Festschrift for Msgr. John Radano, edited by Saskatchewan Catholic Bishop Donald Bolen (Eerdmans). On mutual accountability, see also the creative and substantial work of Olav Fykse Tveit, Mutual Accountability as Ecumenical Attitude: A Study in Ecumenical Ecclesiology based on Faith and Order Texts, 1948-1998 (Oslo: Norwegian School of Theology, 2001).

(74) This means, among other things, that there are no more "purely internal documents"; for good or ill, even the churches' "internal correspondence" is eventually known to other churches and has an impact upon their relationships.

(75) See Martin Cressey, "Where and Whither? An Interpretive Survey of United and Uniting Churches, With a View to Their Contribution to the Fifth World Conference on Faith and Order to Be Held in 1993," Minutes of the Meeting of the Standing Commission on Faith and Order HeM at Centro Nazareth, Rome, Italy, 19-26 June 1991, Faith and Order Paper 157 (Geneva: World Council of Churches/Commission on Faith and Order, 1992), p. 61. In ecclesiological terms, is the united church "new" or, rather, the sum of the ecclesial identities of its constituent churches? This fascinating question is still open.

(76) "Costly Commitment: Tantur Ecumenical Institute, Israel, November, 1994," in Thomas F. Best and Martin Robra, eds., Ecclesiology and Ethics: Ecumenical Ethical Engagement, Moral Formation, and the Nature of the Church (Geneva, WCC Publications, 1997), [section]17c, p. 29, emphasis in original. Also in Thomas F. Best and Martin Robra, eds., Costly Commitment: Ecclesiology and Ethics (Geneva, WCC Publications, 1995), p. 64.

(77) "Growth in Communion: Anglican-Lutheran International Working Group, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2002," in Jeffrey Gros, Thomas F. Best, and Lorelei F. Fuchs, eds., Growth in Agreement III: International Dialogue Texts and Agreed Statements, 1998-2005, Faith and Order Paper 204 (Geneva: WCC Publications; Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007), p. 385. Significantly, mutual accountability is one of the rubrics under which the international group has evaluated all the dialogues between Anglican and Lutheran churches at the regional and national levels; see "Growth in Communion," p. 377. For a detailed and incisive study of Waterloo, see Michael Root, "Consistency and Difference in Anglican-Lutheran Relations: Porvoo, Waterloo, and Called to Common Mission," in Marsha L. Dutton and Patrick Terrell Gray, eds., One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism: Studies in Christian Ecclesiality and Ecumenism in Honor of J. Robert Wright (Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006),. pp. 296-315.

(78) See notes 43-47, above.

(79) Subtitle of "Called to Be the One Church" [The Porto Alegre Ecclesiology Text]; available at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/assembly/porto.alegre.2006/1- statements-documents-adopted/christian-unity-and-message-to-the-churches/ called-to-be-the-one-church-as-adopted.html. See Luis N. Rivera-Pagan, ed., God, in Your Grace: Official Report of the Ninth Assembly of the World Council of Churches (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2007), p. 257.

(80) "Called to Be the One Church," [section]7; emphasis in original. Notably, the theme of common decision-making is prominent in the text. The notion of mutual accountability is also present, in a less sustained way, in the current Faith and Order ecclesiology text, The Nature and Mission of the Church, pp. 9, 17, 20, 22, 25, and 26.

Thomas F. Best (Christian Church [Disciples of Christ]) holds a B.A. from Harvard; studied at Union Theological Seminary, New York, for a year, then received an M.A. in Theology from Oxford and a Ph.D. in Christian Origins from the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, CA (1974). He was ordained in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in 1967. After serving as a campus minister for the Dallas Council of Churches (1967-69), he taught in the Religious Studies Department at Butler University, and on occasion at Christian Theological Seminary, both in Indianapolis, IN, 1974-83. He directed the Institut zur Erforschung des Urchristentums in Tubingen, 1980-81. In January, 1984, he was seconded by the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) to the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches in Geneva, Switzerland; as a Programme Executive his areas of responsibility included issues of worship in relation to the unity of the church, the relation between ecclesiology and ethical engagement, and work with the United and Uniting Churches. As Director of Faith and Order (from which he retired in December, 2007), he was responsible for the final preparation and presentation of "Called to Be the One Church," the ecclesiology text unanimously adopted by the W.C.C.'s 9th Assembly in Porto Alegre in 2006. He has published numerous articles on New Testament topics, ecumenical themes, and the history of the faith and order movement, in journals and authoritative resources such as the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (RGG), the Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, and the New SCM Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship, including the chapter on "Ecclesiology and Ecumenism" in The Routledge Companion to the Christian Church. He edited numerous books for Faith and Order and the W.C.C. and served as editor and book review editor of The Ecumenical Review. In retirement, he continues to write and speak on ecumenical themes. With Paul A. Crow, Jr., he is writing a projected history of the Faith and Order movement; he edited Baptism Today: Understanding, Practice, Ecumenical Implications (Liturgical Press and WCC Publications, 2008). In addition to this address to the N.A.A.E., he addressed the National Workshop on Christian Unity in 2010.