Finding bilateral agreement: the rules of the game

Ecumenical Review, The, July, 2003 by Oliver Schuegraf

Agreement about authority

The Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission, (4) signed by theologians of both sides in 1994, contains an insight that is always valid if agreement is to be reached: There can be "no message without a definition of it, and no definition without agreement as to how, or on what basis, it shall be defined". (5) Yet on which basis is their message being defined in the churches? The question of the teaching authority in general, and that of the relation between scripture and Tradition in particular, were two of the main problems in the denominational quarrels of the 16th century that are still continuing to block the search for unity. Different answers to these questions lead to different formulations of doctrine. Furthermore, the theological significance and status given to these questions varies greatly between the different churches. Hermeneutical difficulties are built in if one church, with an authoritative teaching office as well as a clearly defined set of beliefs, meets another that has no such pattern or practice. A report of the Joint Commission between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Methodist Council (6) illustrates that point. The Methodists state that they discern between, on the one hand, different "opinions" about manners of worship, about ecclesiastical polity or even about the exposition of certain scriptural truths and, on the other, the essential doctrines of faith. "Opinions" are by no means unimportant ... But for the communion of faith with other Christians the unity in regard to the "essentials" is decisive, and not the differences of "opinions". (7) Yet the Methodist churches have never established a fixed "canon" of these essentials of Christian faith. For the Roman Catholic Church, however, "the whole teaching of the church constitutes an organic unity" and its members are therefore "'called upon to believe the full teaching of the church". (8) Obviously behind this disagreement lie sharply differing views regarding the criteria for recognizing authoritative doctrines. Such different approaches towards the shaping of belief and teaching clearly hinder the search for unity. Therefore it has to be one of the tasks of an interchurch dialogue to establish common "epistemological" criteria, on which the agreements necessary for unity can be based.

The most important, indeed most successful starting point for interchurch rapprochement has proved to be the mutual study of holy scripture. Several dialogue reports provide vivid evidence of how well-worn patterns of thought have been broken open by shared examination of the Old and New Testaments. Supposedly unchangeable affirmations of received teaching become open to review as to how far they really correspond with holy scripture. Yet the Lutheran-Baptist dialogue, for example, shows that even such an appeal to scripture will not necessarily solve all the problems. (9) The search for a common understanding of baptism remains problematic, because of the fact that even sincere Bible study cannot unambiguously determine the proper relationship between baptism and the confession of faith. Both denominational convictions (baptism after confession of faith versus infant baptism without prior conscious statement of faith) may point to clues in their favour in scripture. (10) There is no explicit and clear solution given by the Bible to this conflict. The dialogue partners have no other possibility than to reach an agreement on the criteria by which the biblical testimony is to be judged and evaluated. With other words, the mutual "canon" of holy scriptures has to be supported by a kanon tes aletheias.