The material in this segment relates to the Charismatic Movement. "Christians in Fellowship," the World Council of Churches, the relationship between Baptists and Churches of Christ and participation in ecumenical consultation.

1. The Charismatic Movement
2. "Christian Fellowship
3. WCC (World Council of Churches)
4. Churches of Christ and Baptists
5. Ecumenical Dialogue
a. Roman Catholics and the VCC
b. BEM (Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry)
c. The Uniting Church and Churches of Christ
d. The Anglican Church and Churches of Christ

1. THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT

      The internal unity of the Australian Churches of Christ was challenged in the years 1970-1990 by the Charismatic Movement. The churches generally accommodated those enthused over the experience, though opposition to the movement was strong in some conservative congregations, particularly in Queensland.

      An excellent treatment of the Movement, as it affected Churches of Christ, will be found in K. Clinton's Renewal in the Spirit, The Pamphlet Club, May 1978, No. 271. Charismatics within Churches of Christ publish a small periodical, Fire in the Hearth.

A.C., 1978, p. 219.

      In the midst of the argument and comment back and forth about the charismatic movement, little has been said about its social role.

      The people who are often attracted to the type of worship and teaching that is called neo-pentecostal or charismatic, have deep personal needs which cannot easily be satisfied by rational theological debate. I hesitate to say 'rational' because so much of the debate is emotionally heated and irrational. The emotion often arises because people fail to appreciate the non-theological issues involved and view theology as something related to life's experiences.

      I do not propose to enter into the theological debate here, but to show that the charismatic movement has significant social value. I believe that any assessment of its role or validity in the established church should take into account the sociological and psychological function of the movement.

      My comments are based on findings from research undertaken in Brisbane for an Honours thesis in 1975-76. Ten different Pentecostal and charismatic groups were observed, with intensive study of a denominational church which had taken on the charismatic mantle.

Motivation

      People are usually motivated to try out new experiences or join new groups because they have deep felt needs. Two consistent patterns of motivation emerged from the Brisbane study.

Protest

      One of these was in the form of a protest against the institutionalized church and a desire to revitalize the church. Comments like "the spiritual life was dead," "Some join as an escape from a more legalistic and empty religion," "people lack power and fulfilment in their Christian life," "I was dissatisfied with the fruits of my own ministry and others in the church" were typical of the dissatisfaction that was expressed with the traditional church.

      These people did not find spiritual enrichment or meaning in the traditional forms of worship, where spontaneity and freedom of expression was lacking. All the theologizing and concern over traditional values leaves many people cold. In a book entitled "The Secular City," sociologist Harvey Cox says that there is always the simple pragmatist who wants his religion "to work." The christian who aspires for a deeper religious experience and yearns to feel the presence of God is simply wanting his Christianity to work! He apparently does not feel Christianity working in the anonymity of formal ritual and liturgy.

      The Church is also seen by some to be forsaking its original purpose when it becomes involved in social and political issues. Several informants, both from within and outside the charismatic movement, expressed concern that the church was forsaking its original function. Even amongst informants who were not "charismatic," the opinion was commonly expressed that the established church could learn much from the renewal in terms of teaching and enthusiasm. We can hardly deny that where it has occurred, Christians have become more enthusiastic, and more joyful about their faith and more caring for each other.

      Protests against the church are not new. The Reformation sects and the evangelical revivals of the 18th and 19th centuries were just that. They protested against traditionalism and intellectualism in the dominant religious bodies, against indifference and laxity, against stagnation and decline of active religious life. Strange behavioural forms were associated with most of these revivals, a fact that

opponents of current charismatic phenomena often forget. Those revivalist groups have how become institutionalized churches, often devoid of "life," and in need of revitalization. This is what the charismatics are trying to revitalize a dead church and to restore some beliefs and practises which they believe have been forsaken.

      It is significant that the growth of the charismatic movement has been most successful in the hierarchically organized and most traditional, institutionalized churches. I think it is also significant that some of the strongest opposition has come from the evangelical churches--those groups who were once the reformers. The response of one informant--"the last revelation of God to the Church becomes the next agent of persecution"--expresses the experience of many charismatic Christians I have encountered While his theology may be questioned, what he was trying to say was that the church(es) who believe they have the truth are the most adamant antagonists to the next group who claims to have a more complete body of truth. In other words, the former group wants to preserve its identity as the holder of truth.

      Religious protest may lead to secession or it may remain within the church. The current protest movement appears to be in the main, a protest within the church. However, once the initial enthusiasm has expired, this latest 'revival' may follow the same pattern as other revival groups and become traditionalist. There are already signs of this, as attempts are being made to formalize 'charismatic doctrine.'

The Aimlessness of Life

      The other motivating factor that stood out, was that people were attracted to the renewal out of a sense of aimlessness of meaninglessness in life. This ranged from a lack of meaning in traditional church forms, to confusion over standards in secular life. The sociologists call this a state of anomie, which can vary in degree from a state of hopelessness and despair to the extreme of suicide. Comments like "I was disoriented and unable to find fulfilment," "giving a purpose to life," and "the stress and strain of everyday living is causing people to look for the answer" were typical of the anomie experienced.

      In a state of social disorganization people may search for a means of escape or they may search for a new set of beliefs and values to re-establish their role in society. They may do this by opting out of urbanized society and returning to the land, by resorting to violence, or by joining a political or religious group which provides a sort of group identity, and security. If the traditional church does not meet this need, people will go to where they find peace and comfort and security.

A.C., 1978, p. 249.

      Lest I give the impression that the charismatic movement has primarily a sociological function, I hasten to add that its theological importance should not be under-estimated. It is possible that many charismatic Christians will adopt a certain theological stance because it satisfies their personal and social needs. After all if a person believes he has been healed of a serious malady, his theology of healing is bound to be influenced by that experience.

      (It is also just as possible that the theology of "traditionalists" is also influenced by their particular social circumstances--for example, the limited life experience in a typical suburban family situation). We must be careful that our theological argument is not merely a cover for preserving the status quo.

Reaction Against Tradition

      In many ways I see the current charismatic renewal as just another of the many historical protest movements that have affected the church. But this protest has some unusual sociological aspects. Instead of being comprised of the poor and the socially deprived (who seem to make up the bulk of all historical protest movements) this movement is attracting the affluent middle classes, the educated, and the youth of our churches. The fact that it is attracting young people could suggest that it attracts immature Christians who are out for excitement. It must go further than this because of the large number of older christians who are affected.

      There is a general reaction by the affluent and especially young people against materialism, the establishment and other traditional forms, and a withdrawal from social and economic pressures. There is the "quality of life" argument. Higher education has encouraged greater participation and personal involvement in many areas of life, including christianity. Participation is encouraged in charismatic meetings. The preaching, singing and expressions of worship are exciting and enthusiastic. The teachings are either new or have been rediscovered and therefore appear as new, and the values that are expounded are idealistic. All of these factors would help to attract young people.

      Spiritual deprivation seems to be one of the chief motivating factors influencing the affluent adherents, whereas other protest movements have attracted people with economic or political deprivation.

What Should the Church's Response Be?

      The Church must assess its role in response to the protest. It may choose to ignore the movement or tolerate its existence within the framework of the established church. Alternatively it may actively pursue one of two courses--either persecute and extinguish the charismatic impulse, or correct the source of dissatisfaction within its own institutional framework.

      I have stated that the movement has considerable social value. Therefore I can only adopt the position that the institutional church has a responsibility to its own well-being and the well-being of its members, to take the latter alternative History shows that any attempt to extinguish the flame of protest only rekindles it in some other form, or drives it underground. The church must look inwardly for the source of dissatisfaction in an attempt to rectify that which is claimed to be irrelevant.

      There is increasing criticism about the irrelevancy of the church in modern society. Medieval liturgies and hymns, over-formalized worship, authoritarian and hierarchical leadership, have little meaning in the culture of industrial society with its norms of equality and democracy. Even the evangelical branch of the church, which, in its structure and style of worship is less formal, has retained a style of presentation and message more suited to the 19th century.

      There is little scope in many churches for people to find expression and meaning outside of the prescribed rules and procedures. With the technological society becoming increasingly impersonal, the individual who seeks some kind of spiritual fulfilment is not going to be attracted to another impersonal institution.

      The church must have a greater concern for satisfying man's emotional needs. If the church is serious about proselytizing, the "unchurched" will not be attracted by "cold" or "dead" churches.

      The fact that the charismatic movement is trying to institute change may be reason enough to some churches to oppose it. The church needs to come to terms with its function. If Christianity is something static--a system of beliefs, rituals and practices that emerge at a given time and should not be subject to revision--then religious change is out of the question. But if Christianity is seen as an ongoing faith, subject to changing forms, revised liturgies and rituals in the light of changes in society, then lack of "orthodoxy" does not mean a weakening of Christianity. It can be a sign of strength.

      There are, however, major problems to be overcome, before the orthodox church and its reforming agent can come together. Strong emotional and doctrinal conflicts exist which make it difficult for rational dialogue or even tolerance to survive. Although the charismatics also hold to orthodox tenets of faith, any attempt to integrate the more acceptable qualities of the movement is jeopardized by accusations of "courting evil forces" and suspicions surrounding the abnormal ecstatic behaviour that occurs in charismatic services.

      If those who are currently debating the validity and acceptability of some charismatic practices would devote the same energies to meeting the emotional and spiritual needs of people, they may not be so threatened by empty pews.

A.C., 1980, p. 37.

      I am not a "charismatic" in the sense that the "charismatic movement" uses the term. I am not happy with the implication that "charismatics" have some sort of monopoly of spiritual gifts.

      I do not speak in tongues but I believe that many Christians since New Testament times have had such an experience.

      There is no doubt that following the "charismatic experience," many Christians have been renewed in their Christian lives, demonstrated by a new joy, a greater commitment to Christ, a new love for people, and greater evangelistic zeal: On the other hand, others claiming to have the "charismatic experience" have become self-righteous, judgmental, arrogant and divisive in spirit.

      I believe that a by-product of the "charismatic movement" is the "new look worship" in main line churches, with changes from a dreary, formalistic, solemn dullness towards more freedom, joy, praise, ecstasy and participation.

A TENDENCY TO POLARISATION

      I am disturbed by a tendency to polarisation among us on the "charismatic" issue. On the one hand anti-charismatics want to confine or exorcise or even to excommunicate "charismatics." On the other hand "charismatics," for self protection, have tended to group into fellowships for personal soul culture rather than expressing their renewal in loyal support of their local churches, self sacrificial service to society's hurt and underprivileged people, and a loving understanding of those whose theological and traditional position makes it impossible to understand them.

      Some have accused the "charismatics" of being divisive, and sometimes they have been. But it takes two parties for a division to take place. Both the spiritual "oneupmanship" of some "charismatics" and the intransigence of some of those who oppose them, create division.

THE BIBLE AND THE GIFTS

      I am equally disturbed by some attempts to use the Bible both to support and to attack the "charismatic movement." Its supporters make extensive use of I Corinthians 12 and 14, as though Paul was writing in strong support of the Corinthian "charismatic movement," when in fact he was writing because some of them were divisive and some of their expressions of "gifts" were a scandal. Paul was unhappy with the way in which some tongues--speaking "charismatics" were glorying in their "gift" and presenting themselves as superchristians and indulging in "spiritual orgies" that offended the church and negatived its witness.

      Those who use the Bible to attack "charismatics" usually point to the fact that in Acts those who spoke in tongues did so after the apostles laid hands on them. Therefore, they say, tongues were a temporary manifestation only for the apostolic age, given because of the special need for evidence of God's power. They say that with the disappearance of the Apostles tongues also disappeared, because they alone had the power to initiate the gift.

      There is evidence that tongues associated with the laying on of the apostles' hands on one occasion (Acts 19 . . . and possibly Acts 8) but there is no evidence that the tongues-speakers at Corinth received the gift in this way. In any case the behaviour of some of the recipients of the "gift" does not do credit to Apostolic insight!

      To say that tongues ceased with the apostles because they only happened with the laying on of the Apostles' hands is to imply that eldership also ceased with the Apostles. In the New Testament elders were appointed either by the Apostles or by those who were given authority to do so by the Apostles.

THE BIBLICAL COUNSEL TO LOVE

      At this stage I want to suggest two things. Firstly, that we should all refrain from using the Bible out of context to find proof texts for either support of or attack against "charismatics."

      Secondly, I want to suggest that hostility cease between "charismatics" and those who have opposed them and that we live together in the Body of Christ in love and unity. This was the line that Paul took with the church at Corinth. It was the "charismatic" controversy in Corinth that stimulated Paul to write his beautiful hymn to love in 1 Corinthians 13.

2. CHRISTIANS IN FELLOWSHIP

      During the period 1970-1990 a growing number of Churches of Christ congregations, particularly in Victoria and South Australia, have publicly recognized the Christian standing of Christians from other traditions who have chosen to worship with them by accepting them as "Christians in Fellowship." The following documentation outlines the nature of this process.

      This statement seeks to describe the document "Christians in Fellowship" and to report the experience of various churches that have adopted the idea since 1964.

EXPLANATORY INTRODUCTION

      The initial document arose out of a particular situation as the newly-established congregation at Scoresby Road in the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne (now known as the Knoxfield Church of Christ), together with its sponsoring church, Boronia, considered how best Christians other than members of Churches of Christ could be involved in the total life of the congregation. Because the issue had implications beyond the local congregation, it was felt desirable to discuss the matters with representatives of the Brotherhood. Two other local congregations asked to be included in the discussions. Thus a committee was formed composed of representatives of the Victorian-Tasmanian Conference Executive, the Department of Home Missions and Evangelism and the Department of Christian Union, together with representatives from the churches at Boronia-Knoxfield, Mitcham and East Preston. This committee produced the original document "Christians in Fellowship." This received assent from the various Departments and churches represented. It has been made available since then to other churches which have made enquiries.

      Most churches that have adopted Christians in Fellowship have used the 1964 document as a basis for their constitution. It is significant, however, that one congregation (which does not support the ecumenical movement), quite independently arrived at almost identical conclusions as they recognized the presence in their congregation of many Christians who are not members of Churches of Christ.

      During 1975 and 1976 reports have been sought from churches in Victoria concerning their experience of and attitude towards Christians in Fellowship. It has been found that while Christians in Fellowship has been adopted formally by only a minority of the local congregations, sufficient experience has been gained for valid comments to be made. These comments are printed in italics to distinguish them from description of the original document.

THE AIM

      The 1965 "Christians in Fellowship" document begins by pointing out that it is common to find within the life and worship of local Churches of Christ persons who do not belong to Churches of Christ. This is the result of inter-marriage, isolation from their own church, appreciation of the vitality or worship style of the local congregation, and other factors. The document continues. "Some, at least, have no desire to sever their association with their own Communion but for various reasons they express their Christian life within our congregation. They share fully in the Lord's Supper in our churches, they contribute financially to our work and they serve in many capacities. The limits of this service vary from congregation to congregation. By allowing these persons to participate in the Lord's Supper we acknowledge them as disciples of Christ and members of His Body, the Church."

      The aim of Christians in Fellowship has been to clarify the position of such people for the benefit of

      "(1) members of Churches of Christ;

      (2) non-members of Churches of Christ involved in the life of the local congregation;

      (3) other communions within the ecumenical fellowship whose members may be involved in Churches of Christ congregations."

      The practical and theological intention has been to provide a working arrangement which preserves the balance between, on the one hand, the ecumenical spirit of Churches of Christ as against an exclusivist position, and, on the other hand, an "open membership" practice which undermines the witness of Churches of Christ concerning the Church, conversion, the nature of Christianity and baptism.

      The document continues; "On the wider level, Christians in Fellowship desire to remain identified with the Communion of their choice but at the local level they desire to share with us in congregational life. This document seeks to find a way to allow these desires to be fulfilled without in any way minimizing the tension between them in a disunited Church."

      "While acknowledging our responsibility to respect the integrity of these persons as members of Christ's Church, we must not fail to acknowledge also the vital responsibility to witness to the historic tradition of Churches of Christ. This document seeks to indicate how these two responsibilities can be carried out in the present situation."

      The survey has confirmed that the situation described in the document still exists in our churches, and in fact is present more than ever. A member of congregations that have not adopted Christians in Fellowship officially are aware of the issue but either have decided that it is not opportune to discuss the matter at a congregational or Board level or they have had hesitations about aspects of the Christians in Fellowship proposal. It is hoped that this report will diminish the hesitations and will encourage churches to consider the issue more fully.

BASIC CONVICTIONS

      Lengthy discussions in the production of the document disclosed some basic convictions. These were stated so that the spirit of the proposal could be felt by others. The document states:

      1. "We believe that Churches of Christ have a continuing witness to make within the Church of Jesus Christ in its present divided state, and that this witness needs both to be preserved and to be expressed more vitally in each local situation. It is assured throughout this document that persons who seek membership in the congregation in the normal way receive instruction in the principles and practice of Churches of Christ before and after baptism.

      2. We believe that members of Churches of Christ are not the only Christians but are "Christians only" and that all Christians who meet in any one place are required by the very nature of the gospel to develop a corporate fellowship one with another.

      3. We believe that each congregation has the pastoral responsibility to make available to every Christian meeting in any one place opportunities to exercise not only the privileges but also the responsibilities which are integral parts of the membership in Christ's Body, the Church, and that at present this pastoral responsibility is not being fulfilled as it ought.

      4. We believe that the requirements for membership in the Church must never be minimized and that we need to uphold before all the high demands of Christ for His people.

      5. We believe that in a fellowship of love, in which the reality of the discipleship of any believer is not questioned and in which cherished convictions are courteously respected (even if conscientiously they cannot be agreed with) the Spirit of God can best lead all believers in any place to a fuller understanding of His will as revealed in Christ and through Scripture."

      Some have questioned the distinction between membership in the body of Christ and membership in the Movement known as Churches of Christ. It is true that such a distinction cannot be made on the basis of the New Testament, but the unbiblical fact of a divided church means that such a distinction is needed for the time being so that we face realistically those things which separate Christians It is not adequate to claim, as some do, that because Christians appreciate the vitality of a certain local congregation, they should become members of the Movement known as Churches of Christ when they do not share some of its basic convictions.

      Such an attitude does not do justice to the first conviction stated in the document.

      On the other hand, concern must be expressed also that others do not make any clear distinction between a member of another church and an unbelieving humanist. A person who is a member, for instance, of the Methodist church should be acknowledged clearly as a Christian by a congregation of Churches of Christ, and this should be reflected in the way that person is able to share in the life and witness of that congregation.

THE CHRISTIANS IN FELLOWSHIP ROLL

      It is common for each local congregation to maintain in some way a roll for active members, a supplementary roll for inactive members and a roll for isolated members. The original document recommended that a further roll be established for Christians in Fellowship. This roll would consist of "all believers who

      1. are full communicant members of other Christian communions and

      2. wish to retain their identity with such communions and

      3. have supplied to the Church adequate evidence of such membership and

      4. have confessed their Christian faith by diligence in worship and faithfulness in full Christian stewardship in the life of this congregation."

      It is stated that before any person is listed on this roll, a representative of the congregation should explain the reasons for the Christians in Fellowship Roll (along the lines of the Basic Convictions set out above). This explanation would include a statement concerning the witness of Churches of Christ. It would also indicate that, because of local autonomy, if the person concerned moved to another district, he would not automatically be entitled to similar rights in another church of Christ.

      The only difficulty found with this procedure has been whether the persons listed on the Christians in Fellowship Roll should be included in the statistics reported to Conference (and therefore whether they should be taken into account in determining affiliation fees to Conferences More importantly, Christians in Fellowship has provided some opportunities for frank discussion of the witness of Churches of Christ and has brought to the fore the fact of the disunity of the church.

THE STATUS OF CHRISTIANS IN FELLOWSHIP

      The document provides that Christians in Fellowship may share equally with members in the service of the Lord's Supper and in the general life and activity of the congregation. They may serve on committees and (with some exceptions to be mentioned shortly) they may vote at business meetings.

      The restrictions on Christians in Fellowship were listed under the heading of "Maintenance of Identity as a Church of Christ." This explains clearly the intention of the specific clauses. Those matters which can

be determined only by those who are on the Active Members Roll of the local Church of Christ (and NOT by Christians in Fellowship) are:

      a. "The appointment of a minister;

      b. The appointment of elders,

      c. The appointment of Conference delegates;

      d. The trusteeship of the property;

      e. The following matters relating to the distinctive witness of Churches of Christ--the name of the congregation, the observance of the Lord's Supper, the practice of baptism;

      f. Matters affecting the Constitution of the congregation, including the amendment of any document relating to Christians in Fellowship."

      The document also states that elders and conference delegates shall be elected only from the Active Members Roll. (It assumes that only a Churches of Christ minister would be called to a congregation).

      In adopting the Christians in Fellowship proposal, some congregations decided that the restrictions were greater than necessary to ensure that the witness of Churches of Christ is preserved Experience has shown that in no congregation which has adopted the Christians in Fellowship proposal have Christians in Fellowship sought to alter the witness of Churches of Christ.

BECOMING MEMBERS OF CHURCHES OF CHRIST

      The committee that prepared the original document expected that because of the presentation of the witness of Churches of Christ, some, at least, of those listed as Christians in Fellowship would decide to become members of Churches of Christ. Thus the document states that "a person may be transferred from the Christians in Fellowship Roll to the Active Members Roll provided the believer, having been convinced that God calls him to such an act of obedience, is baptised by immersion." The document suggests that the counselling leading up to this decision should be done with sensitivity to the person's membership in another church and that it include instruction on the various aspects of the witness of Churches of Christ.

      This expectation has been realized Some Christians in Fellowship have been convinced of our witness (including that on baptism) and thus have become members of Churches of Christ. In some instances, it appears that the feeling of acceptance created by Christians in Fellowship has made people more open to the presentation of our witness. Also there is evidence that when children of Christians in Fellowship reach the age of decision for Christ and His Church, Christians in Fellowship have encouraged the decision of their children to become members of Churches of Christ.

      The original document also provides that a person may be transferred from the Christians in Fellowship Roll to the Active Members Roll provided "the believer has been baptized by immersion following confession of faith in a communion other than Churches of Christ."

      The survey has found that the intention of this provision has not been understood or acted upon. The committee that produced the original document believed that the witness of Churches of Christ relates to more than baptism. They were proposing, for instance, that members of the Baptist or Brethren or Pentecostal churches should not automatically be accepted as members of Churches of Christ solely on the ground that they had been baptized by immersion, following a confession of faith. Such a person may not have considered other vital aspects of the witness of Churches of Christ. Thus it was proposed that such a person should be regarded as a Christian in Fellowship until the opportunity had been taken to share concerning the witness of Churches of Christ. Experience has shown that in some congregations difficulties have been encountered when some baptized believers who have been nurtured in a church other than Churches of Christ have entered the membership of Churches of Christ and then have become critical of aspects of the witness of Churches of Christ. There is no easy solution to this. Consideration of the provision in the Christians in Fellowship proposal could lead churches to look more closely at this issue.

      CONCLUSION

      The original "Christians in Fellowship" document is now only one of a number of similar documents, but the descriptive phrase "Christians in Fellowship" is widely used among local congregations. Constitutions vary according to local circumstances mud attitudes. We need to recognize flexibility which will do justice to the integrity of the local congregation and to the integrity of the whole Brotherhood of Churches of Christ. The aim of the original document (and of this statement) is to give guidelines for a working arrangement which will allow the witness of Churches of Christ to be maintained while at the same time enabling our fellowship with all believers to be expressed adequately.

      From the returns of the survey it is clear that a few churches strongly reject the idea of the unimmersed holding any office in the local church. A minority of Churches have formalised their ideas and the majority of these largely follow the document described above. Most churches have not formalised the

concept of Christians in Fellowship but virtually practice it. The unimmersed are gradually assimilated into positions of responsibility in the local church. It is recommended that churches give careful consideration to their practice so that members of Churches of Christ are helped to consider their attitudes to Christians outside Churches of Christ and also so that such Christians sharing in the life of our congregations may experience more fully both our concern for the witness of Churches of Christ and also our partnership with them in love in being obedient to the gospel of Christ.

      Consultation with representative leaders of the Brotherhood also is imperative so that decisions by a local congregation do not create difficulties for the rest of the Brotherhood

A.C., No. 337 November, 1984.

The text of this paper is a letter written to the Knoxfield Church, Victoria, by Bill Tabbernee in response to a request for guidance on the matter of Christians in Fellowship. As there is often different or confused thinking on this subject, the letter is being offered for general consideration.

Dear Mark,

      Sometime ago you asked me to write down my thoughts on "Christians in Fellowship." I'm sorry to have taken so long to do this, but at last I've been able to find the time to reflect on the concept of "Christians in Fellowship" introduced at Knoxfield and now a common practice in many of our churches.

      Let me say at the outset that, after careful reflection, I consider the practice of having the category of "Christians in Fellowship" still to be the best solution to the difficult problem of membership within Churches of Christ of Christians who have not been baptised by immersion as believers.

      I say this being well aware of anguish this may cause to people who have chosen a local Church of Christ as their church home but who, because of their Christian upbringing in a tradition other than our own, strongly believe their infant baptism to have been the means by which, through the grace of God, they were incorporated into the Church, a reality to which they gave personal expression at their confirmation. For these people, to be baptised as believers may be tantamount to being "re-baptised" or denying the validity of their prior baptism--calling into question their status as Christians. To them, it may appear that a requirement to be baptised as believers before they can be "full members" of a local Church of Christ is not only uncharitable, but "illogical." surely a Church of Christ should have only one criterion for membership: i. e., whether or not the person is a Christian?--irrespective of the rite expressing that person's initiation as a Christian. A number of members of local Churches of Christ, themselves baptised as believers, would probably agree with the above argument and, for the sake of their brothers and sisters in Christ who have been baptised as infants, would welcome them with open arms as full members of Churches of Christ.

      Unfortunately, for the following reasons, it is not that simple:

      (1) Churches of Christ as a whole have always emphasised, and still do, that believers' baptism is not merely one valid form of baptism alongside other forms of Christian initiation, but that it is the only way of retaining the true meaning, the significance and symbolism of baptism.

      Although time and space prevent me from arguing the case in detail, I am totally convinced that for historical theological and experiential reasons, baptism of believers by immersion in the only form which expresses fully the meaning and nature of baptism.

      Infant baptism is a late development, not referred to by the New Testament, unknown in the early post-Apostolic period and popularised only from the 5th Century AD onwards following the identification of Church and State and the introduction of a particular understanding of the doctrine of "original sin."

      Whilst the development of a Christian practice during a period after the N.T. was written does not, by itself, render the practice invalid, its validity needs to be tested against N.T. theology. The recent W.C.C. publication on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry Faith and Order Paper No. 111, W.C.C., Geneva, 1982) sums up the N.T. theology of the meaning of baptism with statements such as:

      Baptism is the sign of new life through Jesus Christ (112).

      Baptism means participation in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

      By baptism, Christians are immersed in the liberating death of Christ where their sins are buried with Him and are raised here and now to a new life in the power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ (113).

- 701 -

      The baptism which makes Christians partakers of the mystery of Christ's death and resurrection implies confession of sin and conversion of heart . . . Thus those baptised are pardoned, cleansed and sanctified by Christ, and are given as part of their baptismal experience a new ethical orientation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (II. 4). Of particular importance is the statement under the heading "Baptism and Faith." Baptism is both God's gift and our human response to that gift . . . Personal commitment is necessary for responsible membership in the body of Christ (III. 8).

      It seems to me, and this is the view of Churches of Christ as a whole, that only believers' baptism fulfills the N.T. criteria of what baptism is all about because only believers' baptism stresses that candidates for baptism need to be old enough to be able to make a personal response to the demands of the Gospel. Whilst recognising that baptism is not merely a human activity but a means of grace through which God acts on individuals, incorporating them into the Body of Christ, and through the Spirit bringing about an inward change making it possible for them to live a Christ-like life, Churches of Christ, on the basis of N.T. theology and the practice of the early church strongly believe that, from the human side, personal repentance and confession of faith in Christ is essential.

      Experientially speaking only people old enough to make a personal response of faith can experience the symbolism and sacramental power of baptism. The act of baptism is the dramatic portrayal of the candidates' identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. By submitting to baptism, candidates declare that they renounce their old way of life, consider it to be dead and buried, and that they wish to embark on a new Christ-like life, becoming new beings through God's power. Infants baptised soon after birth cannot consciously experience this; confirmation later in life does not have the same dramatic and sacramental impact.

      None of the above is meant to suggest that there is no such thing as the prevenient grace of God, that God doesn't love us even before we are aware of His love or that children are not part of the Kingdom of God. I would want to affirm each of these truths but would want to affirm them through a service of dedication rather than "infant baptism."

      Nor would I want to suggest that individuals cannot become Christians or express their allegiance to Christ by means other than believers' baptism. There are a number of N.T. examples of people becoming Christians prior to their baptism by immersion; their subsequent baptism sealing their conversion experience and publicly expressing their identification with Christ and the empowering of their life through the spirit.

      I do want to stress, however, that there are irrefutable historical, theological, and experiential grounds for continuing to maintain that believers' baptism is the only way of retaining the true meaning, significance and symbolism of baptism.

      (2) Church membership is not merely membership of "The Church."

      Unfortunately, and to our shame, we belong to a church divided into hundreds of denominations. A divided Christianity means that there are not only "Christians" but various types of Christians which form into groups according to different traditions and emphases. Membership of "the Body of Christ" on the basis of one's faith in Christ is not the only criterion for membership in a particular denomination or local church. Being a "churches of Christ" Christian means identifying with the practices and emphases held to be important by this particular group of Christians. These practices and emphases include participating in a weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper, mutual ministry (including "lay presidency" at the Lord's Table); a particular type of Church government etc. One of the most significant of these emphases is our stress on the importance of believers' baptism.

      (3) Churches of Christ have a crucial ecumenical function in witnessing to the importance of restoring believers' baptism to its rightful place as the norm throughout all Christian Churches.

      One of the main advantages of recent ecumenical dialogue is that Christians of various traditions, perhaps for the first time, are learning from each other rather than arguing with each other. There are many things which we as Churches of Christ can learn from other Christians. One of the things other Christians can rediscover through dialogue with us is the importance of believers' baptism. There are very strong signs that in a number of denominations the case for infant-baptism is being re-examined in the light of the historical, theological and experiential criteria referred to above.

      Some leaders of paedo-baptist churches are making statements indicating dissatisfaction with their churches' traditional views. This is due partly to ecumenical discussion about baptism held by Churches of Christ members with these people. At last we are seeing the fruits of the faithful witness of Churches of Christ members about the importance of believers' baptism which has been a vital issue since the commencement of "The Restoration Movement." I believe that it would be irresponsible to take any action at this stage which would compromise the historic witness of Churches of Christ on this issue, at

the very time when it appears that other denominations are ready to learn from our understanding of baptism. "Open" membership is not practised by any Christian denomination, to introduce it to Churches of Christ would be to repudiate or at least weaken our stand on believers' baptism and would do a disservice to the whole Christian church by removing or diluting the strength of our ecumenical witness to the importance of believers' baptism as the desirable norm.

      (4) Belonging to Churches of Christ means identifying with the beliefs, practices and emphases of Churches of Christ.

      For the reasons spelled out above, to be a member of that section of the Christian church known as Churches of Christ one not merely needs to be (or become) a Christian, confessing faith in Christ as Lord, but one needs to identify with or "own" those matters of "faith and order" which Churches of Christ stand for. This is especially true of believers' baptism because of the crucial role Churches of Christ play ecumenically through their emphasis on believers' baptism. It is illogical to say that one wishes to be a member of Churches of Christ, but to reject one of its most important practices.

      Perhaps we need to spend more time educating our congregations about the theology and practice of believers' baptism. Ignorance leads to misunderstanding, misunderstanding leads to resentment. If believers' baptism is not seen to be important by Christians coming from other traditions and they are not informed about the reasons behind our stand on it, they will naturally resent being prevented from taking up full membership within Churches of Christ on the grounds that they haven't been baptised as believers--especially if they think that we are questioning the reality of their own Christian experience. A greater understanding of our position on believers' baptism should help people to appreciate not only why we believe so strongly in believers' baptism, but why full membership in Churches of Christ can only be on the basis of believers' baptism.

      (5) There is a difference between full membership in Churches of Christ and full participation in the life of the local Church of Christ congregation.

      Whilst joining Churches of Christ as a "denomination" means identifying fully with its emphases and with its vision of restoring New Testament Christianity (including believers' baptism) with the view of bringing about ultimate Christian unity on the basis of that restoration, participating fully in the life of a local Church of Christ congregation, in my opinion, does not necessitate such a whole-hearted support of Churches of Christ emphases and its vision. It is possible to be a Christian in full fellowship in a local Church of Christ without having been baptised as a believer, although my own hope would be that, as a result of teaching and discussion on the issue, people would come to see the validity of our position on baptism and wish to be immersed as believers.

      (6) The concept of "Christians in Fellowship" enables Christians of traditions other than Churches of Christ and who do not share the emphases of Churches of Christ to participate fully in the life of a local Church of Christ whilst at the same time preserving the integrity of Churches of Christ as a whole to maintain and promote its emphases and vision in an ecumenical context.

      As you know the concept of Christians in Fellowship was stimulated when it was decided to establish a congregation in Knoxfield as a second congregation of the Church of Christ, Boronia.

      Knoxfield was a new and developing area and it was thought that quite likely there would be Christians in the area who were somewhat isolated from churches of their own tradition and who would be happy, if given the opportunity, to enter into worship and fellowship with the new congregation of Churches of Christ.

      The constitution of Christians in Fellowship was first worked out by a group consisting of representatives of the Department of Christian Union, the Conference Executive, the Department of Home Missions and churches at Boronia, Knoxfield and East Preston. The group consisted of those who had a real knowledge of the history and witness of Churches of Christ, theological qualification, experienced churchmanship and ecumenical encounter.

      The general aim was to give a lead to local congregations so that they and the whole Brotherhood would keep in step. It was not intended to preclude local variation but to give a framework of principles within which we could move together as a fellowship of Churches of Christ.

      The Department of Christian Union sought to evaluate the operation of Christians in Fellowship by communicating with churches concerning local constitutions and obtaining comments regarding local operations and experiences. This led the Department to publicise a review of Christians in Fellowship and a statement on Membership in Churches of Christ.

      The specific aims of the constitution of Christians in Fellowship may be summed up as follows: (1) To express an ecumenical spirit as against an exclusive denominational attitude.

      (2) To provide a church "home" for Christians of other traditions while preserving their integrity. There should be no attempt to convert them to be members of Churches of Christ but a maintenance of respect for their various traditions which they should not be asked to surrender.

      (3) To preserve the integrity of Churches of Christ so that in no way would we surrender truth as we understand it. That is, at no point should there be any surrender of our witness. Just as we respect the integrity of Christians of other traditions we ask that they as Christians in Fellowship should respect our tradition and not ask us in any way to surrender our tradition. That is, they do not ask for Churches of Christ membership on their terms rather than according to the terms which belong to our historic witness.

      (4) Mutual courtesy is a principle enshrined in the constitution of Christians in Fellowship.

      (5) The Department of Christian Union gave careful consideration to Membership in Churches of Christ and chose Christians in Fellowship in preference to "open membership. "

      (6) When the constitution of Christians in Fellowship was first introduced there were those who saw it as "open membership" which, it was believed, cuts the nerve of our witness to things which are inextricably tied together. Baptism is far more than being "dunked" as some have crudely put it. Baptism of believers is not an isolated matter but is linked with doctrines concerning the nature of Christianity, conversion and the nature of the Church.

      (7) The present, commonly accepted constitution of Christians in Fellowship could be amended to allow for even greater participation in the life of the local Church by "Christians in Fellowship."

      For example, Christians in Fellowship could hold elected offices in a local Church of Christ, provided that adequate steps are taken to ensure that the identity of that Church as a member of a Conference of Churches of Christ which corporately emphasise certain beliefs and practises be not jeopardised. This could be done either by having those Christians in Fellowship serving on committees or as elders agreeing voluntarily not to initiate change in such matters as weekly communion, believers' baptism etc., or to make provision for a majority of Churches of Christ members to serve on the governing committee of a local church. I see no difficulty in having Christians in Fellowship being involved fully in matters which pertain to the life of the local Church of Christ. I do see a potential problem if that involvement causes that local church "to cease being a Church of Christ" through well-intentioned but ill-informed action on the part of a majority of Christians in Fellowship in changing those emphases. I doubt that this would happen in practice, but the potential risk of this happening should be guarded against.

      (8) There is a significant difference between what can be (or should be) done in terms of faith and order by churches which have had different traditions and emphases once these churches have joined together in organic or conciliar union and what can (or should) be done whilst these churches remain separate.

      In respect of baptism, if Churches of Christ were to join with a denomination which practised infant baptism, members of both traditions would be members of the one church. There would no longer be the issue of joining a church (such as Churches of Christ) which emphasised believers' baptism to the exclusion of infant baptism. In that situation I would recommend working towards a more adequate understanding of Christian initiation by members of both groups who would then be part of the one Church.

      For example I believe that a four-fold process of Christian initiation would be most suitable.

      (a) Stage I: Infant Dedication

      A service recognising that the child is part of the Community of Faith, that he/she is the recipient of God's grace. This service would also take seriously the role of the parents and members of the local congregation in nurturing the child in the Christian faith so that he/she would be able to come to respond personally to the claims of Christ at a future time.

      (b) Stage II: (Child) Baptism

      A believer does not have to be an adult. Churches of Christ have never emphasised adult baptism, we have emphasised the need for a personal commitment on the part of the candidate. (Perhaps we have under-emphasised the role of God's grace and the communal context of faith--but this would be corrected by Stage I above). A child as young as around 7 or 8 years of age can be a believer and express a simple, yet real faith. Baptism of this sort would meet the historical theological and experiential requirements of baptism outlined above. Of course in many cases baptism would occur later than at this

young age, but at least it would be possible (and legitimate) to baptise children a little earlier than is our usual practice now.

      (c) Stage III: Admission to the Lord's Supper

      Immediately following his/her baptism the candidate would be admitted to participating in the Lord's Supper. There seems to me to be no valid reason why this needs to be delayed to adulthood.

      (d) Stage IV: Responsible Participation in the Life of the Local Congregation

      At about 18 years of age there could be another step in the process of initiation, where the candidate reaffirms his/her baptismal vows of confirmation and takes on an active role in the organisational structure of the local church. From that moment on the person would be eligible for membership of committees, would exercise his/her right to vote, etc.

      Whilst we remain as separate denominations ail we can do is to prepare for an eventual organic or conciliar union by perhaps introducing such a four-fold process within Churches of Christ to make the transition period easier. We cannot say that believers' baptism, with its emphasis on an individual response of faith on the part of candidates for baptism is not essential for membership in our churches. For reasons outlined above, membership of Churches of Christ is inextricably tied to believers' baptism; participation in the life and worship of a local Church of Christ congregation as Christians in Fellowship need not be tied to believers' baptism.

      This letter has turned out to be a "tome." Despite this, each of the eight main points made above could have been expanded. I look forward to discussing these issues more fully when I meet with your Board on December 4th. I trust that, in the meantime, I've given you and your Board some "food for thought." I'll be interested to hear your responses to my reflections on "Christians in Fellowship."

A.C., 1974, p. 7.

To the Editor,

      From time to time one hears of another of our churches welcoming "Christians in Fellowship." Does this mean that these churches believe in "open membership," and how do they present baptism? Seems to me we have wandered far away from the Lord's teaching. Incidentally, why don't we speak with authority from the N.T., especially when it concerns our relationship with our Lord, instead of quoting Barton Stone and/or Alexander and Thomas Campbell? If there is a "thus saith the Lord" or his Word is explicit regarding teaching, surely no one would argue that we need further enlightenment.

      No wonder we don't want to take steps to commence a witness in Darwin with its 40,890. How we can give our assent to less deserving centres than-Darwin leaves me speechless. These people deserve a chance to hear the Gospel. We passed motions to do so, when do we go into action?

--Malcolm McArthur, N.S.W.      

3. W. C. C.

      During the years 1970-1990 debate over the continued affiliation of the Federal Conference of Churches of Christ with the World Council of churches continued. Opposition was mostly directed at what was considered its political bias. Additional material on the WCC will be found in: R. N. Gilmore, "Uppsala '68, The Pamphlet Club, Feb. 1969, No. 166; R. N. Gilmore, On the Inside, Looking Out, The Pamphlet Club, April 1973, No. 216; The Vision that Renews: Three Reports on 6th Assembly of World Council of Churches, Vancouver, July 24th--August 10th, 1983, The Pamphlet Club, Nov., 1983, Nos. 326/327.

A.C., 1974, p. 32.

To the Editor,

      My attention has been drawn to recent charges that the World Council of Churches has taken the matter up with the Director of the organization responsible for these charges but to no avail. I, therefore, seek leave to make known to your readers the following facts:--

      1. No WCC money from church offerings or any other source had been used for the purchase of arms or bombs in Southern Africa or anywhere else. Money distributed through the WCC Program to Combat Racism is given specifically for that Program. The money is provided for humanitarian purposes only. Dr. Sjollema, Director of PCR is reported ("Stimme Afrikas") as saying that the money is given for military purposes. I personally checked with Dr. Sjollema and that statement die NOT come from his lips.

      2. The WCC did not ignore the Ugandan situation. Protest was made both by the Officers and by the Central Committee of WCC (Utrecht, 1972). I was there and took part in the debate. Representatives of the All Africa Christian Conference, acting for the WCC were present in Uganda throughout the crisis.

      3. The WCC and the Australian Council of Churches have made repeated protests to the Soviet Union and other Communist governments. Publication of our most recent protest, re Solzhenytsin and Sakharov, brought letter of threat against myself and charges that both the ACC and myself are Fascist agents!

      4. The Australian visit of the Rev. Michael Bordeaux is being arranged in co-operation with the Australian Council of Churches and the state Councils. The Centre for the Study of Religion in Communist Lands, of which Mr. Bordeaux is Director, was set up with the active encouragement of the WCC. The WCC is a fellowship of Christian churches; its Central Committee is chosen from delegates officially appointed by the member of churches. Membership is open to those churches confessing Christ as both God and Saviour. It is difficult to understand this slander tactic against that which is an agency of both witness and service in the name of Christ.

--Neil Gilmore      
President, Australian Council of Churches.      

A.C., 1974, p. 81.

To the Editor,

      I appreciate the concerned letter of my friend, Dr. Geoff Hall, ("A.C."23.2.74). I agree with his proposal for ascertaining a majority decision concerning the W.C.C., by referendum rather than in an emotionally charged State or Federal Conference atmosphere. I share his passion for the promotion of pure Biblical truth. The difference between us is that Dr. Hall represents the "Separatist" position, that there is no point in being in fellowship, conversation and service with such people as Dr. Ramsay and a committee of the W.A. Council of Churches, with a view to the discovery together of Biblical Truth. The time is short so let us keep our fellowship restricted to those who see truth as we do. My position is that I may disagree with Dr. Ramsay and members of the W.A. Council of Churches. But I still want to be in fellowship, conversation and service with them, for how else can I present to them Biblical truth as I see it, and how else can I receive Biblical insights that the Holy Spirit may be giving them. To be in fellowship with them does not mean that I endorse their views. For example, Dr. Hall is a member of the A.M.A. In it are large numbers of doctors who hold diametrically opposite views from Dr. Hall on such vital matters as abortion. But he does not withdraw from the A.M.A. In the interests of medical truth and integrity, he sees the need to remain in fellowship, conversation and service with such doctors. He ran present his views concerning medical truth so much better from the inside than from the outside.

--Gordon Stirling (VIC.)      

A.C., 1974, p. 302.

      The Australian Council of Churches launched in Melbourne the other night its much publicised "Christians One" programme, aiming to involve more rank and file church people in ecumenical life. I decided to go along to see what "the Great Apostate Church" looks like in action.

      Those who were there were wearing their "sheep's clothing" very well because you could hardly distinguish between them and the sort of congregation you would meet in any Church of Christ on any Sunday morning. Over half were gray haired. They all looked like good people.

      For the "Super-church" of the future I expected something a bit more spectacular. The W.C.C. badge with its cross and its ship, with the Greek word "OIKUMENE" (possibly the "mark of the Beast") was on a canvas backdrop flanked by two "No Smoking" signs. There was a simple table and rostrum and chairs, and some literature at the back, most of which was devoted to creating a Christian conscience about the plight of people in the "Third World." (Probably the emphasis on feeding the hungry, releasing the captives, freeing the oppressed, and healing the broken hearted is the "Apostate Church's way" of dodging the "preaching the gospel" bit.)

      Very soon I got the impression that if this is the Super-church, it is not getting away to a very good start. In spite of wide publicity in all of Melbourne's churches and denominational papers and a wide distribution of invitations--only sixty people turned up. As the sixty gathered I began to wonder at this "great ecclesiastical abomination" that is going to dominate the world. Of course sixty people with the Holy Spirit could take the world over (see Acts 2). But sixty people working for the devil, in all of Melbourne, would not have a hope! I wondered what my anti-ecumenical friends were panicking about.

      I once had some Baptist friends who counted the success or failure of a meeting by the number of times Christ was mentioned. They would have been well contented with this meeting. Part of the meeting had to do with money--yet money scarcely got a mention. But the deity of Christ, the reality of the Holy Spirit and the necessity for prayer did. I was alert for "modernism," but from the opening prayer by a woman, which sounded like a combination of Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15, right to the final "blessing," everything was very Biblical and very orthodox.

      Of course I realize that even the devil quotes Scripture and that the leadership could be Satan's agents to "deceive the very elect." But the leadership on this occasion was a poor-looking lot of deceivers. The Archbishop was old and gentle and saintly; and caught up on a little sleep while waiting for his turn. He talked mainly about "the power of Jesus Christ to draw men to himself," and about "praying for the Holy Spirit to work in the people of the church towards a more effective witness." I compared the look of him and other leaders with the look of the slick young salesmen of the Billy Graham team whom I met in the same hall five years ago. No one doubted their integrity, but they looked more capable of "deceiving the very elect" than did the Archbishop and his colleagues. Then there was Neil Gilmore, the A.C.C. president. He is so honest that he is almost naive and would not know how to deceive his own grandmother!

      If, of course, the real arch-manipulators and devil's disciples are in Geneva, the only thing I can say is that they have selected a pretty poor team of agents at this end. One would expect Satan's Superchurch to be all high-powered efficiency and well-oiled machinery. But on this occasion it was 8.15 p.m. before the meeting got off the ground. And at the end the Secretary of the V.C.C. acted as "tea lady" to get the supper!

      After twenty eight years of the W.C.C. what they had produced in Melbourne the other night was a pretty anaemic-looking Super-church. And if the Archbishop's superiors in Geneva are out to create a Super-church by some sort of forcible amalgamation of churches, they had better shut the Archbishop up because he was saying, "The only valid unity is the unity that God gives."

      Some of my anti-ecumenical friends assure me that the ecumenical movement has blunted the cutting edge of our evangelism and softened down the distinctive witness of Churches of Christ, hence our declining membership. If the other night's meeting is any indication, we had better look somewhere else for reasons for our decline--probably within ourselves! I fully expected to see hundreds of Church of Christ people I knew--ecumaniacs wasting their restoration substance in riotous ecumenical living. There were five of us there.

      Everyone knows of course that the "Great Apostate Church" is going to join forces with the Communists (Ezekiel 38, 39 and the Book of Daniel). Some of my friends tell me that this is already happening in the W.C.C. So naturally I was surprised to see introduced as head of the "Christians-One" programme none other than the chief economist of one of Australia's leading banks, a Methodist who spoke nostalgically of Sunday School Anniversaries and urged the need for the "individual gospel," It just shows how subtle atheistic Communism is. It has not only infiltrated the churches, but the A.N.Z. Bank as well!

      In the Watergate era you must suspect everything and everyone--even the Evangelical Alliance! So the "Christians One" programme may have been a "blind." It could be that behind the mediocre performance there are going on the machinations and devious dark deeds of the devil. If this is so, and the

meeting was a "blind" to "deceive the elect," it was the best bit of camouflage I have ever seen. Even if I were against the W.C.C.--what I saw the other night would not have scared me. And I wondered if some of my friends, concerned about the state of Churches of Christ, are not quixotically tilting at the wrong windmills.

A.C., 1984, pp. 40-41.

To the Editor,

      Many members of Churches of Christ affiliated with Federal Conference through their State Conference, are unaware of the fact that all such churches are members of the W.C.C., whether they desire to be or not. The fact that several State Conferences are not members of any State Council is totally irrelevant as the W.C.C. only takes into membership national church bodies. As our national body, Federal Conference, is a full member of the W.C.C., it automatically follows that every church affiliated with Federal Conference through a State Conference is in fact in membership with the W.C.C.

      Federal Conference is a member of the W.C.C. To be a member of the W.C.C. fees have to be paid. All State Conferences contribute financially to Federal Conference. All churches affiliated with a State Conference pay fees. Therefore every person who puts money into the plate of a local Conference-affiliated church is contributing financially to the W.C.C., or at the very least is supporting the W.C.C. in principle.

      Of course every individual is at liberty to support whatever he wishes but I for one object to being forced to support an organisation which uses its finances for questionable purposes.

      If we cannot get Federal Conference to withdraw its membership, we are left with only two options. One, have our State Conference withdraw from Federal Conference or have our local church withdraw from its State Conference. Failing this, after reasonable effort, I guess one is left with a third option, that of withdrawing membership from any Conference-affiliated church.

--Doug. Willis (Springwood, Qld.).      

      (We have given the Secretary of the Federal Conference, Ian Allsop, the opportunity to reply to Doug Willis' letter. Ed.).

      The concern expressed by Doug Willis is understandable if it is based on accurate information. However, the situation is that State Conference affiliation fees with Federal Conference are NOT used to pay the membership fees with the World Council of Churches. It is NOT correct to say "that every person who puts money into the plate of a local Conference affiliated church is contributing financially to the W.C.C." That statement is typical of the numerous "false witness accusations" consistently being made about our membership within the W.C.C.

      Churches of Christ affiliation fees to the World Council of Churches have been paid by the Federal Fund of the Federal Department of Christian Union. This fund has received its money from the State departments of Christian Union in Victoria and South Australia. It has also received money from local churches and individuals who want to support our membership in the W.C.C. Such support has come from Western Australia, Tasmania and the A.C.T. In addition substantial financial support has come from the Campbell Edwards and Morris Family trusts. Except for isolated and small donations no money has been received in that fund from Queensland or New South Wales during the 14 years I have been associated with the Federal Department of Christian Union. The Federal Conference Executive has not paid any money to that fiend because it supports the right of States, churches and individuals not to be involved financially with the W.C.C. due to membership in Federal Conference.

      Thank you for the opportunity to settle the fears of those who do not want to support the World Council of Churches and to assure them that "their money in the plate" is not even supporting the W.C.C. in principle.

      Let us affirm the benefits from belonging to State and Federal Conferences and not consider withdrawing based on inaccurate information.

--Ian E. Allsop Federal Conference Secretary      

A.C., 1984, pp. 96-97.

To the Editor,

      May I comment on statements made by Ian Allsop (A.C. Feb. 4). I was not at Vancouver, but, on my copy of the W.C.C. public program for Sunday, July 24, the first item at 6.30 a.m. is "Lighting of the Sacred Flame" by native Elder Isadore Tom. The Opening Assembly Worship was later that same day.

      Four speakers, Buddhist, Hindu, Moslem and Jew, spoke on the subject "Life--A Gift of God" from the perspective of their religions. Why do Christians need to listen to such people when we have the infallible Word of Almighty God to tell us all we need to know? (2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

      The W.C.C. Ecumenical Press Services lists,

      1. 15 guests of other faiths were invited.

      2. An interfaith centre was established and six public programs with an interfaith theme were arranged.

      3. Also during the assembly were eight opportunities for participants to take part in a native purification ritual.

      4. The public program included a number of native forums on such topics as oral history, resource development of sacred lands, land claims, native spirituality and natives in the Canadian justice system.

      Christ's clear assertion is "I am the way, the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14:6).

--Alan Horne. (Ulverstone, Tas.).      

To the Editor,

      Much of the material that Alan Horne forwarded to you relates to the public program of events which surrounded the World Council of Churches Assembly. It was NOT the program of the W.C.C. Assembly. The public program featured many and various groups drawn from the Vancouver churches and community. It was presented and arranged by the Vancouver Planning Committee which was predominantly a local group of church people.

      The aim of the public program was to enable the Canadian people who could not attend the Assembly to hear about and meet around the big issues facing our world. The native issues and their ceremony of lighting the sacred flame and purification rituals were a part of that public program. Likewise, some interfaith sharing about world peace also happened in the public program!

      I am glad that the Vancouver planning committee arranged public events which enabled thousands of local people to consider issues of human survival and peace as well as affirming that Jesus Christ is the Life of the World.

--Ian E. Allsop      

A.C., 1984, p. 120.

To the Editor,

      I've only just found out that Christ died only for members of Churches of Christ, and that God only loves "us." Should I change my optometrist? (He's a Jew!) As a Teacher, how will I cope with a

Moslem Turkish student who will be in my class next year? My sister and brother-in-law say that they are agnostics or atheists (I'm not sure which.) Should I have nothing further to do with them? These questions arise after reading Alan Horne's letter (A.C. 17.3.84) on the subject of the W.C.C. Assembly program at Vancouver."

      I had a vague idea that Christ mixed with Jews fairly frequently, and occasionally with Samaritans and Romans. He may have known a few Greeks too. In spite of their non-Christianity did he "listen to such people"? Or just preach at them?

      Frankly, I don't care how many Hindus, Moslems, Buddhists, American Indian spirit worshippers, Voodoo priests or Calathumpians were at Vancouver. What counts is that God was there. Christ was there, and the Holy Spirit was there, so it couldn't have been a total waste of time, could it?

      I'll be as pleased to see my letter published as Alan Home probably was to see his. I do hope he has also read Neil Gilmore's letter in the same issue on the same topic.

--David Allen (Boronia, Vic.).      

A.C., 1984, p. 149.

To the Editor,

      Criticism of the W.C.C. for its one-eyed view of world politics comes from many quarters. When it comes from a world authority like Alexander Solzhenitsyn we should take notice. Upon receiving the prestigious Templeton Foundation Prize for Progress in Religion, he said in the course of his address:

      "There exists an organisation for the unification of churches but it presents an odd picture. The W.C.C. seems to care more for the success of revolutionary movements in the Third World, all the while remaining blind and deaf to the persecution where this is carried through most consistently . . . in the U.S.S.R." Perhaps Ian Allsop would care to comment.

--L. G. Martin, Halls Gap (Vic.)

      (We are aware of a deputation from the W.C.C. Commission on Evangelism held in Melbourne three or four years ago, to the U.S.S.R/Consulate, seeking the release of certain Christian detainees. Ed.).

A.C., 1984, pp. 408-409.

To the Editor,

      I am writing to express the concern of a number of members of our fellowship. Our concern relates to the large amount of material and support given by this magazine to the World Council of Churches and the Australian Council of churches.

      We know it is healthy to share our faith and have fellowship with others of similar beliefs, but our support stops at the W.C.C. and A.C.C. when they say they support faiths like Hinduism, Buddhism and Catholicism (we are not against the people involved but the doctrines).

      The pamphlet "Week of Prayer for World Peace 23-30 October 1983" organised and printed by the W.C.C. calls for Christians to recite part of a Hindu prayer for young initiates, to submit and give honour to Buddhist Scripture and many other acts of idolism. This is directly opposing Christian principles and the Holy Bible. (Deuteronomy 6:13-15, 2 Corinthians 6:15-18).

      May God sanctify every born again Christian by his grace.

--B. Routley and 11 others, Nailsworth, S.A.      

      (The Australian Christian is a Christian newspaper and as such, reports without bias, the activities and statements of many Christian organisations such as the A.C.C., the Festival of Light, World Vision, the Roman Catholic Church, the Evangelical Alliance and many others. This does not mean that The Australian Christian endorses or supports everything that such organisations represent or do. Ed.).

      We have given Ian Allsop of the Federal Department of Christian Union the opportunity to respond to the above letter. He writes as follows:

      The W.C.C. and or the A.C.C. were not involved in the publication of the pamphlet. (A copy is enclosed so that you can confirm that fact). It was published by an interested group of people in the U.K. and reproduced in Australia by a local committee with wide community support.

      The A.C.C. and some state councils of churches, together with organisations such as the United Nations Association of Australia, save the Children Fund, and other religious groups support the concept of Prayer for Peace. To pray for peace is to become a Peace-maker (Matthew 5:9).In a world where tragic conflict is a reality it is a significant step to work with those who differ, in the pursuit of peace. No Christian is asked to pray anything that is against our faith. Likewise a Jew or Hindu ought not to be asked to pray a Christian prayer.

--Ian E. Allsop.      

4. CHURCHES OF CHRIST AND BAPTISTS

      The relationship between Churches of Christ and Baptists is of continuing interest to both communions. Gordon Stirling has highlighted the similarities and differences between the two bodies in the following article.

G. R. Stirling, A.C., 1981, p. 181.

      We were asked to answer the letter of an inquirer wanting to know the difference between Baptists and Churches of Christ. On reflection we thought that our reply might be of interest to our readers. We will devote this PAGE 13 and the two subsequent PAGES to the rather long answer that we provided.

OUR REPLY

Dear Charles,

      I will endeavour as fairly as I can to put before you what I believe are the differences between Baptists and Churches of Christ.

      But first of all let me say that Baptists and Churches of Christ have very many more similarities than differences between them. They hold in common all of the great doctrines of the Christian faith, according to the scriptures. Both believe in the authority of the scriptures as the sole guide for the faith and life of the church.

      Also the differences between Churches of Christ and Baptists are often differences in emphasis rather than fundamental differences in doctrine.

NO CREEDS

      Neither Baptists nor Churches of Christ have written creeds, both believing that the New Testament is a sufficient guide for the church's faith and order. So it is not possible to pick up and compare respective creedal documents of the two bodies. Both claim to be following New Testament precedents. However there are of course some differences, and I will try to outline some of the main ones under the following headings:

      The Sacraments

      Ministry And Church Government

      The Doctrine of the Church

THE SACRAMENTS

      Both Churches of Christ and Baptists have preferred to use the word "ordinance" rather than "sacrament," for baptism and the Lord's Supper as their observance was the command of the Lord himself.

THE LORD'S SUPPER

      Baptists usually celebrate communion monthly although there is no fixed rule about this. Churches of Christ believe that they are following apostolic precedent in observing the Lord's supper every Sunday as the central part of the worship of the church family. They have quoted Acts 20:7 which refers to the church at Troas "meeting on the first day of the week to break bread." Perhaps frequent and regular communion as central to corporate worship is best supported by the obvious importance attached to it by the early church (Acts 2:42; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26).

      The normal practice of Baptists is that the ordained minister presides at the Lord's table, although in the absence of an ordained minister other competent people may do so. Churches of Christ are strongly opposed to the leadership of communion being reserved for a "clergy class." Their belief in the priesthood of believers (1 Peter 2:5,9) and in the ministry of the whole people of God, according to their gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4-b; Romans 12:6-8), leads them to appointing to preside at the table those who are competent to do so in an edifying manner.

BAPTISM

      Churches of Christ and Baptists believe that baptism is the immersion of repentant believers (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:35-39; Romans 6:2,4).

      Baptists believe that baptism is an act of obedience following the gift of salvation, but not related to it. Their strong conviction that salvation is by faith alone, and that baptism is a "work," leads them to this position.

      Churches of Christ believe that while salvation is God's action of grace and love, and cannot be earned by "works," nevertheless the scriptures themselves relate baptism to salvation (John 3:5; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21).

THE EXTERNAL ACT DOES NOT SAVE

      Churches of Christ do not believe that the mere act of being immersed in water saves. God saves by his grace. But they do believe that the intention of scripture is that baptism should be the way in which a person responds in faith to God's saving action.

      Churches of Christ take seriously Paul's symbolism concerning baptism in Romans 6:3-8, where baptism is said to dramatise one's death to and burial of the past, through the forgiveness of God, and one's resurrection to new life in Christ. Baptism thus witnesses to God's saving act, and thus is linked closely with it.

      Obviously God's saving act is able to take place when it is evident that one is willing for a death and burial of the past to take place and by faith is willing to receive God's gift of new life in Christ. It is not the external act that saves, but the scriptures do put together both the external act and what it symbolises, and Churches of Christ believe that they should do the same.

BAPTISM AND THE SCRIPTURES

      Churches of Christ would not consider as being unsaved, those who have actually died with Christ to the old life and risen with him to God's gift of new life, but whose baptism has not been in accordance with what Churches of Christ believe is the New Testament practice and intention. But they urge all Christians to look again at the scriptures without preconceptions and prejudice, with a view to discerning what the Bible really does teach concerning baptism, its subjects, its method and its intention.

G. R. Stirling, A.C., 1981, p. 213.

      We continue our letter to Charles concerning the difference between Baptists and Churches of Christ.

MINISTRY AND CHURCH GOVERNMENT

      Both Baptists and Churches of Christ believe in the priesthood of all believers and thus the ministry of the LAOS (people) or laity. Churches of Christ have been strong on what they call the mutual ministry, meaning the right and responsibility of all Christians to fulfil whatever ministry they are capable of. Mutual ministry applies in the worship of the church and in its caring and outreach ministries.

      Churches of Christ and Baptists both believe in the autonomy of the local congregation, but both have accepted the practice of local churches working together through state and federal conferences that enable co-operation, between churches, but having no authority over them.

      At the local church level Baptist churches are governed by deacons, elected by the congregation. Normally Churches of Christ have followed the New Testament precedent and have had both elders and deacons (Acts 14:23; 15:16; 1 Timothy 3:8-13).

      Both Baptists and Churches of Christ have an ordained ministry, but neither group has what might be called a "clergy class."

THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

      Baptists and Churches of Christ both believe that the New Testament is the authority for the faith and life of the church.

      The history of the Baptist movement has conditioned it to be more concerned with the individual, the local congregation and the denomination, than with the church as a whole.

      Their Anabaptist ancestors in Europe were tragically persecuted both by the church of Rome and by the Reformers, in the name of "the Church." In England they were the left wing of dissent and part of the Separatist movement which worked to try to bring about the separation of church and state. They fought and suffered for the cause of individual freedom against the strongly entrenched and fiercely oppressive Church of England. "The church" was their enemy.

NOT KEEN ON VISIBLE UNION

      Hence Baptists have an historic distrust of churches with a powerful centralised structure, and of movements that they believe might be leading in that direction. So while Australian Baptists co-operate with other churches within limits, they are not very keen on the idea of Christian union or the visible unity of the Body of Christ. They are proud of their Baptist denominational heritage and of their historic name, and they wish to keep it the way it is.

      Churches of Christ traditionally have deplored denominationalism and have hoped for the breaking down of denominational barriers so that the unity of Christ's Body might be manifest to the world, so that the world might be won to him (Ephesians 4:4-6; John 17:20-23).

THE NAME OF CHRIST

      Churches of Christ believe that denominations or party names are divisive (e. g., Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian). They have preferred to describe the church as it is; Christ's church, the Christian church, or the church of Christ. Every congregation of believers on earth is a church of Christ, whatever denominational name it may use. Churches of Christ prefer to describe a local congregation for what it is, a church of Christ. They believe that all congregations together are better known for what they are as Churches of Christ. Churches of Christ do not use their name in any exclusive sense and would like to see all Christian congregations describing themselves in this way and thus using the uniting name of Christ rather than divisive denominational names.

DISTURBED ABOUT DISUNITY

      Churches of Christ have always had strong convictions about the New Testament doctrine of the church as the Body of Christ, loved and redeemed by our Lord (Ephesians 5:25-27). They think of the whole church as Christ's Body with Christ as its head and the Holy Spirit as its dynamic life force, continuing Christ's mission on earth. Hence from the beginning Churches of Christ were disturbed about the division of the church into a proliferation of sects and denominations, a division that stultified its life and spirituality and impeded its mission. They believe that the division of the Body of Christ is contrary to the mind and will of our Lord who prayed for the visible unity of his Body so that the world would be won to him (John 17:20-23; 1 Corinthians 1:10-13; Ephesians 4:1-3; 13-16).

DIVISIONS COULD BE HEALED

      So Churches of Christ believe that their mission is to plead for the unity of all Christians. They believe that this unity can come about if Christians will get back behind the historic divisions of the church and restore New Testament Christianity. They have talked of their PLEA, the plea for Christian unity through the restoration of New Testament Christianity. They believe that the divisions in the Body of Christ could be healed if Christians could discover from the New Testament, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the mind and will of Christ for the contemporary church. They believe that the unity in diversity that would thus result would commend itself and the gospel to the world.

RESTORING NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY

      Baptists also believe in restoring New Testament Christianity in the interests of liberty and truth. Churches of Christ share this with them. Christians are not interested in union as an end in itself,

but as a means to evangelising the world, which after all is the church's major function (Matthew 28:1920; Acts 1:8; John 17:20-23).

G. R. Stirling, A.C., 1981, p. 237.

      In this issue we complete the letter to Charles about differences between Baptists and Churches of Christ.

UNION BETWEEN BAPTISTS AND CHURCHES OF CHRIST

      You may be wondering, Charles, why Baptists and Churches of Christ have not united as they have so much in common.

      Over the past 60 years or so there have been occasional conversations between leaders of the two groups with a view to possible union. They have been in good spirit, but each time they have broken down. There seem to be several reasons for this. The main one is the basic disinterest that Baptists have in uniting with any one. They would have cheerfully and graciously absorbed Churches of Christ under the Baptist name, which they find impossible to consider abandoning in the light of its significant history.

BAPTISM AND SALVATION

      Also they have found it impossible to accept the assurance of Churches of Christ they are not baptismal regenerationists and do not believe that the act of baptism saves. Their history has conditioned them to be very wary of what they call "sacramentalism" and of salvation or special grace through the sacraments. They are strongly committed to the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. So they have found it hard to understand that Churches of Christ do not believe in baptismal regeneration (salvation by baptism), but do believe that the scriptures link the external act of baptism with the process of salvation, a belief held by all of the other main line churches.

      On the Churches of Christ side there is a slight reluctance to unite with the Baptists because some feel that with their traditional disinterest in the visible unity of the church, it might preclude a Baptist-Churches of Christ union from subsequent discussions and negotiations concerning unity with other churches.

WHY I BELONG TO CHURCHES OF CHRIST

      You ask why I belong to Churches of Christ rather than to the Baptists.

      First of all, let me assure you that I have a very high regard for Baptists and warm feelings towards them, and I have worked happily with them during 45 years of ministry. However I am a member of Churches of Christ rather than a Baptist because I believe that in all of the matters that I have tried to set before you, the position of Churches of Christ is more scriptural than that of the Baptists.

      And I believe that the congregational life style of Churches of Christ is freer than that of many Baptist churches, with greater liberty for the expression of personal conviction. The position of Churches of Christ concerning personal liberty is summed up in a slogan that they have often used:

      In essentials (matters pertaining to salvation), unity;

      In matters of opinion (all other matters), liberty;

      In all things, love.

MY PRAYER

      My prayer for you Charles, is that God will guide you through the scriptures, as you seek a church home, and that you will find in it opportunities for Christian growth, joyful fellowship and satisfying service.

      God bless you.

WHEN BAPTISTS AND CHURCHES OF CHRIST WERE UNITED

      As a matter of interest--to our readers, in the United States, Baptists and Churches of Christ (Disciples) were united for some 15 years. It was always an uneasy union and was ended by the Baptists in 1830. It is interesting to note some of the deeply felt differences then, that caused the break between the two bodies.

      1. The Baptists in that part of America were Calvinists, believing that only the elect would be saved, and that knowledge of whether one was saved or not would be manifested in an "experience of salvation" sometimes called "coming through." The Disciples believed that "whosoever will may come," and that the scriptures give all of the assurance of salvation that any one needs.

      2. The Disciples believed that while the whole scriptures were the word of God, the New Testament was the rule of faith and practice for the church. Baptists used both testaments as authority for church life and practice.

      3. The Baptists in the area subscribed to the Philadelphia Confession as a test of fellowship and membership. The Disciples rejected any creedal statements used as tests of Christian fellowship, and they objected to some articles in the Confession as well.

      4. The matters discussed above in relation to the sacraments and the denominational name provided sources of tension then.

      5. For Disciples, church membership was on the basis of faith and baptism. Baptists required as well a testimony of personal experience and a vote of the membership on the admission.

      As with the Baptists, so with all other denominations, it is easy for us to dwell upon and to magnify our differences. While remaining true to our convictions, and being aware of the differing convictions of others, it would seem that in the best interests of the Kingdom of God, we should be paying far more attention to those great matters of faith that we all hold together.

THE SEQUEL

      Charles (real name Karl) phoned me in appreciation of my letter. He informed me that he had decided to be baptised and to join the Dandenong Church of Christ . . . before he read my letter. He had read Lyall William' book, "Churches of Christ, An Interpretation" and he had met Jack Edwards.

5. ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE

      Documents in this section include the decision of the Victorian Conference to instruct its representatives on the Victorian Council of Churches to approve the admission of the Roman Catholic Church to membership of that Council, the Australian Churches of Christ response to the Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry Document of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches and two reports of conversations between representatives of the Uniting Church and Churches of Christ and of the Anglican Church and Churches of Christ. During this period Churches of Christ representatives worked in committee with Roman Catholic representatives to respond to reports of a continuing dialogue between the Disciples Consultative Council and representatives of the Roman Catholic Church at a world level. Towards the close of the period, discussions were re-commenced with the Uniting Church.

      a. ROMAN CATHOLICS AND THE VCC

A.C., 1975, p. 254.

      The Victorian Council of Churches Conference instructed its representatives of the V.C.C. to approve admission of the R.C. Church to membership of the V.C.C. if and when an application is made. After a debate in which opposing points of view were expressed with strong conviction but in a generous spirit, there was a secret ballot which resulted in 159 in favour and 71 against.

      b. BEM

Pamphlet No. 347, November, 1985.

      The Churches of Christ Department of Christian Union is pleased to publish this statement in pamphlet form as The Official Response of Churches of Christ to the Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry Document which was presented to the churches for consideration by the Faith and Order Commission of the W.C.C.

Introduction

      Churches of Christ in Australia, along with Christians of other traditions, rejoice in the publication of Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (Faith and Order Paper, No. 111, Geneva, W.C.C., 1982) commonly known as the 'Lima Text.' We welcome it as a 'document of convergence.' As a summary of what the majority of churches can say together, the Lima text is abundant evidence of how far ecumenical dialogue has taken the Church on the road to common affirmation of Christian faith and practice. We view this high degree of unanimity as a sign of God's reconciling grace working in the contemporary Church and we receive this sign as 'good news.' We also recognize, however, that the Lima text does not claim to have reached consensus. There are still a great number of issues related to 'Baptism,' 'Eucharist' and 'Ministry' on which we as Churches, differ. We are grateful for the helpful commentaries, printed alongside the text, which identify historical differences and areas of current dispute which are still in need of further research, discussion and, where appropriate, reconciliation. We delight in the opportunity to make an official response to the Lima text as part of the reception process. This official response devotes most space to explaining as precisely as possible the extent to which Churches of Christ in Australia can recognize in the Lima text the faith of the Church throughout the ages in respect of 'Baptism,' 'Eucharist' and 'Ministry.' The latter part of the response deals with the other information requested by the Faith and Order Commission on page x of the text.

A Recognition of the Faith of the Church: General Comments

      In making this response we must confess that, at first, we found it difficult to determine exactly what was being requested when we were asked to indicate the extent to which Churches of Christ in Australia 'can recognize in this text the faith of the Church through the ages.' As the Lima text contains a mixture of descriptive and prescriptive material, we would readily acknowledge that the summary statements on 'Baptism,' 'Eucharist' and 'Ministry' accurately describe 'the faith of the Church through the ages.' If what is described is not accurate for a given time and place in the history of the Church then it is certain to have been accurate for another age or for another geographic location. Of greater significance, we believe, is the extent to which Churches of Christ can identify with the descriptive material and declare it to be an authentic reflection of what we, as a denomination, have always believed and practised and the extent to which it and the more prescriptive material can be said to be normative for us. However, even determining this, we felt, only involves us in comparative ecclesiology by which we point out similarities and differences between our own historic position and the ecumenical convergence reached at Lima. A much more productive enterprise, and one which we believe to be closer to the actual intention of the WCC's request for an official response, is to engage in ecumenical ecclesiology by which we as a denomination allow the text to inform us that, through ecumenical dialogue, the Church as a whole has reached a high level of unanimity ('convergence' not 'consensus') on essential aspects of 'Baptism,' 'Eucharist' and 'Ministry.' Confronted with this good news we are invited to recognize in the text the normative faith of the Church and, in the light of this normative faith, are challenged to re-examine (and, if necessary, to amend) our particular doctrines and practices.

      The task of engaging in ecumenical ecclesiology proved to be much more difficult than engaging in the task of comparative ecclesiology. The Federal Department of Christian Union of Churches of Christ in Australia, working in conjunction with various State Conference Departments initiated numerous lectures, seminars and discussion groups in both denominational and interdenominational contexts on the Lima test. On the basis of feed-back received, a draft response was published which was

circulated to all local churches, and to selected departments of conference as well as to certain individuals. All were invited to make further specific reactions and comments. These comments were incorporated into a penultimate draft which, after careful consideration by the Department of Christian Union, was amended to become the official response. Many of the comments received still centred on 'comparative ecclesiology' and it was decided to incorporate some of these into the 'official response' because they are an accurate reflection of how members of Churches of Christ in Australia have interpreted the request to respond to the Lima text and because ecumenical ecclesiology can only be done on the basis of prior comparative ecclesiology. It is recognized that the WCC Faith and Order Commission probably hoped that the task of comparative ecclesiology had been completed in the late 1970's in response to Faith and Order Paper 73, but, for the majority of members of Churches of Christ in Australia this has not been the case. For many people, the Lima text was the first document on 'Baptism' 'Eucharist' and 'Ministry' with which they were confronted. This is not to say that Churches of Christ in Australia did not engage in the process of ecumenical ecclesiology, but to indicate that in-so-far as it was done, it was done by a smaller group of people. Hence the comments below which specifically address the issue of how the Lima text challenges our current beliefs and practices are not as representative as the Department of Christian Union would like them to have been. It is hoped that the new phase of activity which will commence now that this official response has been completed, will enable ecumenical ecclesiology to permeate to the grass-roots of our churches as part of the ongoing process of reception.

BAPTISM

      Churches of Christ in Australia agree that the essence of Christian teaching on baptism is summarized clearly and accurately in Sections I-III of the Lima text on 'Baptism,' although we would wish to word certain statements differently or change the emphasis slightly in one or two paragraphs. Other than in an historical sense, Churches of Christ in Australia do not, however, fully recognize the essence of the Christian practice of baptism as set out in Section IV-V as we do not believe that the practice of infant baptism can be taken as the (or even as a) nominative expression of the apostolic faith.

I. The Institution of Baptism

      Churches of Christ strongly agree that 'Christian baptism is rooted in the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, in his death and in his resurrection' and that 'it is incorporation into Christ.' Because of this we would place even greater emphasis upon the final sentence in para. 1 as we believe that baptism can only be practised as 'a rite of commitment.' Rather than leaving it until para. 6 to spell out that 'baptism is administered in obedience to our Lord' and that it is a 'seal and sign of our common discipleship' we would have placed this near the beginning of any discussion of baptism. Because of our emphasis on baptism as 'an act of obedience' we have commonly preferred to call baptism an 'ordinance' (i. e., something commanded or ordered by Christ to be obeyed) rather than a 'sacrament,' although it is recognized that the use of sacramentum ('oath of allegiance') can also convey this emphasis. In referring to Matt 28:18-20 we would indicate not only that Jesus commanded his followers to baptize, but that he first commanded them to 'make disciples' who were subsequently to be baptized and taught.

II. The Meaning of Baptism

      Churches of Christ have no hesitation whatsoever in recognizing the theology of baptism contained in this section as containing the essence of Christian teaching on baptism, although, as indicated, we would prefer the statement about 'baptism as an act of obedience' to have been introduced earlier. However, we believe that the Lima text's placement of the statement that 'baptism is participation in Christ's death and resurrection' (para. 2) at the top of the list of biblical images accords with the apostolic emphasis on the importance of this aspect of the theology of baptism. We rejoice in the ecumenical convergence which enabled the formulation of the paragraphs which comprise this section and welcome this formulation as an important step towards baptismal unity.

III. Baptism and Faith

      Historically, churches of Christ have always acknowledged that baptism is a divine-human partnership. God has taken the initiative in providing human-kind with salvation based as the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Our faith response to this gift is not only intellectual assent or emotional acceptance but an active identification through baptism with Christ's sacrificial death and his risen life. Hence, strictly speaking, we would not refer to baptism as a 'gift,' but as a response to the gift of

salvation offered to us. The response made in baptism is seen as only the first step in a life-long response of living a Christ-like life. The way in which para. 8 of the Lima text describes baptism as 'both God's gift and our human response to that gift' challenges us, however, to take even more seriously the divine dimension of the divine-human partnership in baptism, as, sometimes, our stress on baptism as a humane response has tended to obscure God's initiative.

      We welcome para. 8's emphasis on 'the necessity of faith for the reception of the salvation embodied and set forth in baptism.' We take the term 'faith' here to refer to 'the personal faith of the candidate' rather than to the faith of the parents, godparents, or local Church; although we are challenged to take even more seriously the importance of the communal dimension of faith in which the individual's faith is fostered. We rejoice in the emphasis on Christian discipleship and the development of a mature Christian life-style by the candidate (paras. 9-10).

IV. Baptismal Practice

      The major difficulties which Churches of Christ have with the Lima text's treatment of baptism derive from Section N which, whilst accurately reflecting the practices of large segments of the Christian Church throughout the ages, does not, in our opinion, appear to be completely consistent with the theology of baptism as outlined in Section II. The major issue, of course, is that of infant baptism.

      Churches of Christ would argue not merely that the NT warrant for infant baptism is ambiguous but that it is non-existent. Hence we would not agree with the Lima text's statement that 'the possibility that infant baptism was also practised in the apostolic age cannot be excluded' (para. 11). The traditional argument that 'household baptisms' may have included young children or infants is rejected by Churches of Christ on the exegetical grounds that the NT accounts of these baptisms almost invariably contain references to the faith or the response of the whole household.

      Similarly, whilst it is recognized that, in the course of history, the baptism of infants developed in the Church, Churches of Christ reject on historical grounds that this was an early development.

      Churches of Christ believe strongly that a personal confession of faith is an integral part of baptism. In fact we argue on historical, theological and experiential grounds that it is an indispensable element. Within Churches of Christ, candidates are baptised on the basis of their 'confession of faith.' As stated above we believe that baptism is an act of obedience and commitment to a Christian life-style. It is the dramatic portrayal of the candidate's personal identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. By submitting to baptism, candidates declare that they renounce their old way of life, consider it to be dead and buried, and wish to embark on a new Christ-like life. Hence, whilst recognizing that other Christians practise the baptism of infants with the intention that 'the personal response will be offered at a later moment in life' (para. 12), Churches of Christ cannot comprehend how the act of infant baptism can really be called 'baptism' in the sense that baptism is defined in Section II.

      Churches of Christ agree that 'baptism is an unrepeatable act' (para. 13). We would not, for example, rebaptize a person who had already been baptized as a believer. Whilst not wishing to be offensive or uncooperative with other denominations, we have great difficulty with the statement: "Any practice which might be interpreted as "re-baptism" must be avoided (para. 13). Churches of Christ in Australia strongly deny that 'believers' baptism' can be described as 're-baptism' if baptism is understood as defined within Churches of Christ circles--a definition which seems to be supported by Section II of the Lima text. We recognize, of course, that Christians who do not define baptism in these terms may interpret our action as re-baptism. However, just as Churches of Christ would seek to respect the integrity of the practices of other traditions, defined in other terms we request that other Christians respect our emphasis on the indispensability of a personal faith response at the time of baptism and that we not be asked to avoid 'any practice which might be interpreted as 're-baptism' by people who do not share the same emphasis. In fact some local Churches of Christ groups and individuals felt so strongly about this issue that, in their comments on para. 13 they indicated that they believed the request to avoid any practice which might be interpreted as 're-baptism' was an unfair, one-sided request for compromise on our part. Reactions from other Churches of Christ members, however, indicated that the Lima text had given them a desire to reexamine the sensitive issue of membership within Churches of Christ for people, who having been baptized as infants in other traditions, cannot, in conscience, accept what for them is re-baptism.

      Churches of Christ agree that baptism and the giving of the Spirit are inseparable (para. 14). However, we do not link this giving of the Spirit with any physical symbol such as anointing with chrism or with confirmation.

      Churches of Christ recognize the validity of believers' baptism practised by other churches, including those Churches which also practice the baptism of the children of believers. It is normal, however, for Churches of Christ in Australia to insist that the baptism should have been by immersion as we believe that 'baptism by immersion' best expresses the symbolic and experiential identification with Christ in death, burial and resurrection (paras. 15-16).

V. The Celebration of Baptism

      A Churches of Christ baptismal service would include most, but not all of the elements outlined in paras. 17-21. Notable omissions are 'an invocation of the Holy Spirit,' a specific 'renunciation of evil,' 'anointing or chrismation.' As indicated above, Churches of Christ would not merely state, as does para. 18, that "The act of immersion can vividly express the reality that in baptism the Christian participates in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ,' but that the 'baptism of believers by immersion' is the norm.

EUCHARIST

      Churches of Christ in Australia readily recognize in the Lima text the essence of the faith in respect of the theology and practice of the Eucharist (although we prefer the term 'the Lord's Supper'). We easily identify with most of the contents and the emphases of the Lima text's treatment of the Eucharist, although as with baptism (but less so) we have some difficulties in recognizing as normative the descriptions of the way in which the Eucharist is practised or celebrated.

I. The Institution of the Eucharist

      We welcome the emphasis on the dominical origin of the Lord's Supper summarized in para. 1 and the stress on the continuity between Jesus' meals with his disciples, the Passover, contemporary celebration of the Eucharist and the anticipation of the future 'Supper of the Lamb.' We also recognize the apostolic faith in the emphasis on the Lord's Supper as the means of encountering the risen Christ.

II. The Meaning of the Eucharist

      Traditionally Churches of Christ have called 'The Lord's supper' an 'ordinance' rather than a 'sacrament.' As with baptism, however, it is recognized that sacramentum is not inappropriate in that it suggests that we participate in obedience to Christ's command: 'Do this in remembrance of me.'

      Although we have always stressed that the Lord's Supper is far more than a memorial, and that it is a mode in which the grace of God acts on human nature, Churches of Christ members have some difficulty with the wording of parts of para. 2. For example, the second sentence suggests that salvation is mediated through communion in the body and blood of Christ, a view which we consider to be alien to the essence of the faith.

'Anamnesis' is not a familiar word for most Churches of Christ members (paras. 5-7); however, the theology of the memorial aspect of the Lord's supper presented in these paragraphs finds ready acceptance. In fact, the text challenges us to rediscover the meaning which underlies the term anamnesis as a way of enriching our celebration of the Lord's Supper.

      As long as the sentence 'The eucharist is the sacrament of the unique sacrifice of Christ, who ever lives to make intercession for us' (para. 8) is not intended to convey anything other than that it is the memorial of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, Churches of Christ would concur with the contents of this and the next paragraph and recognize the essence of the faith in these statements.

      Influenced by a strong emphasis on the 'priesthood of all believers,' understood; as indicating that 'all Christians are priests before God,' the majority of Churches of Christ members view the Lord's Supper as the act of worship in which the Church as a priestly body, participates in the benefits of Christ's once and for all sacrifice. Hence Churches of Christ agree with the sentiments expressed in paras. 10-11 although we would not emphasize our 'communion with all the saints and martyrs.'

      Churches of Christ would not necessarily agree that 'the celebration of the eucharist properly includes the proclamation of the Word' (para. 12) but would stress that the Lord's Supper itself, even without preaching, is a form of proclamation.

      We strongly believe in the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper (para. 13), but would equally strongly deny any hint of transubstantiation. We acknowledge Christ to be present through the Spirit, but we do not specifically invoke the Holy Spirit as part of the words of institution (paras. 14-18). All other aspects of the Lord's Supper described in paras. 19-26 would be endorsed by Churches of Christ.

III. The Celebration of the Eucharist

      Whilst a number of the parts of 'a eucharistic liturgy,' listed in para. 27, are included when the Lord's Supper is celebrated in a Church of Christ, Churches of Christ in Australia do not have a highly structured liturgy, as this seems to us to contravene the intention of 'a meal around the Lord's table.' However, whilst wishing to retain the context of a communal meal, the Lima text challenges us to place greater emphasis on ensuring that we include the major liturgical parts of eucharistic celebration whenever we share in the Lord's Supper.

      Within Churches of Christ, presidency at the Lord's Table is not restricted to ordained clergy (cf. para. 29). In fact, within Australian Churches of Christ 'lay presidency' is almost the norm as a visible expression of our emphasis on 'mutual ministry' (see below).

      Churches of Christ celebrate the Lord's Supper at least each Sunday (para. 31) and, when appropriate, the elements (although not 'reserved') are taken to the sick (para. 33).

MINISTRY

      As with the Lima text's treatment of Baptism and Eucharist, Churches of Christ find that we can recognize the essence of the faith in most of what is said about the theology of Ministry. The practices deduced from this theology, however, do not always accord with Churches of Christ practices although it is recognized that the document accurately describes the practices of other Churches.

I. The Calling of the Whole People of God

      Churches of Christ in Australia would wholeheartedly endorse the excellent summary of the nature and function of the Church as outlined in paras. 1-4. We believe that the central aspect of Christian teaching on ministry is 'mutual ministry' and this concept is described succinctly in paras. 5-6, although in words which differ slightly from the ones we would use. Churches of Christ agree that 'the Holy Spirit bestows on the community diverse and complementary gifts' (para. 5) which are exercised by individuals for the mutual strengthening of the Church and for ministry to the world.

II. The Church and the Ordained Ministry

      Churches of Christ recognize the need for a specialised ministry within the total ministry of the Church. Consequently, the Federal Conference of Churches of Christ in Australia ordains suitable candidates, setting them apart as people who are henceforth recognised as ministering representatively on behalf of Churches of Christ. This ordination, however, is not viewed as conferring the exclusive right to perform ministerial functions. All members, in good standing, who have exhibited the necessary charisms may also be authorized to perform these functions by a local church. Not one 'ministerial function' (including preaching and celebrating the Lord's Supper) is seen to be the sole prerogative of the ordained (paras. 8, 12-14). Some members of Churches of Christ, including some State Conferences feel so strongly about this that they would completely disagree that the ordained ministry 'is constitutive for the life and witness of the Church' (para. 8). Arguing on the basis of our theology of 'mutual ministry' which stresses that in terms of ministry there are only differences of function, not differences in status, they reject ordination as creating a 'clerical caste' with a status which differs from that of 'lay people.' They claim that 'setting apart' in NT times was only for specific tasks by a local church and, thus, was vastly different from modern denominational ordination.

      The historical summary of the role and function of the apostles in the Early Church presented in paras. 9-12 reflects the Churches of Christ understanding about 'The Twelve,' but the conclusion that ordained ministries are founded on 'apostolic ministries' is not accepted by Churches of Christ (see below). Similarly, whilst Churches of Christ would endorse the description of Christ's role as 'Priest' and 'the priesthood of the whole Church' (para. 17), we reject as unhelpful the use of the word 'priest' to denote an individual, ordained minister. It tends to confuse the concept of 'the priesthood of all believers;' it suggests sacerdotal functions and, in any case, it is without NT warrant.

      The Federal Conference of Churches of Christ in Australia ordains women as well as men, arguing that there are no biblical or theological reasons against the ordination of women (para. 18). In some Churches of Christ circles, however, the ordination of women is seen as going against NT teaching. As the particular churches or State Conferences who reject the ordination of women are often the ones who also reject the validity of ordination itself, this attitude usually finds its expression in the refusal to allow women to exercise publicly particular charisms in the local church.

III. The Format of the Ordained Ministry

      Although some Churches of Christ members may argue that the NT does, in fact, 'Describe a single pattern of ministry which might serve as a blueprint' (contrast para. 19), most would recognize that the NT describes a variety of ministry patterns. Both groups within Churches of Christ, however, maintain that there is a sufficiently clear description of the theology and practice of ministry in the NT. Consequently, Churches of Christ reject the threefold pattern of bishop, presbyter and deacon as a post-NT development as not being part of the 'faith of the church through the ages' and, hence, not normative for contemporary ministry.

      In practice, this means that Churches of Christ have opted for a congregational rather than an episcopal form of Church government and ministry, which we believe is more in accord with NT teaching. We see the ministry of episkope best expressed through the ministry of local elders (presbyters) whom we

consider are also referred to as episkopoi (bishops) in the NT. Churches of Christ agree with what is said about the role of presbyters (para. 30), but would want to call them elders both 'lay' and, in the case of parish or specialist ministers, 'ordained.' According to our understanding, deacons are described accurately in para. 31.

IV. Succession in the Apostolic Tradition

      Churches of Christ maintain that the 'Apostolic Tradition' in the post-apostolic age is preserved in the NT and is transmitted through the whole people of God who faithfully minister in accordance with the NT rather than through the succession of bishops (paras. 34-38). We do not recognize 'the faith of the church through the ages' in the practice of episcopal succession.

V. Ordination

      The large section of Churches of Christ which practises ordination would agree with most of what is contained in paras. 39-49, other than the underlying assumption which confers on the ordained ministers functions from which the laity are excluded. Some of the wording of these paragraphs also conveys a much higher theology of ordination than is acceptable within Churches of Christ. For instance, we would never describe the ordained ministry as 'a sign of the otherness of God's initiative' (para. 42).

      Whilst Churches of Christ have often discussed the ordination of '(lay) elders' (para. 46), we have rarely done so. Nor do we conduct multiple levels of ordination for bishops, presbyters and deacons (para. 39) as we do not have bishops and little consideration has been given to the ordination of deacons. The Lima text challenges us to re-examine our practice in respect of ordination of elders and deacons.

A. Towards the Mutual Recognition of the Ordained Ministries

      Churches of Christ are willing to continue bi-lateral and multi-lateral dialogue about the mutual recognition of ordained ministry but realize that there are still a number of major issues which need to be resolved before significant progress can be made.

B. Consequences for Ecumenical Relations and Dialogue

      Churches of Christ came into being because of a strong desire to facilitate Christian unity on the basis of what our founders called 'a restoration of New Testament Christianity.' They argued that division must have a cause and that unity must have a basis. For them, failure to pattern the life and witness of contemporary Christianity on the principles, precepts and precedents of New Testament Christianity is the cause of division. Restoration of these precepts leads to unity. For them the road back was the way forward. Identifying the essence of New Testament Christianity would provide the programme for a united contemporary Christianity.

      Whilst using different language, the WCC Faith and Order Commission's request that we examine the Lima text to determine the extent to which we can recognize 'the faith of the Church through the ages' appears to us to involve us in a process similar to that commenced by our founders. The added advantage is that all churches are asked to engage in this enterprise. Hence, not only are we, as Churches of Christ in Australia, challenged to re-activate our traditional goal of working towards Christian unity on the basis of a re-discovery of the essence of the Christian faith, but we are able to do it in conjunction with other Christians who are involved in the same task. This to us, is of paramount significance for our relations and dialogues with other churches.

      In recent years we have been involved in bi-lateral dialogue with the Uniting Church in Australia and the Anglican Church of Australia. The discussions with the Anglican Church are continuing. The use of the Lima text as a basis for these discussions and for future dialogues with other denominations will have significant advantages as our discussion will no longer be based solely on our own historic positions, but on the ecumenical convergence which has already been achieved. Whilst, of course, the ecumenical convergence which the Lima text proclaims, by itself does not automatically guarantee truth, it does reveal, perhaps for the first time, important areas of overlap in seemingly contradictory beliefs or practices. These areas of overlap (e. g., the emphasis on Christian nurture by both the proponents of infant baptism and believers' baptism) can become fruitful starting points for discovering ways by which we can affirm our common faith without the need for unwarranted compromise.

C. Guidance for Worship, Educational, Ethical, Spiritual Life and Witness

      'Baptism,' 'Eucharist' and 'Ministry' are what the Church does. Hence we believe that the most appropriate way for Churches of Christ in Australia to come to grips with the contents of the Lima text is for people to experience these events and then to reflect upon them in the light of the ecumenical

convergence revealed by the text. We are encouraging our ministers to use the normal sacramental and pastoral activities in the life of the congregation as opportunities for such 'action-reflection.' For example, the birth of a new baby into a church family can provide the opportunity for re-examining the issue of Christian initiation, Similarly, the celebration of the (inaccurately designated) 'Lima Liturgy' in our churches on special occasions, or better, the construction of our own orders of service based on the principles of Eucharistic worship encapsulated in the Lama text, can provide the opportunity for learning from the ecumenical convergence on the Lord's Supper. The election of elders, or the appointment of a minister to a local church, can provide the opportunity for 'action--reflection' on ministry.

      We believe that the Lima text should be a major resource to be taken seriously at all levels (Federal, State and local) of the life and witness of our churches. Hence the Department of Christian Union will continue to encourage its use by other departments (e. g., Christian Education, Mission and Development) and by our theological colleges as well as by local congregations and church schools.

D. Suggestions for the Ongoing Work of Faith and Order

      We are aware that the WCC Commission on Faith and Order's long-range research project 'Towards the Common Expression of the Apostolic Faith' has commenced with a study of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381. An attempt is being made to explicate in contemporary terms the essence of the Church's faith by re-examining the creed most widely used throughout Christianity. Hence, we interpret the request to state as precisely as possible the suggestions Churches of Christ 'can make for the ongoing work of Faith and Order as it relates the material of this text on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry to its long-range research project "Towards the Common Expression of the Apostolic Faith Today'" as a request to comment firstly on the relationship between the Lima text and a study of the 381 creed and then to comment on any possible subsequent study which can facilitate the rediscovery of the essence of the faith.

      Churches of Christ members do not recite the Nicene (or any other) Creed regularly as part of their normal worship. In fact, Churches of Christ have been described by some as a 'Non-creedal Church.' Historically, our opposition to creeds has not been a reaction to creeds in themselves, but to the potential divisive use of creeds when they have been made 'tests of fellowship' and have been turned into a sign of disunity rather than a sign of the unity of the Church. This reaction, which led our founders to use the slogan 'No creeds but Christ,' was directed more at the sectarian use of more recent 'confessions' rather than at any abuse of the so-called ecumenical creeds of the Early Church. We have continued to study these and other creeds for the educational purpose of knowing about and where possible identifying with, the essence of the faith as expressed by the 'church through the ages,' but the New Testament rather than these creeds has been normative for our faith and practice.

      Consequently, whilst the liturgical use of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is an abnormal rather than a normal part of our experience, we welcome the WCC's study of this creed as a means of rediscovering the essence of the faith, but we would stress that the findings of this study will need to be judged over against the essence of the faith as revealed in scripture. Because of this we see an extremely important connection between the Lama text (especially its sections on the meaning of Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry) and the study of the creed, as the findings of the latter can be judged in the context of the former.

      We believe that it would be helpful for the WCC Faith and Order Commission, on a future occasion, to also study significant documents from later periods of Church History to aid the process of enabling the churches to 're-appropriate and confess together' the 'faith of the church through the ages.'

      c. THE UNITING CHURCH AND CHURCHES OF CHRIST

      We enclose the introductory report on joint discussions between the Churches of Christ and Uniting Church representatives commenced in 1978. This report will help inform our respective churches of the real progress being achieved by our joint group. The group members are grateful for the mutual trust, openness, understanding and degree of agreement and acceptance of differences present in our discussions and work together.

      The enclosed report describes the work and progress of our joint group. It has three aspects.

      1. A joint statement on Christian initiation and baptism, including present practices, and the possibilities for mutual recognition of each Church's baptism and membership.

      2. A joint statement on ministry, including present understanding of lay and ordained ministry, and the possibilities for mutual recognition of each Church's ordained ministry.

      3. A joint statement on sociological factors operating within our separate communities which need to be considered and understood in mutual co-operation together.

      The joint group is generally agreed that, while the possibility of corporate union does not seem close, yet other possibilities should be explored such as:

      1. A clear and more informed mutual understanding leading to clearer co-operation throughout our Churches.

      2. A possible mutual recognition of each other's membership and ministry as suggested in the Australian Council of Churches Covenant proposals.

      The joint group therefore seeks to continue its work and will seek further official direction from both Churches as to whether its work is satisfactorily completed, whether joint discussions should continue, and if so, in what direction and for what purpose.

INTRODUCTORY REPORT

      In June 1977, the Uniting Church in Australia came into being. This is the only church to have its origins in this country, although it is composed of people with a background in the Congregational, Methodist or Presbyterian Churches. Churches of Christ had been official observers of the discussions of the Joint Commission on Christian Union, but had at no time been negotiating towards union. A response to the draft Basis of Union of the J. C. C. A., prepared by Churches of Christ had been happily received by the three negotiating churches.

      When the new church came into being, the name Uniting Church was deliberately chosen to indicate that the task is not complete; the Uniting Church is open to new insights into the faith and life of the whole church. The logo of the Uniting Church with its broken circle around the outside also indicates an as yet incomplete task. The Uniting Church is therefore willing to engage in ongoing dialogue with other Christian Churches. In so doing, it seeks to remain open to appropriate ways in the future of expressing a growing Christian unity with others.

      In Spring of 1977 contact was made between representatives of the Uniting Church Ecumenical Affairs Commission and Churches of Christ Department of Christian Union. It became evident that mutual discussions would enable the churches at large to enter into greater mutual understanding and cooperation. Two areas of interest soon became obvious, i. e., baptism and ministry. Churches of Christ by their normal practice of immersion of confessing believers in Christ differ from many other Christian Churches; the Uniting Church desired to be aware of the significance and implications of this understanding of baptism. The Uniting Church in seeking to be 'people centred' was being called upon to look at the ministry of lay people and the meaning of ordination if lay ministry was to be a common practice; churches of Christ approach to this issue could be valuable in such considerations.

      In July 1978, two representatives of Churches of Christ Department of christian Union attended a meeting of the Ecumenical Affairs Commission of the Victorian Synod of Uniting Church in Australia. At this meeting the Ecumenical Affairs Commission resolved that "we welcome the presence of Churches of Christ representatives and we should continue meetings to explore particular issues of mutual concern, beginning with baptism." The Department of Christian Union in response to this resolution appointed five people to represent Churches of Christ at such discussions. It was understood that the immediate purpose of the discussions was to share insights and foster mutual understanding.

      The first of these meetings was held on 2nd December, 1978 at Toorak Uniting Church. Five persons from each church participated, there was joint chairmanship. After brief introductory statements of the "ethos" of each church, the discussion on the subject of baptism was commenced. Two further meetings were held in 1979 and a fourth meeting in November, 1980. Meetings are continuing in 1981.

      The two major topics, i. e., baptism and ministry, have been explored as far as informal discussion allows. Each group has come to appreciate the Christian qualities of its counterparts and

participants have been reminded of the complexities we have incorporated into our church order, whether that order be by constitution or by "tradition." There is also occurring a change in the personnel involved in the discussions. It seems appropriate therefore at this stage to ask two questions. "What value have the discussions been, and what, do we do with the shared information?" (This statement is a part answer to that question). Secondly, "Do we continue the discussions, and if we do continue, what is to be the goal of such discussions"" Neither Churches of Christ nor the Uniting Church can ignore the questions and the implied issues within the questions. Both churches have an implied, if not real commitment to work for Christian Unity and to fail to do so is a denial of the heritage of each. Among the options open, if discussions are to continue, is that these discussions could provide background information for any move to formal negotiations towards union. Among other options, is that the discussions could lead to the wider consideration of mutual recognition of membership and ministry, possibly a joint acceptance of the covenant proposals of the Australian Council of Churches.

      The distance we have travelled in discussions has proved helpful and informative to those who attended and we believe have wider implications for our churches. On the other hand, the discussions can be a springboard for future discussions and co-operation. We address this report to our respective churches with the advice that we will require further direction in this task in the near future.

--Trevor Banks      
--Robert Catford (Joint Conveners).      
May 1982      

1. GENERAL COMMENTS

      Baptism is a visible sign of God's grace, given to his Church by Jesus Christ. It involves the symbolic ritual washing of the individual with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is a decisive event in the Christian initiation of individuals and, as such, is not repeatable. Despite difference of practice, within and between both our churches, both churches gratefully accept baptism, and obediently seek to use it in the proclamation of the Gospel, and the salvation of people.

      Baptism is a vital element in the process of Christian initiation in which Christ unites individuals to himself in faith and enable them to live his life in the world. The process of initiation, along with baptism, also includes the following:

      The nurturing of individuals in the Faith of the Church.

      The individual's response of repentance, faith and commitment.

      The gift of the Spirit enabling the individual to grow in discipleship.

      The meaning and efficacy of baptism depend on the prior initiative and grace of God, particularly in the completed saving work of Christ "once and for all." Baptism is a visible sign of God's invitation to individuals to accept his salvation and to live the new life available through Jesus Christ. Baptism highlights the need for a personal response by individuals to the Gospel, but it is not a purely private or individual experience. In baptism, the Church proclaims and celebrates her faith, renews her own commitment, and brings others to share in her life.

2. THE MEANING OF BAPTISM

      We believe together that baptism is into Jesus Christ, so that we share the benefits of a faith relationship with a Living saviour and Lord. We become part of the Body of Christ to share in the mutual ministry and mission of all believers to the world.

      Baptism is a symbolic act of death and resurrection through which individuals are identified with Christ, and his baptism of suffering for the sins of the world, which he accepted for the salvation of all. Baptism points to an inward change wrought by God, as Christ through his Spirit applies the benefits of his life, death and resurrection to the lives of individuals. Baptism is an effective sign of the gift of the Holy Spirit, who confers on us what the actions promise, awakening us to a life of faith and discipleship.

      We believe baptism is an ecumenical sign which unites us as Christians in one Body, acknowledging one Lord, sharing one communion, living one life, and engaged in one mission together.

3. THE PRESENT SITUATION

      Both our churches practise the baptism of believing persons who profess their faith and seek membership in the Church. In Churches of Christ, such baptism is normally, nearly invariably, by immersion. In the Uniting Church, such baptism is normally by sprinkling or pouring, but may be also by immersion. In the Uniting Church, such baptism is often associated with, or followed by, an act of confirmation.

      Despite different practices, the intention of both churches in the baptism of believing persons is very close indeed.

      In the initiation of children into the faith and life of the Church, there are more significant differences. In Churches of Christ, infants and children are either presented to God and received into the care of parents and the Church in a service of Thanksgiving and Dedication, or accepted into the life of the Church without any liturgical recognition.

      The Uniting church baptises children presented for baptism and for whose instruction and nourishment in the Faith the Church accept s responsibility. Such children are accepted as members of the Church to be nurtured for adult faith and confirmation. Non baptised children are also accepted into the life of the Church without liturgical recognition, and may be baptised as believers later in life.

4. MUTUAL RECOGNITION OF MEMBERS

      There is a limited recognition of one another's members between our churches. The Uniting Church is able to recognise as members of the Church, members of Churches of Christ who have been baptised upon profession of faith and admitted to membership. Such recognition is offered through the provision of members in association by which full membership privileges in the Uniting Church are conveyed.

      Churches of Christ, believing that baptism in New Testament times was always of repentant believers and by immersion, and that they are bound to present positively this conviction, accept into membership those in whom the obedience of faith has found expression in such baptism. They do not, however, pass judgment on the unimmersed, i. e., those baptised as infants and/or by other means than immersion. Theoretically, they leave this issue with God. Practically, they accept as Christians those committed to other baptismal traditions whose commitment to Christ is obvious and whose quality of life evidences the Holy Spirit. This acceptance of the Christian standing of devout members of other communions has visible and formal expression in their acceptance and recognition within Churches of Christ congregations as Christians in Fellowship.

      There are more significant differences and similarities in the beliefs and practices with regard to children in the Church.

      The Uniting Church recognises as members of the Church children who have been baptised and are accepted for nurture and instruction in the faith, such baptised children may be confirmed in later life on profession of faith or may choose to repudiate their place within the church and the faith into which they were baptised. Because of their recognition as members of the Church, baptised children are, in some congregations, invited to share in communion.

      Churches of Christ do not list children of Christian parents on their membership rolls as such. They do, however, regard them as part of the community of Faith and within the experience of God's grace, until such time as they personally commit themselves to Christ in faith, repentance and baptism, or else take themselves out of the community by repudiating their Christian heritage. Churches of Christ sometimes admit children to communion. Both churches seem to be seeking ways of including children in the Christian community, although ambivalent about the importance of baptism and membership of children.

CONCLUSION

      The above considerations lead us to believe there may be value for our churches at present, not in seeking corporate union, but exploring further the possibilities of mutual recognition of membership between us.

MINISTRY

      Preamble: This statement is an attempt to clarify where we arrived in our discussions between the Uniting Church in Australia and Churches of Christ regarding an understanding about Ministry.

      Definitions: Basic to our discussions have been two understandings of the word ministry. For purposes of this statement and to help clarify our terms, we have defined the word as follows:

      ministry (with a little m): This ministry refers to a special function, not a special office. It is a ministry of the church which is exercised by every person who has been baptised.

      Ministry (with a capital M): For this statement only, Ministry refers to the function of specialised and representative leadership and ministry within the church. Ministers acknowledge that they have been called, trained and set apart by the church to fulfil this function. Such people are known as Ministers and their setting apart is known as Ordination.

      The state of progress in the Uniting Church in Australia and Churches of Christ discussions together:

      The discussions have used as a basis the proposal taken from the document Covenanting for Unity: proposals for local action prepared by the Australian Council of Churches.

      We agree to recognise, as from an accepted date, the ordained ministries of the other participating churches as ministries of Word and Sacraments in the Holy Catholic Church and we agree that subsequent ordinations to the ministries of the participating churches shall be according to a common ordinal which will incorporate the episcopal, ministerial and lay roles in ordination.

      How far have we progressed in our mutual recognition of each church's Ministers? We have noted four stages of possible recognition.

Stage 1

      That we each recognise the validity of each other's Ministry within their own church

      In diagramatic form, the two churches can be seen as two separate entities. We recognise the validity of each other's Ministry and ministry within each entity.

Stage 2

      This second stage has likewise been reached in our churches. We each recognise the validity of the Ministry and ministry performed by members of each Church in ecumenical bodies, e. g., chaplains in C.C.E.S., I.T.I.M., etc. This second stage is a development of Stage 1 in that we each recognise that one of our Ministers and/or ministers acting as a chaplain performs a valid ministry function for people who are members of either church.

Stage 3

      Joint Parishes: These differ from Stage 2 since in such ecumenical ventures, the mutual interaction is limited, whereas in a joint parish situation, issues of baptism, ministry and communion must be faced in some way. The way these are faced and resolved varies from one local expression to another. Stage 3 has been reached for Churches of Christ in some joint local church situations, e. g., Dulwich/Rose Park in South Australia and Dareton in New South Wales.

Stage 4

      This fourth stage requires each church to accept the validity of Ministers and lay ministers as they serve and transfer within and from either church. At this point, there is some divergence of thought and practice between the two churches.

Ministry

      There is some confusion as to whether we do recognise each other's ordained Ministers as valid for each church. Churches of Christ will recognise, and accept into membership, a Minister from the Uniting Church and a minister (small m) who is a layperson, provided they have participated in Believer's Baptism by immersion and accept the general position of Churches of Christ. For Churches of Christ to accept Uniting Church Ministers and lay ministers, the issue of 'Baptism and the Uniting Church confirmation' needs to be resolved.

      Likewise, when Churches of Christ Ministers who have been ordained and lay ministers, who fulfil the Ministry function, seek to transfer to the Uniting Church, they will only be accepted as Ministers provided they are ordained within the Uniting Church. To resolve this issue, the question of the validity of Churches of Christ ordination needs to be acknowledged by the Uniting Church in Australia.

      For Churches of Christ, the key issue is Baptism and for the Uniting Church, the key issue is Ordination.

Stage 5

      The final stage is when both churches recognise the Ministry and ministry within each church and accept it as valid within each church without re-Baptism or re-Ordination.

Further issues to discuss

      1. What factors need we consider so that there is a mutual recognition of each church's baptised membership and ministry?

--Agreed statement
--procedures
--implications

      2. What factors need we consider so that there is a mutual recognition of each church's ordained

--Ministry?
--Agreed statement
--procedures
--implications

      These further issues will be the basis of continuing discussions between the two churches.

      We have come to appreciate that the common treasury or ethos of a church or group is more than its formal articulating of faith propositions, such as a set of affirmations about God, man, sin and salvation. The common treasury (by which we mean those things of value peculiar to that group) includes a history, a catalogue of significant people, a feeling of belonging together, accustomed ways of doing things, an image of themselves as a corporate entity, a sense of destiny.

      In any discussions between churches, whether seeking to clarify understandings on theological, organisational or mission matters, or directed specifically towards discovering a basis for union, cannot. pretend that the common treasury does not exist.

      It is important to recognise that, even though there may be agreement on theological, biblical and structural principles, the ethos of the churches must be taken seriously and valued. Ways of building mutual appreciation and respect for the norms and values of the other are needed, e. g., some Churches of

Christ members find it difficult to accept the lifestyle of some Uniting Church in Australia members, while some Uniting Church in Australia people may judge some Churches of Christ people to be culturally limited and religiously pious.

      Language, patterns of worship, hymns, ways of doing things, clerical dress and accepted recreational pursuits vary between groups.

      The existence of the common treasury has, in an unstated way, defined what is valued by each group. Talks towards church union or even towards mutual understanding can threaten to destroy and devalue the accepted ethos or common treasury for individuals, congregations and church leaders.

      The fact of church union is being seriously debated by many and is seen by some as anachronistic when decentralisation, multiculturalism and "small is beautiful" are familiar refrains.

      In the ways that it chooses to organise itself, the church neither ignores society nor capitulates to it, but is in a constant conversation with society.

      It seems appropriate, therefore, to suggest that when discussing common understandings of the faith and areas of mutual recognition, the question to be considered is not only relating to the imperatives of the faith, but also the sociological features or the common treasury of that context where the church is set.

      d. THE ANGLICAN CHURCH AND CHURCHES OF CHRIST

      1. The Conversations followed a meeting of the Anglican Missionary and Ecumenical Council, held in the first part of 1983, at which Mr. Ian Allsop, Federal Secretary of the Churches of Christ, led a discussion on the doctrines, practices and polity of the Churches of Christ. This followed an invitation from the Missionary and Ecumenical Council to the Churches of Christ Federal Department of Christian Union and Ecumenical Affairs.

      Following that meeting the Missionary and Ecumenical Council believed that Conversations between the two Churches would be helpful, not in order to pursue a plan for organic unity, but for growth in mutual understanding and co-operation.

      The Conversations were held in Melbourne, at the College of the Bible, the Churches of Christ Theological College. As these discussions had the sole purpose of increasing understanding rather than reaching agreement, no special attempts were made to reach common ground. We enjoyed the diversity of outlook as well as rejoicing in those areas in which we had a common mind, and we attempted to describe and to understand. The goal of growing in mutual understanding was undoubtedly achieved; it was a little harder to see where we could grow further in co-operation, as there were already many points in which we worked together within the very considerable ecclesial differences. Both Churches are fully involved in the ecumenical networks, including the Councils of Churches, on the world, national, state and local scene.

5. HISTORY AND TRADITION--the Churches of Christ

      The Australian Churches of Christ has two identifiable sources;

      a. The British Churches of Christ arose within the independence tradition, and grew from Scottish Baptist stock--people who sought a simpler form of Christianity in doctrine and practice, and who, in their searching for that, came to accept Believers' Baptism.

      This tradition emphasises unity through a restoration of New Testament Christianity.

      There is no single predominate individual in early British Churches of Christ history; it was nourished by the distribution of literature, especially that written by Alexander Campbell. Their favourite subjects were faith (in an Arminian sense) and Congregational/Presbyterian Ecclesiology. It is sometimes said that the Churches of Christ do not have Bishops, they have editors. This used to be particularly true, and James Wallis and David King were two very influential editors of journals in Britain. Perhaps this is not quite so true now, although the approach of the Churches of Christ in Britain tended to be cerebral rather than emotional.

      b. The other source of the Australian Churches of Christ came from the United States where there was not so much emphasis on restoration (as in Britain) but on unity.

      The American Churches of Christ arose from the Disciples movement.

      Significant figures were Thomas Campbell and his son Alexander (Presbyterian, but from Northern Ireland). Their desire for unity came from the many splits in the Presbyterian Church in Northern Ireland, and from Thomas' own irenic nature. He was concerned with the narrowness of denominational confessions and wanted people to preach and give communion when no minister was available. He was hauled through the Presbyterian Church Courts for this, and forced out. He moved to

Washington, D.C. and met with other like-minded people, and came to accept Believers' Baptism and worked with a Baptist Association.

      c. The Churches of Christ in Australia was started by individuals from Britain, and the U.S.A. influences began in the mid 1860's. Different parts of Australia still have different emphases depending upon the country that the early Churches of Christ pioneers came from. Victoria and South Australia opt more for unity, and are more liberal; New South Wales and Queensland are predominantly on the side of restoration. West Australia is divided.

      The State Conferences developed from the 1870's to promote Evangelism rather than exercise authority, and this to a large extent remains the emphasis. Conferences tend to be encouraging, affirmative, and minimally organizational. The early State Conferences opposed creedal statements as tests of fellowship, and also opposed the study of theology which they held added the opinion of men to scripture. Gradually some creedal concepts have been recognized and theology accepted. Initially the Churches of Christ did not have ministers, but evangelists. There has however come to be a gradual recognition of a full time paid ministerial role. Through the Depression the Social Service emphasis of the Church became apparent. Unity came to be important, especially in the 20's and 30's, although this produced some backlash. Perhaps one of the major points of debate still within the Churches of Christ is between unity and restoration.

      d. Parishes have the right to call anyone they want. But those not ordained or commissioned by the State Conference are only recognized during their tenure of that particular ministry.

      e. There is a basic freedom for congregations to explore all sorts of areas of interest and concern, without offending others or causing division. Charismatic renewal has been able to come into the Churches of Christ without any difficulty (except, perhaps, in Queensland). Basic points of theological concern are related to: Baptism/soteriology, Church Government and scriptural interpretation. What does not affect this is less frequently a problem.

6. HISTORY AND TRADITION--Anglican

      Anglican self understanding traces its history in an unbroken line from New Testament times. Of particular significance was the arrival in Britain of Augustine, and the flowering of English theology and evangelisation of Germany by the English in the second half of the first millennium.

      The Reformation of the English Church had great popular support, and the continuity of the life and worship was maintained through the prayer books and the influence of archbishop Cranmer. Apart from temporary aberrations under Mary and Cromwell the English Church continued to develop along its distinctive lines, with its focus on worship and the Prayer Book, and a less rigid ecclesiology and theology. The strong pastoral emphasis of the Church which saw the parochial ministry as the standard looks to people like George Herbert.

      The Church in Australia developed synodical government, in the mid 19th century, a form of government which has spread to all other parts of the Anglican Communion. This process brings together bishops, clergy and lay people to conduct the affairs of the Church at almost every level. This clearly illustrates the fact that the authority of the bishops is a moral rather than legal authority. The Archbishop of Canterbury, like the Archbishops of other provinces, has the authority of primus inter pares--the first among equals--a moral authority.

      The Anglican Communion sees itself as having the tradition of good biblical scholarship and, in general, a social awareness; a strong understanding of ecumenism in which the Anglican Church plays a bridge role between the catholic and reformed traditions; the centrality of worship and the development of a strong musical tradition. The different emphasis provided by the Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical positions, one of which, in many areas, tends to dominate, is held in generally creative tension within Melbourne.

      The Thirty Nine Articles are in general held to be historical rather than living documents, although they maintain a norm for Anglicans. This expresses the inter-relationship of the authority of scripture, of tradition and of reason within the Church.

7.

      After these papers had been given, certain points of similarity and dis-similarity were recognized, not all of which might have been anticipated. The Churches of Christ look at the need to return to and restore a New Testament Church; Anglicans look to a tradition of the working of the spirit in the Church bringing about its continuing evolution. The Churches of Christ place a great store upon the teaching and example of particular individuals--this is less so with the Anglican Church. The Churches of Christ have shied

away from creedal statements and set liturgies. Anglicans have focused their life and witness upon liturgy and the Prayer Book.

      What became clear was the extent to which both Churches operated with a moral rather than legal authority structure. Despite the appearance of legalism within the Anglican structures, it does not operate in that way. Both Churches would have considerable difficulty in making the sort of decisions that would be required, for example, to bring about their integration with another.

      Ecumenical commitment is a very strong element in traditions of sections of each Church, although within the Anglican Church one part would look to reunion with the Catholic Church, and the other to reunion with the protestant Churches.

8. THEOLOGICAL EMPHASIS--Churches of Christ

      It must be emphasized that the theological emphasis of the Churches of Christ cannot be understood without taking into account the Church's historical roots.

      The Campbells understood that theologically "the Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and institutionally one" and yet was divided. Why? "inadmissible human innovations"--that is, development that had taken place within the Christian community which had gone beyond the approved pattern for Christian life and worship as given in the New Testament. A good example of this is the creeds--creeds have come about as a way of separating one set of Christians from another. Therefore the Churches of Christ slogan: "No Creed but Christ," which understanding carries with it the principle of liberty, a dominant 18th century philosophical principle.

      The only way clear therefore was a "restoration," a return to New Testament Christianity. It came to be seen that the other major emphasis of the Churches of Christ, unity, would also be achieved by a restoration of New Testament Christianity. It was not that one could go to the New Testament as a text book for the Church, but by understanding New Testament principles as being normative the Church would be restored.

      A corollary of this is that nothing can be made binding on any Christian unless it is a clear New Testament imperative; but where it is, that must be adhered to.

      So with baptism; it is clear from the New Testament that Christians were to be baptized, but there is no biblical warrant for baptizing children. Therefore the only baptism possible is a Believers' Baptism.

      The Churches of Christ make a distinction between what are essentials and what are non-essentials--although this is not always easy to decide.

      The Bible has to be interpreted; a clear interpretation is that Christians are not bound by the Mosaic Law. Campbell makes a distinction between fact and theory--facts such as in deeds or events which are historically verifiable, such as "Christ died" or non-historically verifiable, such as "for our sins." But this also is a fact because it is stated in scripture. These are essentials. Non-essentials include the theory of his Christ's death is the atonement for our sins and so a wide variety of interpretations is possible for this.

      The term "tradition" has been infrequently used in the Churches of Christ; spokespersons sometimes refer to the phrases "the Common Mind" or "the consensus of consecrated, qualified scholarship."

      This gives strong place to reason, a constant reminder that the Churches of Christ grew out of the age of enlightenment. Similarly the principle of liberty is enshrined in the Church's understanding. "The application of the principle of liberty is the democratic way of preserving unity in community without uniformity." Non-essentials, or theories, include many areas of faith and worship as well as a variety of attitudes to many moral questions.

9. THEOLOGICAL EMPHASIS--Anglican Understanding of Authority

      All authority resides in the Triune God and in particular in Jesus whom the Church has acknowledged as Lord from the earliest days. The authority of God is brought to bear on the Church chiefly by means of the scriptures, which are both a witness to and interpretation of the life, teaching and redemptive work of Jesus and in which is to be found the inspiration for the Church's life and mission and the sounding board for all its teaching and behaviour. Besides scripture, but always governed by it and working only within the parameters set by it, God makes His authority felt and known among His people by other means; for example by an "inner quality of life" which stands out above the average; by the reception and use of the gifts of the Spirit; and by the exercise of "episcope."

      Authority may be thought of in two ways, legal and moral. The church exercises legal authority in areas such as ministry and liturgy. It exercises only moral authority in the fields of faith and morals; the Anglican Church has always recognized the importance of private judgment in these areas and for the most part leaves matters of belief to the individual. It is only in matters of dispute that the individual is expected to weigh further the mind of the Church. The witness of the Church to doctrine is valuable and weighty but not even an apostle could force belief. However shared commitment and belief create a common mind, and when conflict endangers unity or threatens to distort the gospel the Church can appeal to scripture, to the creeds, to the Fathers and to the definitions of the councils of the early Church.

10.

      The two Churches have clearly reached their present situations along two very different roads. Both emphasize the primacy of scripture for authority and determining normative behaviour. The Anglicans understand the scriptures as the basis of tradition and the touchstone for the development and evolution of the Church. The Churches of Christ aim to continue to emphasize New Testament principles and give a lesser place to the evolution of tradition. But regardless of the path that has led the two Churches to this spot, there is considerable shared understanding of the role of the individual in coming to faith, and of the idea of the "hierarchy of truths"--that is, of some things that are essential and represent a common mind, and that which remains a matter of opinion, theory, and Church discipline in practice which can be subject to change. The Churches of Christ believe that unity can be achieved by a return to the principles and ethos of New Testament Christianity; Anglicans believe it can be achieved through an evolution under the guidance of the Spirit. It may be that it will not matter greatly how we get there; the result, under the Spirit, is the same. Both Churches, too, have an appreciation of unity in diversity, there being a great variety of practice and belief within each congregation. Both Churches have an appreciation of a diversity which does not mean separation and of a unity that does not mean uniformity, and of a positive tolerance and appreciation of creative tension.

11. EUCHARIST or COMMUNION

      This was an area where there was a remarkable convergence of practice in the two Churches. Both customarily celebrate this in the major service of worship each week, and occasionally on Sunday evenings as well. The Churches of Christ also are having more mid-week celebrations than previously usually associated with a prayer group etc. Both Churches, too, share a problem of the participation of children. The understanding of the service as being a memorial, not just of the Last supper but of the Christ event; as being a sacrifice, offered once for all by Christ for all people of all times; a communion in which we are brought into a close relationship with each other and to God and recommissioned for ministry; and a real presence in the sense of a union with the living Christ who is really present in a way which the Church does not and cannot define--all this is common to the two Churches.

      There are however a number of things which separate us in practice. The Churches of Christ celebrant is customarily a lay person, whereas for Anglicans it is always a priest or bishop. The Churches of Christ usually use grape juice and mazzos; Anglicans will use either unleavened wafers or ordinary bread, and wine (usually port). Both would see communion as a gift from Christ, the degree to which the Churches of Christ would understand it as a sacrament will vary.

      For the Anglicans, there is always a sense of mystery, prayer, and perhaps some silence. For the Churches of Christ communion is predominantly a rational event, with more talk than prayer. The Churches of Christ have an open table policy--the invitation to participate is seen as the Lord's and not ours. The non-baptized would not be encouraged to receive communion and first communion customarily follows baptism. Often all will participate on camps and on formal occasions. For Anglicans, while there is a trend towards an open table, they would expect people receiving communion in the Anglican Church over a period of time to either be received into the Church or Confirmed.

      Anglicans would see word, sacrament and pastoral care as interdependent, with none more essential than the other. The Churches of Christ would, too, relate word and communion--indeed communion is a part of the ministry of the word.

12. BAPTISM

      Here there is considerable divergence of faith and practice. The majority of Anglicans would be baptized as infants (although there is an increasing number of adult baptisms), whereas the Churches of Christ would insist upon adult Believers' Baptism, and most would regard someone baptized as an infant as in fact not having been baptized, and would rebaptize them.

      Nevertheless, the following can be said to be areas of agreement. Baptism is the rite of initiation. The Anglicans have the further rite of Confirmation, but this is not strictly a part of the rite of initiation, although in practice admission to the Holy Communion has been and still is often limited to those who have been confirmed. Both Churches agree that faith is necessary. The Churches of Christ would insist on a profession of faith preceding baptism; Anglicans believe that parents and godparents can have faith on behalf of their child and will baptize the child on that basis in the expectation that he or she will come to faith.

      Both Communions understand that water and a trinitarian formula are both essential. Both would also expect that baptism would take place at the main service on a Sunday. The clergy are the customary officiants in both communions, although not necessarily so.

      Anglicans would believe that someone baptized as an infant, even if there is some considerable lapse before association with the Church is resumed, would nevertheless remain a member of the Church. The

Churches of Christ believe that baptism is of little continuing efficacy if a life does not show it; only those who are baptized as adult believers by total immersion are full members of the Church. The Churches of Christ have developed a category of "Christians in Fellowship" for people from other denominations who are accepted into the congregation but not rebaptized. These people take an almost full part in the life of the Church although in most instances they are ineligible to be elders, etc. Some Churches of Christ not operating on the basis of Christians in Fellowship have associated members--people who attend, but are not formally accepted into the congregation (they can of course receive communion however).

      In both congregations there is a rethinking through of baptismal policy; the Churches of Christ are concerned about the position of children and those of other Christian denominations; there is a rethinking in some Anglican circles about both infant baptism, especially where there is little discernible faith on the part of the parents, and of total immersion.

13. MINISTRY

      Again there is a movement in both Churches in this area. The Anglicans are moving to a far greater recognition of lay ministry, and the Churches of Christ towards an increased role for trained professional ordained ministry. For the Churches of Christ previously, there was a strong suspicion of theologians and theological colleges. The only full time people in especially the American tradition were evangelists.

      For the Churches of Christ there is great difficulty in reconstructing a New Testament pattern of ministry as there are conflicting interpretations of the limited data. This area has been subject to more change within this Church than perhaps any other area of its life. Indeed there is such diversity still that it is very difficult to generalize.

      The Anglicans have of course a strong understanding of the traditional ministry of bishops, priests and deacons; this has essentially varied little, although the particular roles exercised by the three orders of ministry, and by the laity, have fluctuated, and are certainly in the process of development now.

      The Churches of Christ recognize three broad categories of ministry; elders; deacons; and evangelist/preacher--who are the professionals, i. e., the clergy. Each congregation would have its own constitution which will determine the numbers and tenure of the elders and deacons for that congregation. Each congregation may call whomever it chooses to be its minister, who may or may not be ordained. Within Australia most graduates of the Federal College of the Bible in Victoria will be ordained; most of those entering the ministry from other colleges in other states will not. Where ordination does take place it would be performed by the Federal Conference, and would not take place unless a candidate had received an appointment to a specific ministry--a position with which the Anglicans would agree. The Churches of Christ regard ordination as a setting apart for a specific task and there is no sense in its indelibility as there is with the Anglicans.

      The Churches of Christ have accepted women into all levels of ministry. The Anglicans in Australia have not yet done some person called to be a pastor to a Church of Christ whether ordained or not, would seldom be the celebrant at communion; would share in the preaching and the prayers; and would customarily baptize. He or she is in general better trained and more professional than in previous generations.

      The Anglican regards the bishop as the preserver of orthodoxy and he has the sole responsibility for ordaining and for setting the standards for ordination. The Anglican communion is held together by a gathering together every 10 years of the diocesan bishops, with the archbishop of Canterbury as being the first among equals.

      Anglicans further believe that it is only the priest (or bishop) who can celebrate communion, pronounce absolution and give a blessing. The priest when in a parish, is the focal point of that community of faith, and acts vicariously, or on behalf of, the bishop, who issues a license to officiate, and without such a license a priest cannot perform any function.

      The deacon in the Anglican tradition is a temporary position on the way to ordination to the priesthood. The ordering of bishops, priests and deacons is understood to be central to Anglicanism, and is a part of the so called Lambeth Quadrilateral (the other three elements being scripture, creed and sacraments).

      The ecclesiology of the two communions is far apart with perhaps fewer points of common understanding than on any other aspect that we have raised during the Conversations.

CONCLUSION:

      These Conversations, as was said at the beginning, more than adequately fulfilled the commission given to its members. There has been a remarkable growth in understanding and appreciation of each other, and a great awareness of how much we share, particularly perhaps in terms of our understanding of the centrality of communion, and of the diversity and variety within each Church.

      While there can be little prospect for great doctrinal agreement on many issues, there is limitless scope for co-operation and for working together. The commitment of each Church to ecumenism and to the

ecumenical movement will provide many avenues for joint co-operation and for working together. Each communion has a richness and diversity in its tradition, an understanding that can only challenge and deepen the life and tradition of the other. Members of the Conversation would encourage Anglican and Churches of Christ congregations to enter into dialogue that each may grow in appreciation of the other. It is our belief that the two congregations will find it easy and productive to work together on common projects for the good of all.

      All of us are grateful for having had this opportunity and feel that we have grown greatly in our trust, respect and mutual understanding. We are thankful to God for the privilege of having experienced our growing together.

      We believe that it may be appropriate for our Churches to set up some form of Standing Committee which can be concerned to promote dialogue and understanding at the local level. We do not believe that, at this time at least, there would be a great advantage in setting up a bilateral commission concerned to bring about unity. Our common membership of ecumenical structures, and our common consideration of such documents as the Lima Document of the World Council of Churches on baptism, eucharist and ministry will provide ample opportunity for joint study and a sharing of views.

[NOF 692-732]