The Toronto Statement (1950)
The Church, the Churches, and the World Council of Churches
Webmaster Note. This document is hosted on the Orthodox Christian
Information website for reference purposes only. We do not consider this
document to accurately reflect a traditional Orthodox self-understanding,
especially in the area of ecclesiology. See the other articles on the "References
and Terms" page for comments on this, and other, reference texts hosted
herein.
The Ecclesiological Significance of the World Council of Churches
Received by the Central Committee at Toronto in 1950 and commended for study and comment in the Churches
I. INTRODUCTION
The first Assembly at Amsterdam adopted a resolution on "the authority of the
Council" which read:
"The World Council of Churches is composed of Churches which acknowledge Jesus
Christ as God and Saviour. They find their unity in Him. They do not have to create their
unity; it is the gift of God.... Moreover, while earnestly seeking fellowship in thought
and action for all its members, the Council disavows any thought of becoming a single
unified church structure independent of the Churches which have joined in constituting the
Council, or a structure dominated by a centralised administrative authority.
"The purpose of the Council is to express its unity in another way. Unity arises
out of the love of God in Jesus Christ, which, binding the constituent Churches to Him,
binds them to one another. It is the earnest desire of the Council that the Churches may
be bound closer to Christ and therefore closer to one another. In the bond of His love,
they will desire continually to pray for one another and to strengthen one another, in
worship and in witness, bearing one another's burdens and so fulfilling the law of
Christ."
II. THE NEED FOR FURTHER STATEMENT
The World Council of Churches represents a new and unprecedented approach to the
problem of inter-Church relationships. Its purpose and nature can be easily misunderstood.
So it is salutary that we should state more clearly and definitely what the World Council
is and what it is not.
This more precise definition involves certain difficulties. It is not for nothing that
the Churches themselves have refrained from giving detailed and precise definitions of the
nature of the Church. If this is true of them, it is not to be expected that the World
Council can easily achieve a definition which has to take account of all the various
ecclesiologies of its member Churches. The World Council deals in a provisional way with
divisions between existing Churches, which ought not to be, because they contradict the
very nature of the Church. A situation such as this cannot be met in terms of
well-established precedents. The main problem is how one can formulate the ecclesiological
implications of a body in which so many different conceptions of the Church are
represented, without using the categories or language of one particular conception of the
Church.
In order to clarify the notion of the World Council of Churches it will be best to
begin by a series of negations so as to do away at the outset with certain
misunderstandings which may easily arise or have already arisen, because of the newness
and unprecedented character of the underlying conception.
III. WHAT THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES IS NOT
1) The World Council of Churches is not and must never become a Super-Church
It is not a Super-Church. It is not the World Church. It is not the Una Sancta of
which the Creeds speak. This misunderstanding arises again and again although it has been
denied as clearly as possible in official pronouncements of the Council. It is based on
complete ignorance of the real situation within the Council. For if the Council should in
any way violate its own constitutional principle, that it cannot legislate or act for its
member Churches, it would cease to maintain the support of its membership.
In speaking of "member Churches," we repeat a phrase from the Constitution of
the World Council of Churches; but membership in the Council does not in any sense mean
that the Churches belong to a body which can take decisions for them. Each Church retains
the constitutional right to ratify or to reject utterances or actions of the Council. The
"authority" of the Council consists only "in the weight it carries with the
Churches by its own wisdom" (William Temple).
3) The World Council cannot and should not be based on any one particular
conception of the Church. It does not prejudge the ecclesiological problem. It is
often suggested that the dominating or underlying conception of the Council is that of
such and such a Church or such and such a school of theology. It may well be that at a
certain particular conference or in a particular utterance one can find traces of the
strong influence of a certain tradition or theology.
The Council as such cannot possibly become the instrument of one confession or school
without losing its very raison d'tre. There are room and space in the World
Council for the ecclesiology of every church which is ready to participate in the
ecumenical conversation and which takes its stand on the Basis of the Council, which is
"a fellowship of Churches which accept our Lord Jesus Christ as God and
Saviour."
The World Council exists in order that different Churches may face their differences,
and therefore no Church is obliged to change its ecclesiology as a consequence of
membership in the World Council.
4) Membership in the World Council of Churches does not imply that a Church treats
its own conception of the Church as merely relative.
There are critics, and not infrequently friends, of the ecumenical movement who
criticize or praise it for its alleged inherent latitudinarianism. According to them the
ecumenical movement stands for the fundamental equality of all Christian doctrines and
conceptions of the Church and is, therefore, not concerned with the question of truth.
This misunderstanding is due to the fact that ecumenism has in the minds of these persons
become identified with certain particular theories about unity, which have indeed played a
role in ecumenical history, but which do not represent the common view of the movement as
a whole, and have never been officially endorsed by the World Council.
5) Membership in the World Council does not imply the acceptance of a specific
doctrine concerning the nature of Church unity.
The Council stands for Church unity. But in its midst there are those who conceive
unity wholly or largely as a full consensus in the realm of doctrine, others who conceive
of it primarily as sacramental communion based on common church order, others who consider
both indispensable, others who would only require unity in certain fundamentals of faith
and order, again others who conceive the one Church exclusively as a universal spiritual
fellowship, or hold that visible unity is inessential or even undesirable. But none of
these conceptions can be called the ecumenical theory. The whole point of the ecumenical
conversation is precisely that all these conceptions enter into dynamic relations with
each other.
In particular, membership in the World Council does not imply acceptance or rejection
of the doctrine that the unity of the Church consists in the unity of the invisible
Church. Thus the statement in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis concerning what it
considers the error of a spiritualized conception of unity does not apply to the World
Council. The World Council does not "imagine a Church which one cannot see or touch,
which would be only spiritual, in which numerous Christian bodies, though divided in
matters of faith, would nevertheless be united through an invisible link." It does,
however, include Churches which believe that the Church is essentially invisible as well
as those which hold that visible unity is essential.
IV. THE ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
We must now try to define the positive assumptions which underlie the World Council of
Churches and the ecclesiological implications of membership in it.
1) The member Churches of the Council believe that conversation, cooperation, and
common witness of the Churches must be based on the common recognition that Christ is the
Divine Head of the Body.
The Basis of the World Council is the acknowledgment of the central fact that
"other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, even Jesus Christ." It is
the expression of the conviction that the Lord of the Church is God-among us Who continues
to gather His children and to build His Church Himself. Therefore, no relationship between
the Churches can have any substance or promise unless it starts with the common submission
of the Churches to the Headship of Jesus Christ in His Church. From different points of
view Churches ask "How can men with opposite convictions belong to one and the same
federation of the faithful?" A clear answer to that question was given by the
Orthodox delegates in Edinburgh 1937 when they said: "In spite of all our
differences, our common Master and Lord is one—Jesus Christ who will lead us
to a more and more close collaboration for the edifying of the Body of Christ." [From
statement by Archb. Germanos on behalf of the Orthodox delegates.] The fact of Christ's
Headship over His people compels all those who acknowledge Him to enter into real and
close relationships with each other—even though they differ in many important points.
2) The member Churches of the World Council believe on the basis of the New
Testament that the Church of Christ is one.
The ecumenical movement owes its existence to the fact that this article of the faith
has again come home to men and women in many Churches with an inescapable force. As they
face the discrepancy between the truth that there is and can be only one Church of Christ,
and the fact that there exist so many Churches which claim to be Churches of Christ but
are not in living unity with each other, they feel a holy dissatisfaction with the present
situation. The Churches realize that it is a matter of simple Christian duty for each
Church to do its utmost for the manifestation of the Church in its oneness, and to work
and pray that Christ's purpose for His Church should be fulfilled.
3) The member Churches recognize that the membership of the Church of Christ is
more inclusive than the membership of their own Church body. They seek, therefore, to
enter into living contact with those outside their own ranks who confess the Lordship of
Christ.
All the Christian Churches, including the Church of Rome, hold that there is no
complete identity between the membership of the Church Universal and the membership of
their own Church. They recognize that there are Church members extra muros, that
these belong aliquo modo to the Church, or even that there is an ecclesia
extra ecclesiam. This recognition finds expression in the fact that with very few
exceptions the Christian Churches accept the baptism administered by other Churches as
valid.
But the question arises what consequences are to be drawn from this teaching. Most
often in Church history the Churches have only drawn the negative consequence that they
should have no dealings with those outside their membership. The underlying assumption of
the ecumenical movement is that each Church has a positive task to fulfill in this realm.
That task is to seek fellowship with all those who, while not members of the same visible
body, belong together as members of the mystical body. And the ecumenical movement is the
place where this search and discovery take place.
4) The member Churches of the World Council consider the relationship of other
Churches to the Holy Catholic Church which the Creeds profess as a subject for mutual
consideration. Nevertheless, membership does not imply that each Church must regard the
other member Churches as Churches in the true and full sense of the word.
There is a place in the World Council both for those Churches which recognize other
Churches as Churches in the full and true sense, and for those who do not. But these
divided Churches, even if they cannot yet accept each other as true and pure Churches,
believe that they should not remain in isolation from each other, and consequently they
have associated themselves in the World Council of Churches.
They know that differences of faith and order exist, but they recognize one another as
serving the One Lord, and they wish to explore their differences in mutual respect,
trusting that they may thus be led by the Holy Spirit to manifest their unity in Christ.
5) The member Churches of the World Council recognize in other Churches elements of
the true Church. They consider that this mutual recognition obliges them to enter into a
serious conversation with each other in the hope that these elements of truth will lead to
the recognition of the full truth and to unity based on the full truth.
It is generally taught in the different Churches that other Churches have certain
elements of the true Church, in some traditions called vestigia ecclesiae. Such
elements are the preaching of the Word, the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, and the
administration of the sacraments. These elements are more than pale shadows of the life of
the true Church. They are a fact of real promise and provide an opportunity to strive by
frank and brotherly intercourse for the realization of a fuller unity. Moreover,
Christians of all ecclesiological views throughout the world, by the preaching of the
Gospel, brought men and women to salvation by Christ, to newness of life in Him, and into
Christian fellowship with one another.
The ecumenical movement is based upon the conviction that these "traces" are
to be followed. The Churches should not despise them as mere elements of truth but rejoice
in them as hopeful signs pointing toward real unity. For what are these elements? Not dead
remnants of the past but powerful means by which God works. Questions may and must be
raised about the validity and purity of teaching and sacramental life, but there can be no
question that such dynamic elements of Church life justify the hope that the Churches
which maintain them will be led into fuller truth. It is through the ecumenical
conversation that this recognition of truth is facilitated.
6) The member Churches of the Council are willing to consult together in seeking to
learn of the Lord Jesus Christ what witness He would have them to bear to the world in His
Name.
Since the very raison d'tre of the Church is to witness to Christ, Churches
cannot meet together without seeking from their common Lord a common witness before the
world. This will not always be possible. But when it proves possible thus to speak or act
together, the Churches can gratefully accept it as God's gracious gift that in spite of
their disunity He has enabled them to render one and the same witness and that they may
thus manifest something of the unity, the purpose of which is precisely "that the
world may believe," and that they may "testify that the Father has sent the Son
to be the Saviour of the world."
7) A further practical implication of common membership in the World Council is
that the member Churches should recognize their solidarity with each other, render
assistance to each other in case of need, and refrain from such actions as are
incompatible with brotherly relationships.
Within the Council the Churches seek to deal with each other with a brotherly concern.
This does not exclude extremely frank speaking to each other, in which within the Council
the Churches ask each other searching questions and face their differences. But this is to
be done for the building up the Body of Christ. This excludes a purely negative attitude
of one Church to another. The positive affirmation of each Church's faith is to be
welcomed, but actions incompatible with brotherly relationships towards other member
Churches defeat the very purpose for which the Council has been created. On the contrary,
these Churches should help each other in removing all obstacles to the free exercise of
the Church's normal functions. And whenever a Church is in need or under persecution, it
should be able to count on the help of the other Churches through the Council.
8) The member Churches enter into spiritual relationships through which they seek
to learn from each other and to give help to each other in order that the Body of Christ
may be built up and that the life of the Churches may be renewed.
It is the common teaching of the Churches that the Church as the temple of God is at
the same time a building which has been built and a building which is being built. The
Church has, therefore, aspects which belong to its very structure and essence and cannot
be changed. But it has other aspects, which are subject to change. Thus the life of the
Church, as it expresses itself in its witness to its own members and to the world, needs
constant renewal.
The Churches can and should help each other in this realm by a mutual exchange of
thought and of experience. This is the significance of the study-work of the World Council
and of many other of its activities. There is no intention to impose any particular
pattern of thought or life upon the Churches. But whatever insight has been received by
one or more Churches is to be made available to all the Churches for the sake of the
"building up of the Body of Christ."
None of these positive assumptions, implied in the existence of the World Council, is
in conflict with the teachings of the member Churches. We believe therefore that no Church
need fear that by entering into the World Council it is in danger of denying its heritage.
As the conversation between the Churches develops and as the Churches enter into closer
contact with each other, they will no doubt have to face new decisions and problems. For
the Council exists to break the deadlock between the Churches. But in no case can or will
any Church be pressed to take a decision against its own conviction or desire. The
Churches remain wholly free in the action which, on the basis of their convictions and in
the light of their ecumenical contacts, they will or will not take.
A very real unity has been discovered in ecumenical meetings which is, to all who
collaborate in the World Council, the most precious element of its life. It exists and we
receive it again and again as an unmerited gift from the Lord. We praise God for this
foretaste of the unity of His People and continue hopefully with the work to which He has
called us together. For the Council exists to serve the Churches as they prepare to meet
their Lord Who knows only one flock.
|