committee on ecumenical relations may 2016 on ecumenical relations may 2016 proposed deliverance the...

COMMITTEE ON ECUMENICAL RELATIONSMMaay 2016y 2016

PROPOSED DELIVERANCEThe General Assembly:1. Receive the report2. (a) Welcome the report of the Joint Study Group of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland. (Section

2.1) (Appendix I)(b) Approve the Columba Declaration, consisting of mutual Acknowledgements and Commitments, as set out at

paragraph 39 of the report. (Appendix I)(c) Instruct the Ecumenical Relations Committee, in partnership with the Council for Christian Unity, to oversee

the implementation of the Commitments in the Columba Declaration and set up the Contact Group proposedby it ensuring that the Scottish Episcopal Church is invited to appoint a representative to attend itsmeetings. (Appendix I, para 39(b))

3. Welcome the initiatives to strengthen relations with the Scottish Episcopal Church. (Section 2.5)4. (a) Note the joint response of the Joint Commission on Doctrine to the World Council of Churches’ Faith and

Order document The Church: Towards a Common Vision. (Section 3.1)(b) Express appreciation for the leadership of Rev Dr Alan Falconer and the Most Rev Mario Conti in the Joint

Commission on Doctrine.5. Note the joint report of the talks with the United Free Church. (Section 4.1)6. Welcome the joint initiative between Councils and others on the World Council of Churches’ Mission statement

Together Towards Life and commend the intention to work on this ecumenically. (Section 5.1)7. Note that the Church of Scotland is now recognised under the Sharing of Church Buildings Act (1969) for the

purposes of sharing church buildings in England. (Section 6.3)8. Note that the congregation of The Border Kirk is seeking a Sharing of Church Buildings Agreement with the

Methodist Church in Longtown. (Section 6.3)9. Approve the delegates to Assemblies, Synods and Conferences of the other churches, as detailed in Appendix II.10. Note the appointment of representatives to ecumenical bodies as detailed in Appendix III.

REPORTCrossing Borders

1. Here we have no lasting city but we are looking forthe city that is to come (Hebrews 13:14, NRSV).1.1 We live within borders. Shaped by history andpersonal experience, with the constraints of geographyand nationality, culture, imagination, faith, borders in their

many aspects are always with us. Borders are defining andlimiting boundaries. Yet they also are subject to changeand challenge. While on the one hand there is a measureof security and identity within borders, on the other theypresent a potential locus of tension, and excuse even forviolence.

12

1.2 A border in our way gives us a choice. We can eitherseek to cross it, being ready to exchange our differences,to learn from one another and to deepen understanding,finding common ground on which to make commoncause, or we can hold back from making that crossing.Reaching across borders opens up a process ofdiscernment. Some borders need to become porous.Some need to be dismantled altogether.

1.3 Consider, then, the implications of this within the onechurch of Jesus Christ. If churches which are defineddenominationally allow themselves to be bound bynarrow denominationalism, or those which find theiridentity within national borders cling to absoluteterritoriality, then questions and challenges arise. For howthen can we hold on to the Church being in its very nature“one, holy, catholic and apostolic”? The calling implied bythese historic marks of the church provides the foundationof the ecumenical movement.

1.4 As people on the way, we are led on a Christianjourney which is to cross borders. For centuries, differentdenominations have defined themselves over and againstother expressions of the one Christian faith. Today,dividing lines are redrawn as new tensions anddisagreements arise. Faith, however, summons us to agreater vision. We give thanks for ecumenical structuresin place that allow us to cross borders more easily in ourchurch relating, structures that draw the churchestogether in a commitment to one another as they seekthe unity that is Christ’s gift. As we look beyond ourselvesto the challenges facing the world today, we recallArchbishop Desmond Tutu's words: “The problems of theworld are too big for a divided church”.

1.5 So much of church life this past year has properlybeen focused on the movement of people across bordersas they seek a new life away from the violence andinjustice of war and terror. Only a co-ordinated,ecumenical response can hope to meet the needs of somany desperate people. As Councils have co-operated andchurches have engaged with one another at national and

international levels, we moved across the borders ofdenomination and of faith in order to respond to humanneed. The speed with which these responses were madewas possible in part, at least, because of the history ofpatient, ecumenical dialogue that has been on-going formany years.

1.6 With over 100 years of ecumenical engagementbehind us, we have learned that our understanding of thefaith is deeply enriched as we relate to people whose faithhas been nurtured in other contexts than our own. Wehave discovered that doctrinal difference does not meanwe cannot work together in addressing major issuesaffecting the future of the world and all that is dependenton it for life. As we seek a common vision of the Church, wetalk and we listen to one another, sharing personal storiesas well as stories shaped within different communities offaith. In this way, we deepen our understanding of oneanother, make the boundaries between us more porousand increase the scope for worship and co-operation asfellow travellers on a pilgrimage of faith. The EcumenicalRelations Committee report this year bears testimony tothe search for Christian unity in the crossing of borders,both national and denominational.

2. Crossing Borders with Anglicans2.1 A Joint Report with the Church of EnglandThe Committee brings a major joint report with the Churchof England. It is the result of continued discussions whichhave built on the Fellowship in the Gospel report of 2010(http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/resources/subjects/ecumenical-resources). There have been annualmeetings, which, for a time, included the ScottishEpiscopal Church, reflecting on the extent to which weshare a common faith upon which it is possible, formally,to recognise each other within the Church of Jesus Christ.For a time, the Scottish Episcopal Church was a fullparticipant in the conversations until, in 2013, it acceptedobserver status. The formal acknowledgement of acommon faith provides the basis for recognition ofministries, though not yet the reconciliation of ministries.This is, however, an historic step forward in the

12/2 ECUMENICAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE

http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/resources/subjects/ecumenical-resources


relationship between the two churches and gives atheological foundation to the increasing amount of co-operation that goes on as we share the challenges andopportunities of having national responsibilities north andsouth of the Border. The report is printed in Appendix Iand bears similarities to other joint declarations of faithbetween Anglican and Reformed churches. It provides aseries of affirmations and commitments, The ColumbaDeclaration, that will ensure a forward momentum as therelationship between the two churches deepens. TheGeneral Assembly is asked to welcome the report and tosupport the setting up of a Contact Group to oversee thefulfilling of the commitments set out in the Declaration.

2.2 The Church of England Ecumenical RelationsMeasure, Canon B44Last year, the Committee reported that the Church ofEngland had designated the Church of Scotland under theprovision of the Church of England (Ecumenical Relations)Measure, which enables the Church of England to applythe ecumenical canons (Canons B43 and B44) in itsrelations with the Church of Scotland. It is intended toexplore further with the Church of England the optionsthat could be opened up by the ecumenical canons,including Canon B44, the more far-reaching of the twocanons, as they apply within the dioceses of the Churchof England. It is hoped that this will be a three wayconversation which includes the Scottish Episcopal Church

2.3 Biennial MeetingThe biennial meeting of representatives with the Churchof England continues, with the Church of Scotland hostingthe next meeting in the autumn of 2016.

2.4 Second Anglican-Reformed International DialogueIn 1984, the then World Alliance of Reformed Churchesand the Anglican Communion published a report, God’sReign and Our Unity, that has been recognised as asignificant step in the search for a common understandingin Anglican-Reformed relationships. A second dialoguestarted this past year. The Very Rev Professor Iain Torrancewas invited by the World Communion of Reformed

Churches (WCRC) to be part of the dialogue. The MostRev David Chillingworth, Primus of the Scottish EpiscopalChurch, is Co-Chair in the Anglican Communiondelegation. The dialogue began with a study on the natureof communion (koinonia).

2.5 Relations with the Scottish Episcopal ChurchThe Committee is conscious that there has been no formalbilateral links with the Scottish Episcopal Church and thatrelations between the two churches remain coloured bythe long history from the Scottish Reformation. Much thatis valuable happens informally between our churches,both at local and national levels and, of course, we aremembers together in Action of Churches Together inScotland (ACTS), Churches Together in Britain and Ireland(CTBI) and the World Council of Churches (WCC). As apositive first step to exploring closer relationships andcrossing some of the borders that relate to historicalmemories, the Ecumenical Relations Committee and theInter Church Relations Committee of the ScottishEpiscopal Church held a joint meeting in June 2015. Thisproved to be a very valuable sharing of information. Areaswere identified for further work that would enable adeepening of relationships and there was a commitmentto repeat the exercise in 2016. A conference early in 2017on the theme Semper Reformanda, as part of the markingof the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, is beingplanned by the Scottish Episcopal Church together withthe Joint Commission on Doctrine.

Constructive discussions took place in the early part of2016 and a date for a second joint meeting of the twoCommittees was set for 12 May in order to explore waysin which the relationship between the two churches couldbe developed within the Scottish context. The purposeof the meeting was specifically to bring forward concreteproposals for a way forward in a strengthened relationship.

2.6 So, borders geographical, theological and historicalare being crossed with Anglican churches, locally,nationally and internationally, as we seek together to makevisible the unity of the Church of Jesus Christ. This is both

ECUMENICAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE 12/3

12

a building on the growing convergence of doctrinalunderstanding that is developing in the internationalcontext and a response to the needs of the world in whichwe are set, needs which demands of us local co-operationin witnessing to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

3. Crossing Borders with the RomanCatholic Church3.1 The Joint Commission on DoctrineThe Joint Commission on Doctrine this year concluded ajoint response to the Faith & Order Commission’sconvergence text, The Church: Towards a Common Vision.It was the view of the Joint Commission that anecumenical document required an ecumenical responsein addition to the denominational response sought andreported to last year’s General Assembly. The Faith & OrderCommission of the World Council of Churches has hadfull Roman Catholic participation for many years, so thedocument was truly the fruit of the widest ecumenicalthinking. Pulling together a joint response proved a verychallenging and, in the end, satisfying exercise.The joint response can be found athttp://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/resources/subjects/ecumenical-resources. It was submitted to boththe WCC’s Faith & Order Commission and the PontificalCouncil for Promoting Christian Unity. It was also sharedin a four nations’ conference organised by ChurchesTogether in Britain and Ireland where it was received withmuch interest. It is a testimony to the distance the Churchof Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church have travelledin their relationship to one another that such anecumenical response was possible.

3.2 The Church: Towards a Common Vision provided thebasis for the next in a series of conferences run by theJoint Commission on Doctrine. Dame Mary Tanner, formerModerator of the Faith & Order Commission, gave apositive summary of the document, pointing out whereshe felt significant advances had been made in aconverging understanding of the Church and highlightingwhere more work was required. The conference then usedthe document as a launching pad for reflection on Sharing

Future Church. Professor William Storrar, Director of theCenter of Theological Inquiry in Princeton, an ecumenicalinstitute for interdisciplinary research in the field ofreligion, spoke of the relationship between church andstate with reference to the commonweal, the commongood. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, Roman CatholicArchbishop of Dublin, spoke of the relation betweenchurch and state and Sr Geraldine Smyth of the IrishSchool of Ecumenics reflected on the role of the churchin the healing of memories. Through conferences like thisone, the Joint Commission seeks to share more widely thefruits of its studies as the relationship between the twochurches continues to deepen through theological studyand shared information. Papers from the conference werepublished in One in Christ, volume 49, no. 2 (December2015) (http://www.oneinchrist.org.uk/).

The conference marked the end of an era. The Rev Dr AlanFalconer and the Most Rev Mario Conti came to the end oftheir time as co-conveners. Between them, they broughtan immense wealth of knowledge and experience, DrFalconer, as a former Director of the WCC’s Faith & OrderCommission at the time when the process that led to theformulation of The Church: Towards a Common Vision wasbegun, and Archbishop Conti as former Co-Moderator ofthe Joint Working Group between the WCC and theVatican. They were generous in sharing their experienceand the work of the Joint Commission was placed firmlyin the context of the wider ecumenical doctrinalconversations. They placed the work of the JointCommission within the framework of the healing ofmemories, part of the intentional crossing of historicalborders that have defined our understanding of oneanother as churches in opposition to one another overthe centuries. And so began the series of conferences andseminars to mark significant occasions – the CalvinQuincentenary (2009), the 450th anniversary of the ScottishReformation (2010), the Year of Faith which included the50th anniversaries of the Second Vatican Council and thepublication of the seminal consensus document Baptism,Eucharist and Ministry (2013) and the reflection on TheChurch: Towards a Common Vision (2015). The General




http://www.oneinchrist.org.uk/

Assembly is invited to acknowledge the contribution ofthese two distinguished churchmen in their patient,doctrinal wrestling in search of visible unity in the Church.

3.3 Reformed-Catholic 4th International DialogueThe broader, international context of dialogue withinScotland is also affirmed in the 4th International Reformed-Catholic Dialogue which has now reached its conclusion.The Rev Dr Lindsay Schluter was part of the Reformeddelegation and she became part of the drafting group. Thefinal meeting of the dialogue group was held in the Springof 2015. The focus of the dialogue has been “Justificationand Sacramentality: The Christian Community as an Agentof Justice”. The final report will be presented to the GeneralCouncil of the World Communion of Reformed Churches(WCRC) in 2017.

4. Crossing Borders within the Reformedfamily4.1 The United Free ChurchThe Committee on Ecumenical Relations has been clearthat with the formal stepping back of the United FreeChurch from the Covenant that was signed in 2006,dialogue was the only way forward. A joint report has beenagreed following the series of dialogues facilitated by theGeneral Secretary of the World Communion of ReformedChurches.

Following the decision of the United Free Church’sGeneral Assembly in 2014 to take steps to bring theCovenant between the two churches to an end, thetwo churches have been engaged in a process ofdiscussion facilitated by the General Secretary of theWorld Communion of Reformed Churches, RevChris Ferguson. The third of these meetings tookplace at the beginning of May 2015. Each Churchspoke about how it understood the situation whilethe other listened. The representatives eachcommented on the depth of pain and the concern forthe peace and unity that was present in each context.It was agreed to meet again in September 2015.

In the meantime, both Assemblies took place. TheGeneral Assembly of the Church of Scotland receiveda report in which the majority of Presbyteries hadsupported the report of the Legal QuestionsCommittee which endorsed the traditionalunderstanding of same-sex relations whilepermitting kirk sessions, at the beginning of avacancy and before any candidates were heard, todecide to hear people who were living in civilpartnerships. The Assembly voted narrowly in favourof extending this provision to those who were insame-sex marriages but agreed to send this backdown under the Barrier Act.

In response to the decisions of the Church ofScotland’s General Assembly, the General Assemblyof the United Free Church agreed formally to end theCovenant. It also agreed to “support the [EcumenicalRelations] Committee’s endeavour to maintainpositive relationships with the Church of Scotlandupon which a brighter future for Christian witness inScotland can be secured.”

The two churches reported on their Assemblies whenthey met in September. The United Free Church alsoreported that it was in the middle of a review ofecumenical relationships and a report was expectedto come to their Ecumenical Relations Committee inJanuary.

With the Covenant ended, the question was whatmore might be meant by the desire for “positiverelationships with the Church of Scotland” that mightbe distinctive of the relationship between the twochurches. It was acknowledged that there is a senseof kinship between the two churches which carrieswarmth, emotion and respect.

With various possibilities aired, it was agreed to waituntil the United Free Church review had reported andthe direction proposed had been taken to theGeneral Assembly for endorsement. The Church ofScotland would continue in the process it had set


12

which would answer some of the still unansweredquestions. In the meantime, contact would bemaintained through other channels where the twochurches are involved together with others.

It was agreed to come together again following theGeneral Assemblies of 2016.

4.2 The Presbyterian Church in IrelandThe Committee on Ecumenical Relations regretted thedecision of the General Assembly of the PresbyterianChurch in Ireland not to send its Moderator to the GeneralAssembly of the Church of Scotland in 2016. As with theUnited Free Church, it is the belief of the Committee thatwhen new tensions arise between churches, it is dialoguethat can provide the space for speaking and for listeninguntil a way forward becomes clear. That being the case,the Convener and Secretary, together with the PrincipalClerk and the Convener of the Assembly ArrangementsCommittee, sought a meeting with equivalentrepresentatives in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.

A meeting took place in February with the Principal Clerkof the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and the convenersof the General Council, the Assembly Business Committeeand the Church Relations Committee. The concerns ofeach church were shared. As well as valuing the customarypresence of Moderators at each other’s General Assembly,from a Church of Scotland perspective, it was felt to beimportant that someone not only heard the debate in ourAssembly but was also able to engage in informalconversations with people within the Assembly in orderbetter to understand the reasons for the decisions taken.The suggestion that an invitation might be sent to appointan observer was, however, felt to be against the spirit ofthe decision of the Presbyterian Church’s GeneralAssembly. Assurance was given that the Church ofScotland’s Moderator would be warmly welcomed at thePresbyterian Church in Ireland’s General Assembly.

Ways in which the two churches currently co-operate werenoted and it was hoped that these would continue. Therewas no desire to see the long, historic relationship

between the two churches end. However, it was clear thatdebate in the 2016 Church of Scotland General Assemblyon ministers in same sex marriages could lead to furtherunease within the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. It wasalso the case that the Church Relations Committee hadbeen charged to bring a review of relations with otherchurches to the General Assembly of 2017. It was,therefore, agreed that representatives of the Ecumenicaland Church Relations Committees would meet in theautumn of 2016 to reflect further on the futurerelationship between the two churches.

5. Crossing Borders within the Church ofScotland5.1 In general, the Ecumenical Relations Committee hasrepresentation on all the Councils of the Church. It valuesthis connection across the work of the Church of Scotlandwhich enables co-operative working on ecumenicalmatters. It made a strong case for the setting up of theTheological Forum with a link into the EcumenicalRelations Committee. In addition, there are Councilsworking together on Together Towards Life: Mission &Evangelism in Changing Landscapes, the MissionStatement of the World Council of Churches, with its focuson mission from the margins.

It is hoped that through this collaborative process, theChurch of Scotland will work with other churches toprovide resources that will encourage renewed thinkingabout the nature of mission in local communities acrossthe country.

While that is being done, a copy of the report and a studyguide can be sourced through the WCC website:http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/publications/together-towards-life-mission-and-evangelism-in-changing-landscapes.

6. Crossing Borders locally6.1 Local congregations continue to cross bordersbetween different churches. Much of the worship andactivity goes on unheralded but is bread and butter to


http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/publications/together-towards-life-mission-and-evangelism-in-changing-landscapes



the development of good ecumenical relations withincountless communities across Scotland. As with allrelationships, the need to talk and to listen, to share storiesand deepen understanding and appreciation of differenceunderpins all good local relations.

6.2 Local Ecumenical PartnershipsLivingston United Parish Church celebrated its 50th

anniversary in January 2016. Rev Canon Brian Hardy who,together with the late Rev James Maitland, was appointedto the new parish when the churches decided on anecumenical experiment for a new town, was the guestpreacher at the service. While the Parish has had manydifficulties to face over the years as it pioneered the way asan ecumenical parish and pushed at the denominationalboundaries for new ways of doing things, it was good tobe able to give thanks for 50 years of ecumenical witnessin Livingston.

6.3 LongtownThe Church of Scotland in Carlisle and Longtown, theBorder Kirk, will be faced with the closure of its building inLongtown at the end of 2016. Planning ahead, the office-bearers explored the possibility of entering a SharedBuildings Agreement with the local Methodist Church. InJune 2015, the Church of Scotland, as a member church ofCTBI, having congregations in England, was added to thelist of denominations listed under the Sharing of ChurchBuildings Act 1969, which applies only in England. This hasallowed the congregation of the Border Kirk to proceed toexplore this possibility for the future.

7. Still on pilgrimage7.1 Here we have no abiding city. Borders continue to bereached across, boundaries become porous and decisionsare taken to dismantle barriers that have becomeproblematic. The movement of churches and churchpeople across borders affirms that we are a pilgrim people,responding to change, and seeking always to make visiblethe unity of the church in a world that is torn apart bydivisions of so many kinds. We are still on pilgrimage, thepilgrimage designated by the WCC as a pilgrimage of

justice and peace. Always, the dialogue goes on as wewalk together in faith, listening to one another and sharingour stories as we go. The listening is as important as thespeaking. Without listening deeply, there can be nounderstanding and with no shared understanding thereis no movement. The examples of dialogue in this year’sreport are all based on careful, and sometimes difficult,speaking and listening. The key text from the WCC, TheChurch: Towards a Common Vision and Together TowardsLife, are the product of many years of such deep,ecumenical conversation. These texts, in turn, are shapingour ecumenical conversations at this time, both with otherchurches and between departments, and act as anencouragement to us all in our speaking with and ourlistening to others.

7.2 Crossing borders remains at the core of all we seekto do in the Ecumenical Relations Committee throughCouncils and committees, in ecumenical bodies and indialogue with other churches. Much is at stake. There hasnever been an age more needy of a lived example ofpeople who are called to reaching beyond difference tothe building of peace-filled communities: communitieswhere security is found in reaching out beyond theboundaries that define us, not for our own sake but so thatall may find life in all its fullness.

In the name of the Committee

ALISON P MCDONALD, CovenerPETER H DONALD, Vice-CovenerSHEILAGH M KESTING, Secretary


12

APPENDIX IGrowth in Communion, Partnership in MissionReport from the Church of England – Church of

Scotland Joint Study Group

PREFACE FROM THE CO-CHAIRS

1. The relationship between the Church of England andthe Church of Scotland has roots reaching deep intoour shared past and connecting us across bordersthat are at once geographical, theological andcultural. Our continuing parallel roles as the churches‘of’ our two nations give us plenty of commonground in the present. Partnership between us isstrong and multi-faceted, based on the common callof Christ to share in a common mission.

2. Given that background – set out in Chapter I of thisreport, ‘Common Mission and Common Context’ –why should we need the formal agreement of theColumba Declaration contained in its final chapter?The answer to that question is summarised atparagraph 14. Our hope is that joint affirmation byour two churches of the Columba Declaration would:• ‘Affirm and strengthen our relationship at a time

when it is likely to be particularly critical in thelife of the United Kingdom’;

• ‘Provide an effective framework for coordinatingpresent partnership activities and forFosteringnew initiatives’;

• ‘Enable us to speak and act together moreeffectively in the face of themissionarychallenges of our generation.’

3. Each of these points is important. Together, theyinclude concern for the social and political well-beingof all the communities we serve, concern for ensuringthat collaboration between our churches remainseffective, well-coordinated and creative, and concernfor developing our capacity for joint initiatives in asituation where the scale of the missionary task

underlines the foolishness of trying to face it entirelyalone.

4. Chapter III of the report, ‘Growing in Partnership forMission’, sets out four areas for future work that couldbe opened up by the Columba Declaration: sharingacross our borders; mutual recognition andreconciliation of ministries; nation, country,government and church; and mission andecclesiology. Much has been done, much is beingdone – but there is also so much more that could bedone

5. All of this rests on the careful articulation of commontheological ground set out in Chapter II, ‘EstablishingShared Foundations: Agreement in Faith’. This is not amatter of wading into uncharted ecumenical waters.As the report explains, both the content of thischapter and the Columba Declaration itself areclosely modelled on existing ecumenicalagreements, including the Reuilly CommonStatement between the Anglican Churches of Britainand Ireland and the French Lutheran and ReformedChurches.

6. We believe that approval of the Columba Declarationby our two churches will represent a significant stepin the long history of their relationship, one thataffirms the place we have come to and opens up newpossibilities for the future. The new arrangements weare proposing are modest and ‘light touch’: a smallcontact group meeting yearly and reporting to theecumenical bodies within each church. The newpossibilities that energise us are not about noveldoctrinal statements or additional institutionalstructures, but about growing in communion andpartnership in mission, so that people may be drawnto the good news of peace, the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Rt Rev Dr Peter ForsterThe Rev Dr John L McPake

January 2016


CHAPTER ICommon Mission and Common Context

(a) Common Calling

1. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ calls hisChurch, empowered by the Spirit, in every time andplace to bear witness to the gospel of his Son, butthat one Church is always called in a particulargeographical and historical context. The Church ofEngland and the Church of Scotland are calledprincipally to mission within different nationalspheres – but also called in the shared context ofthe historical, political and geographical reality of theUnited Kingdom.1 That diversity and unity of contexthas a particular significance at this time in our historyin the wake of the Referendum of 2014 and theGeneral Election result of 2015. It is too early to saywhat the long term impact of recent events will befor our nations, but they give focus to our shared andoverlapping mission and the need to bear propheticwitness to our unity in Christ that must alwaystranscend any national identities.

(b) Common Context: A Shared Space

2. Responses to the Referendum of 2014 and to theGeneral Election of 2015 will take some time tounfold. It is possible that they could lead to theconsideration of changes to constitutionalarrangements that would in time affect the residentsof England as well as Scotland.2 They are likely alsoto be implicated in wider debates about nationalidentity and appropriate forms of independence,

1 For the sake of clarity and consistency, this report refers throughoutto England and Scotland as ‘nations’ and to the United Kingdom as a‘country’. This use of terminology is not intended to convey any particularperspective or point of view on debates regarding Scottishindependence.2 See on this subject the findings of the McKay Commission, UKGovernment, Report of the Commission on the Consequences ofDevolution for the House of Commons (London: UK Government, 2013).

including the debate about the United Kingdom’smembership of the European Union. Whatever theoutcome of these debates, we may anticipate thatthe Church of Jesus Christ within the shared space ofthe United Kingdom will wish to reflect upon thoseconsequences and to articulate our shared faith interms which engage our fellow citizens. While thisreport is intended to contribute to that, thedistinctive relationships, past and present, whichhave obtained for us between church, governmentand society place a particular responsibility upon ourtwo churches in this respect.

3. There is then a particular social and political situationwithin which this report has been written and inwhich it will initially be read. It is important howeverto affirm that the process shaping it was nottriggered by these events and associated concerns.Rather, our shared purpose in offering this reportflows from our concern to affirm that, together withother churches within the United Kingdom, weparticipate in a common mission, in all its varied andever changing contexts, and to respond to thespecific context that faces us in mission today. Whatunites us as churches immeasurably transcends theboundaries of our two particular nations and remindsus of the imperative of responding to the prayer ofour Lord Jesus Christ that we ‘may all be one’ (John17:21).

(c) Common History: A Shared Journey

4. Our common context is shaped by a commonhistory.3 The history of Christianity in Britain is onein which border crossings between what are nowScotland and England have played a significant rolefor many centuries. Partnership and mutualexchange in mission are already evident in the time

3 For a fuller treatment of this, see Our Fellowship in the Gospel: Reportsto the General Assembly (Edinburgh: Church of Scotland, 2010), chapter2, ‘Who Are we? Introducing our Churches to Each Other.’


12

of Columba, for instance. Scotland and Englandexperienced contrasting but intersecting responsesto the European Reformations in the sixteenthcentury. These had a decisive effect on the politicalupheavals of the seventeenth century and the newconstitutional framework put in place in theeighteenth. In the nineteenth century, QueenVictoria’s decision to receive the sacrament at CrathieChurch while at Balmoral symbolized the distinctiverelationship to the monarch of both churches, as wellas the shared responsibilities of these churches forthe country she governed.4

5. It should therefore be no surprise that when the windof the twentieth-century ecumenical movementbegan to be felt, the two churches considered whereit might be leading them. The Church of Scotlandhad already in 1922 noted its ‘duty as a Church ofChrist to give sympathetic and serious considerationto the responsible proposals’ in the Lambeth Appealto All Christian People of 1920,5 and in the early 1930sthere was ‘free and unrestricted conference’ (as it wasexpressed at the time) between the Church ofEngland and the Church of Scotland.6 After theSecond World War (1939-1945), the GeneralAssembly of the Church of Scotland gaveconsideration to a call by the Archbishop ofCanterbury for a renewed effort to achieve unity,7

and a further series of conferences between theChurch of England and the Church of Scotland wasconvened from 1950-1953. These conversationsessentially affirmed the position reached in 1934 and

4 Owen Chadwick, ‘The sacrament at Crathie 1873’, in Stewart J Brownand George Newlands, eds., Scottish Christianity in the Modern World(Edinburgh: T & T Clark International, 2001), 177.5 G.K.A. Bell (ed.), Documents on Christian Unity 1920-1924 (Oxford: OUP,1924), 178-179.6 Reports to General Assembly (Edinburgh: Church of Scotland, 1932),844-846; G.K.A. Bell (ed.), Documents on Christian Unity 1930-1948(Oxford: OUP, 1948), 123-132.7 Reports to General Assembly (Edinburgh: Church of Scotland, 1947),48-51.

agreed that future conversations should continuewith the Scottish Episcopal Church and thePresbyterian Church of England becoming fullparticipants.

6. Quadrilateral conversations then took place betweenthe Church of England, the Church of Scotland, theScottish Episcopal Church and the PresbyterianChurch of England between 1954 and 1957. Thereport of these conversations was published asRelations between Anglican and PresbyterianChurches.8 The proposals contained therein did notfinally commend themselves to the Church ofScotland,9 albeit that it was agreed that a furtherseries of conversations be initiated. These took placebetween 1962 and 1966, and the report waspublished in The Anglican-PresbyterianConversations.10 The reception of this latter reportmay be said to mark the end of the sustained attemptto move towards unity that had been initiated in1932,11 with both churches turning in the later 1960stowards ecumenical conversations about unionprincipally within their national contexts.

7. At the same time, however, both Churches were alsoparticipating in emerging international dialogues,including that between the Anglican Communionand the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. Thisled to the setting up of the Anglican-ReformedInternational Commission, which in 1984 producedthe influential report, God’s Reign and Our Unity.12 Itembodies a rich resource for continued engagement

8 Relations between Anglican and Presbyterian Churches (London:SPCK, 1957).9 Reports to the General Assembly (Edinburgh: Church of Scotland,1959), 68-80.10 The Anglican-Presbyterian Conversations (Edinburgh & London: SaintAndrew Press & SPCK, 1966).11 I. Henderson, Power without Glory (London: Hutchinson, 1967).12 God’s Reign and Our Unity (Edinburgh & London: Saint Andrew Press& SPCK, 1984), the report of the Anglican-Reformed InternationalCommission appointed by the Anglican Consultative Council and the


between representatives of the Anglican andReformed traditions such as the Church of Englandand the Church of Scotland. With reference to theseparation between churches within the Anglicanand Reformed traditions, the report affirms:

The reason why we can never rest content inour separation is the unlimited grace of God theFather, who has accepted us in the beloved Sonand bound us together in his own life by thepower of the Holy Spirit – a life in which we arecalled to reflect both the unity and diversity ofthe Godhead. If we then refuse to accept oneanother in Christ we flout the grace by which hehas accepted us and by which we live. (s.25)13

(d) Common Mission: A Shared Calling

8. Perhaps it was something of that discontent that ledto renewed ‘faith and order’ conversations betweenthe Church of England and the Church of Scotlandat the start of the third millennium. Thoseconversations led to the publication of a report bythe Joint Study Group in 2010, Our Fellowship in theGospel, which received careful attention at both theChurch of England’s General Synod and the Church ofScotland’s General Assembly.14

9. One of the principal themes within Our Fellowship inthe Gospel is that of our “Partnership in the Gospel”which sought to establish a basis for our shared workin our ‘koinonia in the gospel’ (Philippians 1:5). Itstates:

World Alliance of Reformed Churches which met, following a preliminarymeeting in 1978, between 1981 and 1984.13 God’s Reign and Our Unity, 16.14 Our Fellowship in the Gospel: Summary Report of a Joint Study Groupbetween the Church of England and the Church of Scotland (GS 1792)(London: General Synod, 2010); Reports to the General Assembly(Edinburgh: Church of Scotland, 2010), 6.3/14-6.3/19. For subsequentreporting within the Church of Scotland, see; Ibid., (2011), 7.3/6; Ibid.,(2012), 7.3/8; Ibid., (2013), 7.3/9 & Ibid., (2014), 7.3/8.

One aspect of the idea which is particularlyuseful for ecumenical thinking today … is itsembodiment of the crossing of boundaries …This practical crossing of boundaries, in thecreation of active partnerships betweenworshipping communities, may be of particularsignificance to the relationship between ourtwo churches as we seek to build a newpartnership in mission across the Border.

10. An important question for relations between theChurch of England and the Church of Scotland hasbeen: is there a particular ‘partnership in the gospel’that pertains to our two churches specifically withinthe context of the United Kingdom? Our primarypartners have often been the other churches withinour respective nations, and, as noted above, one ofthe factors in the drawing back from formal dialoguein the 1960s was a sense that these relationshipsneeded to take priority. There has also been a relatedquestion as tohow far the Church of England andthe Church of Scotland can speak to one another asan Anglican church and a Reformed church withoutdrawing into the conversation their ‘local’ Reformedand Anglican partners. Consequently, Our Fellowshipin the Gospel recommended that the next phase ofconversations be a three-way exercise that fullyincluded the Scottish Episcopal Church. There mightalso have been a case for involving the UnitedReformed Church as another representative of theReformed tradition in England and in Scotland.

11. There is clearly a need for any development in therelationship between our two churches to proceedthrough an open and careful process of consultationwith our ecumenical partners in each of our nations.Within that process, particular attention needs to begiven to the Scottish Episcopal Church (whoseobserver has been involved in all the meetingsleading up to this report) and to the United ReformedChurch. Their responses to the proposals set out inthis report will be of great importance. There is


12

however a distinctive partnership in the gospel towhich our two Churches are called within the UnitedKingdom, rooted in our shared history and in ourparallel and overlapping roles as the churches of ourrespective nations, as sketched out in paragraphs 2-3above. Therefore, it seems appropriate to ask thequestion: how might this particular partnership bestrengthened at this specific juncture in the history ofthe United Kingdom?

(e) Formal agreement, mutual recognition andfellowship in the gospel

12. In the course of the consultations which gave rise tothis report, it was often observed that a potentiallyanomalous feature of the relationship between theChurch of England and the Church of Scotland is theabsence of any formal recognition of each other.Might such recognition strengthen our partnershipin response to the common calling to mission withwhich we began this report, across our sharedborder? That is the key question that lies behind thisreport. Its proposals rest upon an affirmative answer.

13. It is important to observe that the stalling of theformal process of seeking unity from the late 1960sand the lack of the kind of formal, mutual recognitionthat the Church of England has established throughthe Meissen, Porvoo, Fetter Lane and Reuillyagreements15 has not prevented practicalcollaboration and exchange between our twochurches. There is a rich tapestry of activity here,including:• The appointment of a senior representative

from each Church to coordinate the relationship

15 For a general summary of the ecumenical agreements entered into bythe Church of England, see M. Davie, A Guide to the Church of England(London: Mowbray, 2008), 168-192, and for a reflection on thesignificance of those agreements, see P. Fisher, ‘Symphonic Discord: ThePlace of Diversity in Unity Statements’, in P. Avis (ed.), Paths to Unity:Explorations in Ecumenical Method (London: Church House Publishing,2004), 13-28.

(one of the key recommendations of OurFellowship in the Gospel);

• The regular appointment of a Church ofScotland representative to the Church ofEngland’s General Synod, and of a Church ofEngland representative to the GeneralAssembly;

• The inclusion of a visit to the Archbishop ofCanterbury during the annual St Andrew’s-tidevisit of the Moderator of the General Assemblyto London;

• The biennial bilateral and cross-disciplinaryconsultation co-chaired for the Church ofEngland by the Archbishop of York;

• Partnership in initiating and supporting theChurches’ Mutual Credit Union, launched in2015;

• Regular exchanges between the Church ofScotland’s Church and Society Council and theChurch of England’s Mission and Public AffairsCouncil on matters of common interest andconcern;

• Drawing on one another’s resources, as forinstance in the use of a recent report for theChurch of Scotland General Assembly in theChurch of England publication, Grace andDisagreement, as both churches haveresponded to the legislation enabling same-sexmarriage;16

• Contact between the Church of Scotland’sMinistries Council and the Church of England’sMinistry Council, as for instance in the area ofFresh Expressions (as directed by the 2014General Assembly);

16 The Church of England, Grace and Disagreement: SharedConversations on Scripture, Mission and Human Sexuality, vol. 2, AReader: Writings to Resource Conversation (London: Church HousePublishing, 2014), 72-87.


• The designation of the Church of Scotlandunder the Church of England’s EcumenicalRelations Measure in 2014, which opens upmany new possibilities for sharing in ministryand mission at local level;

• The Faith and Order Conversations that were setup following the reception of Our Fellowship inthe Gospel and which have led to this report.

14. Our belief is that a formal declaration of mutualrecognition by our two churches and publiccommitment to sharing in mission, as proposed inthis report, would:• Affirm and strengthen our relationship at a time

when it is likely to be particularly critical in thelife of the United Kingdom;

• Provide an effective framework for coordinatingpresent partnership activities and for fosteringnew initiatives;

• Enable us to speak and act together moreeffectively in the face of the missionarychallenges of our generation.

15. In entering into such a formal declaration, the Churchof England can draw on several significantprecedents for formal agreements with otherchurches. These include: the Meissen Agreementwith the Protestant Church in Germany (1991),17 and,with the other British and Irish Anglican churches, thePorvoo Common Statement with Nordic and BalticLutheran churches (1993),18 and the Reuilly CommonStatement (2001).19 This report has consciously

17 The Meissen Agreement: Texts ( Lo ndon: Co uncil for Christian Unity,1992). For current information about relations under the agreement, see:https://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/work-other-churches/europe/the-meissen-agreement.asp.18 Together in Mission and Ministry: The Porvoo Common Statementwith Essays on Church and Ministry in Northern Euro pe (GS 1083)(London: Church Ho use Publishing, 1993). For current informationabout the Porvoo Communion of Churches, seehttp://www.porvoocommunion.org

sought to work in continuity with them in order tomaintain a consistency with that which had alreadybeen agreed between Anglican and Lutherans andReformed elsewhere in Europe.20

16. The set of declarations and commitments that weinvite our two churches to make is set out in thefourth and final chapter of this report. The secondchapter sets out our shared foundations of faith,which is the basis for our recognition of one anotheras part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolicChurch. The third chapter outlines our partnershipin the gospel and how we believe it can bestrengthened. We believe that these two chaptersshow why the steps proposed in the final chapter areboth fully justified and profoundly significant for ourgrowth as churches together in God’s mission on thisisland.

CHAPTER IIEstablishing Shared Foundations: Agreement in Faith

17. The mutual declarations and commitments that wepropose be made by our churches need to rest onconfidence that we share agreement in faith. Aformal, public commitment to partnership in thegospel requires assurance that our understanding ofthe gospel is held in common. That does not requireus to agree on everything – both our churches arelong accustomed to accommodating a significantdiversity of theological perspective within their ownlife – but it does mean that such agreement in faithshould be set out for review as part of thepreparation for entering into a mutual agreement.That is the purpose of this chapter.

19 Called to Witness and Service: The Reuilly Common Statement withEssays on Church, Eucharist and Ministry (GS 1329) (London: ChurchHouse Publishing, 1999).20 For this reason, references in the following chapters to ecumenicalreports are generally to those that pertain to relations between Anglican,Reformed and Lutheran churches, rather than to eg Anglican – RomanCatholic dialogue


12

https://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/work-other-churches/europe/the-meissen-agreement.asp

https://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/work-other-churches/europe/the-meissen-agreement.asp

http://www.porvoocommunion.org

18. In doing this, we draw on the agreed statementsbetween representatives of the churches of theAnglican Communion and the World Communion ofReformed Churches (paragraph 7 above), betweenthe Church of England and Reformed and LutheranChurches in Continental Europe (paragraph 15above) and between the Protestant Churches ofEurope through the Leuenberg Agreement (1973)and the Community of Protestant Churches inEurope, of which the Church of Scotland is a fullparticipant. Alongside these agreed statements mustalso be set work of the Faith and Order Commissionof the World Council of Churches, in particularBaptism, Eucharist and Ministry (BEM), and TheChurch: Towards a Common Vision, and the reportsof the Anglican and Reformed dialogues with theRoman Catholic Church. The agreement in faith setout below rests on these significant texts, and drawsparticularly on the Reuilly Common Statement.21

(a) We accept the authority of the canonicalScriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Weread the Scriptures in the course of publicworship. We believe that through the gospel,God offers eternal life to all humanity and thatthe Scriptures contain everything necessary tosalvation.22

(b) We accept the Nicene and the Apostles’ Creedsand confess the trinitarian and christologicaldogmas to which the early Councils of theChurch testify. That is, we believe that Jesus ofNazareth is true God and true Man, as set outin the formula of the Council of Chalcedon, andthat God is one God in three persons, Father,Son and Holy Spirit.23 This faith of the Church

21 Called to Witness and Service: The Reuilly Common Statement withEssays on Church, Eucharist and Ministry (GS 1329) (London: ChurchHouse Publishing, 1999), 25-29.22 Cf. Porvoo, para. 32 (a) and Leuenberg, para 1323 Meissen, para 15(ii); cf. Leuenberg, para 12.

through the ages is borne witness to in thehistoric formularies of our churches: for theChurch of England, the Thirty-Nine Articles ofReligion (1571), The Book of Common Prayer(1662) and the Ordinal (1662); for the Churchof Scotland, Articles Declaratory of theConstitution of the Church of Scotland (1926),the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647),which is the principal subordinate standard offaith, and the Basis of Union (1929). This faithhas to be proclaimed afresh in every generation.

(c) We believe and proclaim the gospel that inJesus Christ God loves and redeems the world.We are thankful for the renewed understandingof the gospel of salvation that was engenderedby the sixteenth century Reformations(paragraph 4 above). We ‘share a commonunderstanding of God’s justifying grace, i.e. thatwe are accounted righteous and are maderighteous before God only by grace throughfaith because of the merits of our Lord andSaviour Jesus Christ, and not on account of ourworks or merit… Both our traditions affirm thatjustification leads and must lead to “goodworks”; authentic faith issues in love.’24 Wereceive the Holy Spirit who renews our heartsand equips us for service and calls us to goodworks. As justification and sanctification areaspects of the same divine act, so also livingfaith and love are inseparable in the believer.25

(d) We believe that the Church is constituted andsustained by the Triune God. We believe thatthe Church is sent into the world as sign,instrument and foretaste of the kingdom ofGod.26 The Church is a divine reality, holy andtranscending present finite reality. At the sametime, being also a human institution, it shares

24 Meissen para.15 cf. Leuenberg paras 7, 9 and 10.25 Porvoo, para 32 (c); cf. Leuenberg, para 10.


all the ambiguity and frailty of the humancondition, and is always called to repentance,reform and renewal.27

(e) We believe that the Church is called to theworship of God in Spirit and in truth. Ourcommon commitment to the declaration ofGod’s saving word in our worship hascontributed to overlapping traditions of thereading of Scripture and a rich biblicalspirituality expressed in a number of commonprayers, canticles, hymns and metrical psalms.

(f ) We believe that through baptism with water inthe name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Godunites the one baptized with the death andresurrection of Jesus Christ, initiates into theOne Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, andconfers the gracious gift of new life in theSpirit.28 By the power of the Holy Spirit Christcalls the baptized to a new life of faith, to dailyrepentance, and discipleship.29 We adhere tothe practice of baptism as set out in Baptism,Eucharist and Ministry: ‘[b]oth the baptism ofbelievers and the baptism of infants take placein the Church as the community of faith. Whenone who can answer for himself or herself is

26 Meissen, para 15 (vii); cf. GROU, paras 29-34 and The Church of JesusChrist: The Contribution of the Reformation towards EcumenicalDialogue on Church Unity, Chapter I, section 1.27 The Church: Towards a Common Vision, paras 33-36.28 Cf. Meissen, para 15 (iv) and GROU, paras 47-61.29 Article XXV of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion affirms that baptism,together with the Lord’s Supper, are ‘Sacraments ordained of Christ ... notonly badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but ... sure witnesses,and effectual signs of grace ... by the which [God] doth work invisibly inus, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faithin him.’ The Westminster Confession affirms: ‘Baptism is a sacrament ofthe new testament, ordained by Christ, not only for the solemn admissionof the party baptized into the visible Church; but also, to be unto hima sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, ofregeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, throughJesus Christ, to walk in newness of life’ (Ch. XXVIII, I).

baptised, a personal confession of faith will bean integral part of the baptismal service. Whenan infant is baptised, the personal response willbe offered at a moment in life ... and Christiannurture is directed to the eliciting of thisconfession.’30 Confirmation is the normativecontext within which such confession is publiclymade and affirmed in our churches.

(g) We believe that the celebration of the HolyCommunion, also known as the Lord’sSupper,is the feast of the new covenant instituted byJesus Christ, in which the wordof God isproclaimed and in which Christ crucified andrisen gives his body and blood to thecommunity under the visible signs of bread andwine.31 ‘In the action of the Eucharist Christ istruly present to share his risen life with us andto unite us with himself in his self-offering tothe Father, the one full, perfect and sufficientsacrifice which he alone can offer and hasoffered once for all.’32 In this celebration, weexperience the love of God and the forgivenessof sins in Jesus Christ and proclaim his deathand resurrection until he comes again andbrings his kingdom to completion.33 HolyCommunion is no mere calling to mind of a pastevent or of its significance, but the Church’seffectual proclamation of God’s mighty acts.34

Celebrating Holy Communion, the Church isnourished, strengthened in faith and hope, andsent out for witness and service in daily life.Here, we already have a foretaste of the eternaljoy of God’s kingdom.

30 Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, para 12.31 Cf. Meissen, para 15 (v) and Leuenberg, para 15.32 God’s Reign and Our Unity p 41.33 Meissen, para. 15 (v); cf. BEM, Eucharist, para 1 and Leuenberg, para16.34 Porvoo, para 32 (h); cf. GROU, para 65.


12

(h) We believe that apostolicity belongs to thewhole Church. The apostolicity of the Church, asfidelity to the apostolic teaching and mission, ismanifested in a successio fidelium (‘successionof the faithful /community of faith’) through theages. All members of the Church are called toparticipate in its apostolic mission.35 They aretherefore given various gifts for ministry by theHoly Spirit.36 They are called to offer themselvesas a ‘living sacrifice’ and to intercede for theChurch and the salvation of the world.37 This isthe corporate priesthood of the whole peopleof God, called to ministry and service (1 Peter2.5).

(i) Within the apostolicity of the whole Church isan apostolic succession of the ministry whichserves, and is a focus of, the continuity of theChurch in its life in Christ and its faithfulness tothe words and acts of Jesus transmitted by theapostles. The ordained ministry has a particularresponsibility for witnessing to this apostolictradition and for proclaiming it afresh withauthority in every generation. Within thecommunity of the Church ordained ministriesexist to serve the ministry of the whole peopleof God. For that purpose, the ordained ministryof word and sacraments is a gift of God to theChurch.38

(j) We believe that a ministry of oversight(episkope), exercised in personal, collegial andcommunal ways, at all levels of the Church’s life,is necessary to witness to and safeguard theunity and apostolicity of the Church. Thisministry of oversight, whether exercised in

35 The Church: Towards a Common Vision, paras 23 and 25.36 Meissen, para 15 (viii); cf. Leuenberg, para. 13.37 Cf. Porvoo, para 32 (i) and BEM, para 17.38 Cf. Meissen, para 15 (viii); GROU, paras 73-7 and 91-7; BEM, Ministry,paras 41-4 and The Church of Jesus Christ, Chapter I, para. 2.5.1.2.

personal, collegial or communal ways, is aparticipation in the servant ministry of Christ.39

In such oversight, authority should becharacterized by service to the whole body,even in the context of discipline. Episkope afterthe manner of Christ calls for courageousdiscerning and self-giving love. It requiresopenness to the Spirit of truth and the radicalvalues of God’s kingdom, against which everyexercise of power must be measured. It involvesleadership by example. Its purpose is notdomination of the people of God but aneffective opening-up of the implicationsof life inChrist for the Church and the world. (cf. Mark10.42-5, John 13.1-17, 2 Corinthians 1.24,Philippians 2.1-11, 1 Peter 5.1-5).

(k) We share a common hope in the finalconsummation of the kingdom of God, andbelieve that in this eschatological perspectivewe are called to engage now in mission and towork for the furtherance of justice and peace.The obligations of the kingdom are to governour life in the Church and our concern for theworld.40 In this way the Church witnesses to thenew humanity that has its origin and fulfilmentin Jesus Christ.

19. This summary of what we believe witnesses to theextent of our common faith. We believe it provides asound basis for entering into the formal agreementbetween our churches proposed in this report andfor informing our future work together.

CHAPTER IIIGrowing in Partnership for Mission

39 Cf. Meissen, para 15 (ix) and 16, BEM, Ministry, paras 23 and 26 andGROU, para 72.40 Meissen, para 15 (x); cf. GROU, paras 18 and 43, Leuenberg, para 9, andThe Church of Jesus Christ, Chapter I, para 3.3.4.


20. Given the particular context for our relationshipsketched out in chapter I, and the fundamentalagreement in faith established in chapter II, howmight the Church of England and the Church ofScotland grow closer together to express more fullythe communion we have in Christ, that this countryand its nations may believe in him? In this chapter, weset out four key areas for future work: sharing acrossour borders; mutual recognition and reconciliation ofministries; nation, country, government and church;and mission and ecclesiology. Finally, we proposesetting up a contact group to coordinate the differentactivities that arise from our developing relationship.

(a) Sharing across our borders

21. As noted in chapter I, our primary partners in localmission will remain the other churches within ourrespective nations. Nonetheless, we believe thatthere are particular opportunities for sharing in thegospel across our borders. This section briefly reviewsthree of these: the movement of members, thesharing of ministers and congregational partnership.It does so in the light of the new opportunities thathave opened up on the side of the Church of Englandfollowing the designation of the Church of Scotlandunder the Ecumenical Relations Measure (ERM) in2014.

22. There is regular movement of people across theborder between Scotland and England, includingpeople who were resident in one becoming residentin the other, perhaps for a short time, perhaps for alife time. What happens when someone making thattransition is a member of one of our churches? Werecognise that church ‘membership’ is a complex andindeed to some extent contested notion for both ofus as churches ‘of’ our respective nations, but thatmay be one reason why those formed in one of themmight feel a particular kind of affinity in the other,even though liturgical and theological affinity mightbe found more reliably for members of the Church

of Scotland in the United Reformed Church and formembers of the Church of England in the ScottishEpiscopal Church.

23. We have absolutely no desire to discourageAnglicans who move across our shared border fromjoining Episcopalian congregations, or ReformedChristians from joining Reformed congregations.Indeed, we rejoice that the ecumenical movementhas helped to bring us to a place where we haveno hesitation in recognizing those baptized in oneanother’s churches as baptised in the one Lord JesusChrist and are able to welcome one another’scommunicants to the one table of the Lord’s Supper.Our concern is rather to ask: what might be the issuesfor someone who would like to explore crossing thatparticular ecclesial border when they cross thegeographical one? What are the formal obstacles to‘membership’ in terms of the practices of our twochurches, not least with regard to confirmation?What kind of processes are necessary to take upoffice, and to participate in governance eg by votingat meetings? And what are the cultural challengesthat might need to be negotiated without necessarilybeing immediately apparent? We believe that carefulconsideration of these questions could help both ourchurches to welcome those who decide to crossthese borders and to enable them to share in God’smission in their new context as full partners in thegospel.

24. The sharing of authorised ministers arises from thesame context of people switching residence betweenScotland and England but raises some more sharplydefined issues. There have been significantrestrictions here. Currently, it is possible for someoneordained in another church tradition to serve in theChurch of Scotland while remaining a minister oftheir own tradition, for a limited time and undersupervision.


12

25. Until recently, there has been no formal procedurefor Church of Scotland ministers to assist in publicworship within the Church of England, but thedesignation of the Church of Scotland under theEcumenical Relations Measure (ERM) changes that. Ifthe requisite permissions are obtained, a Minister ofthe Church of Scotland would, on the basis of CanonB43, be able either occasionally or regularly: topreach; to lead Services of the Word; to share inpresiding at joint services (including joint eucharisticservices); to take funerals (with the family’spermission); and to assist with baptisms andweddings (but not officiate).

26. We are also aware, however, that this remains a gooddistance from the full interchangeability of ordainedministries that many in our churches would like tosee and that could bring a welcome new dimensionto our partnership in the gospel. Interchangeability,however, rests on the mutual recognition andreconciliation of ministries, to which we turn in thenext section. Here, however, we would note thatthere is scope for work in exploring the frameworkwithin current arrangements for sharing inauthorised ministries – lay as well as ordained – andin making sure information about that is clearlycommunicated to ministers within both Churches,both those who may be crossing borders and thosewho may be receiving them.

27. Finally, in this section, we would like to mention thescope for congregational partnership where theborders have already been crossed and we sharegeographical space. We have two primary contextsin mind here. One is the small number of Church ofScotland congregations within England. The other isthe case of chaplaincies relating to both churcheslocated in the same towns and cities in mainlandEurope. In these contexts, the new situation broughtabout by designation under the ERM means thatfrom the Church of England’s perspective, theprovisions of Canon B43 set out possibilities for

sharing in ministry and mission, including a legalframework for Church of England clergy toparticipate as clergy in Church of Scotland services,subject to the regulations of the Church of Scotland.It also means that Church of England and Churchof Scotland congregations would be free to explorethe possibilities of developing an LEP arrangement,which would open the way for a more integralsharing of ministries under the provisions of CanonB44. Are there any cases where this might bebeneficial, especially once the current review ofarrangements for LEPs being undertaken byChurches Together in England has been completed,which aims to make formal partnership at local levelsimpler and more flexible?

(b) Mutual recognition and reconciliation of ministries

28. In the ecumenical agreements referred to in chapterI, paragraphs 15 and 18 above, there was anexpectation that the kind of mutual recognition ofone another as churches that is taken up in thisdocument could and should lead in due course to themutual recognition of ministries, which would thenform the basis for the interchangeability of ordainedministries between churches as an expression ofvisible unity. While this was a hope for the Meissenand Reuilly agreements, it was actually achievedwithin the Porvoo agreement.

29. We share the hope for a unity between us that wouldtake down the barriers preventing ministers of oneChurch contributing as ministers in the other.Nonetheless, we recognize that the obstacles hereare significant and will not be easily overcome. Theyrelate in part to differences in how our churchesbelieve that the apostolicity of the Church, on whichwe share fundamental agreement, should be livedout with regard to practices of episkope, where,again, we share substantial agreement.


30. The Church of England believes that the historicepiskopate is a sign of the apostolicity of the wholeChurch. The ordination of a bishop in historicsuccession (that is, in intended continuity with theapostles themselves) is a sign of God’s promise tobe with the Church, and the way the Churchcommunicates its care for continuity in the whole ofits faith, life and mission, and renews its intentionand determination to manifest the permanentcharacteristics of the Church of the apostles. TheChurch of England recognizes that a continuity inapostolic faith, worship and mission has beenpreserved in churches which have not retained thehistoric episcopal succession.41 Nonetheless, theChurch of England, like other churches of theAnglican Communion, is committed to maintainingthe sign of historic succession and to sharing in it asan essential step towards full visible unity.

31. The Church of Scotland also believes that itsministries are in apostolic succession, withoutneeding to include the episcopal order nor to expressthat succession through it. In its ordination rites itemphasizes the continuity of the Church and itsministry. It can recognize in the historic episcopalsuccession maintained by other churches a sign ofthe apostolicity of the Church. It does not, however,regard it as important for the bene esse (‘well-being’)of the Church in the same way as the Church ofEngland, and therefore while respecting itsperspective does not share from its own side thesignificance for the Church of England of this issue inseeking to grow together.

32. The Church of England has recently entered into asignificant process of working on proposals for theinterchangeability of ministries with the MethodistChurch, to which it is joined in a covenantpartnership. It may be that what emerges from these

41 The Church of England’s position here is set out in Porvoo CommonStatement, 51-52.

discussions – which will also need to take accountof developments in Anglican-Methodist relationselsewhere in Britain and Ireland and across the world– will provide new models for thinking about howepiscopally and non-episcopally ordered churchescan move towards a greater, mutual recognition ofministries. In the meantime, there may also be scopefor setting out more fully the current practices andunderstandings of episkope on both sides.

(c) Nation, country, government and church

33. As set out in the first chapter (paragraphs 1-3 above),as the outcome of the referendum on Scottishindependence in 2014 is absorbed, significant publicdebate continues on what it means for England aswell as Scotland, including issues of subsidiarity, withcomplex cross currents generated by the widercontext of contemporary politics. As two nationalchurches with constitutional status within thecurrent arrangements of the United Kingdom, weshare a common responsibility for fostering inclusiveand constructive discussion that attends to a broadrange of issues. We have a common concern that inthe course of the debate, the relationship of nation,country and government to recognised nationalchurches as well as the wider plurality of churchesand faiths should receive proper attention. We facethe common reality that constitutional change couldhave a significant impact on our own identity andrelationships.

34. We therefore recommend that one or more specificprojects in relation to these emerging issues beidentified as a key element in the next phase of ourpartnership in the gospel. It might, for instance, focuson the theology of nationhood, which has been thesubject of some creative attention in politicaltheology in recent years. It might deal more directlywith specific proposals for constitutional change thatare being debated in the public arena. Or indeed itmight try to address both of these and make


12

appropriate connections between them. Behindmuch of the political discourse is a concern for andperhaps anxiety about identity that certainly calls fortheological reflection but may also serve as apotentially uncomfortable mirror for the way thatchurches too can respond to perceived externalthreats by seeking to strengthen their assertion ofinternal identity.

35. Serious work in this area will need to bring togetherpeople and expertise from both the ‘faith and order’and ‘mission and public affairs’ spheres of our twochurches if it is to be effective. There will also be aquestion about the extent to which such work shouldengage other partners, including those in universityposts who have particular interests and expertise,from philosophy and political science departmentsas well as theology. This is not the place to makedetailed prescriptions for future work, but our sensewould be that our churches are in a good positionto identify areas for attention and shape the processfor addressing them, drawing others into that asappropriate.

(d) Mission and ecclesiology

36. Underpinning all of these areas are theological issuesaround the interrelation of mission and ecclesiology:how sharing in God’s mission shapes the Church, andhow the life of the Church is itself an articulation ofthe gospel in the world. Sharing across our borderswill require us to reflect on how we think about thechurch and how the church responds to theimperatives of mission. Long-standing questionsabout mutual recognition and reconciliation ofministries draw us back to the issue of why thechurch needs designated ‘ministers’, how todifferentiate between such ministers and what isfixed and what is negotiable in terms of ourunderstanding here. Similarly, what is the right wayto present the relationship between church andnation – what kinds of authority, accountability and

loyalty are appropriate here? To what extent does ashared sense of mission to the nation foster in bothour churches an ecclesiology that seeks in distinctiveways to be generous in its accommodation ofplurality and disagreement? How mightsecularisation and church decline on the one hand,and apparently intractable disagreements within ourchurches on the other, be testing and challengingthat ecclesiology? One way to address these issuesmight be for a group to be set up to look at boththe WCC’s Mission Statement (Together Towards Life),and the Faith & Order consensus document (TheChurch: Towards a Common Vision), with an eye tohow they might inform a shared theologicalframework about church and mission that can informthe various different ways in which we relate to oneanother as two churches within a particular contextthat is recognised in law.

(e) Setting up a contact group

37. In the first chapter, we set out some of the mainstrands in our current partnership (paragraph 13above). Each is important in its own right. We believeit would, however, significantly strengthen thepartnership if these different strands could be moreeffectively coordinated. Similarly, there is a need forsome careful thought about how to move forwardwith the four areas identified above for growing inpartnership for mission. We do not wish to missimportant opportunities, but there will also need tobe some decisions made, consciously or by default,as to what we prioritise and what we postpone. Webelieve it would be better done consciously, and thedecision making process led by a body with properauthority and accountability.

38. We therefore propose that a ‘contact group’ be setup, with the designated senior representatives fromeach church as Co-Chairs, to coordinate, initiate andpromote activities that can strengthen ourpartnership in mission. The contact group should


include between two and four further members fromeach church. It would be important that itsmembership facilitates effective communicationwith and between the different strands of ourrelationship. We would suggest that it meets at leastannually in the first instance, reporting to theCommittee on Ecumenical Relations of the Church ofScotland and to the Council for Christian Unity of theChurch of England.

CHAPTER IVThe Columba Declaration

39. In the light of our common mission and context(chapter I), our agreement in faith (chapter II) and oursignificant opportunities for growing in partnershipin mission (chapter III), we recommend that ourchurches make the following Declaration.

We, the Church of Scotland and the Church of England,make the following acknowledgements andcommitments, which are interrelated.

(a) Acknowledgements

i. We acknowledge one another’s churches as churchesbelonging to the One, Holy Catholic and ApostolicChurch of Jesus Christ and truly participating in theapostolic ministry and mission of the whole people ofGod.

ii. We acknowledge that in both our churches the wordof God is truly preached, and the sacraments ofBaptism and the Holy Communion are rightlyadministered.

iii. We acknowledge that both our churches share in thecommon confession of the apostolic faith.

iv. We acknowledge that one another’s ordainedministries of word and sacraments are given by Godas instruments of grace and we look forward to atime when growth in communion can be expressed

in fuller unity that makes possible theinterchangeability of ministers.

v. We acknowledge that personal, collegial andcommunal oversight (episkope) is embodied andexercised in our churches in a variety of forms, as avisible sign expressing and serving the Church’s unityand continuity in apostolic life, mission and ministry.

(b) Commitments

We commit ourselves to grow together in communion andto strengthen our episc. Through this commitment, wehope to enrich our continuing relationships with otherchurches in the United Kingdom and around the world. Wewill welcome opportunities to draw other churches intothe activities and initiatives that we share.

As part of that commitment, we will continue to

i. pray for and with one another;

ii. welcome one another’s members to each other’sworship as guests and receive one another’smembers into the congregational life of each other’schurches where that is their desire;

iii. explore opportunities for congregationalpartnership, formal as well as informal, in those caseswhere there are churches in close geographicalproximity;

iv. enable ordained ministers from one of our churchesto exercise ministry in the other church, inaccordance with the discipline of each church;

v. identify theological issues that arise from growthtowards fuller communion and be prepared toallocate resources to addressing them;

vi. work together on social, political and ethical issuesthat arise from our participation in public life and be


12

prepared to allocate resources to joint initiatives foraddressing them.

In order to assist our churches in living out theacknowledgements and commitments of the ColumbaDeclaration, we will appoint Co-Chairs and members of aChurch of Scotland – Church of England Contact Group,whose purpose will be to coordinate the different activitiesthat make up our rich relationship and develop newinitiatives where these may be needed. The Contact Groupwill meet at least annually and will report annually to theCouncil for Christian Unity in the Church of England andthe Committee on Ecumenical Relations in the Church ofScotland.

APPENDIXMembers of the Joint Study Group 2010-2015

Church of EnglandThe Rt Rev Dr Peter Forster (Co-Chair)The Rev Canon Professor Paul Avis (2010)Dr Martin Davie (Co-Secretary 2011-2013)The Rev Dr David HilbornThe Rev Professor Morwenna LudlowThe Rev Canon Professor Simon OliverThe Rev Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (2011-12)The Rev Canon Dr Jeremy Worthen (Co-Secretary2014-2015)

Church of ScotlandThe Rev Dr John L McPake (Co-Chair)The Very Rev Dr Sheilagh Kesting (Co-Secretary)The Rev Dr Alistair MayThe Rev Dr Peter McEnhill (2010-2013)The Rev Dr Lindsay Schluter

Scottish Episcopal ChurchThe Rt Rev Brian Smith (Co-Chair 2010)The Rt Rev Dr Gregor Duncan (Co-Chair 2011-12)The Rev Dr Harriet Harris (2010-11)Mrs Norma Higgot (2010-11)The Rev Prof David Jasper (2010-12)

The Rev John Lindsay (2012-2012)The Rev Canon Dr Charlotte Methuen (2011-2012)

Scottish Episcopal Church ObserverThe Rev John Lindsay (2013-2015)

APPENDIX IIDELEGATES TO OTHER CHURCHES

The following have been appointed as delegates to theAssemblies, Synods and Conferences of other Churches:-

Presbyterian Church in Ireland – The Moderator, Chaplainand ElderPresbyterian Church of Wales – The ModeratorUnited Reformed Church – The ModeratorChurch of England – Very Rev D K ArnottUnited Reformed Church Scotland Synod – Dr J DentScottish Episcopal Church – Rev Dr J L McPakeMethodist Spring Synod – Rev M JohnstoneUnited Free Church of Scotland – Rev Dr L SchluterBaptist Union of Scotland – Rev R FrewCongregational Federation in Scotland – Rev C Collins

APPENDIX IIIECUMENICAL BODIES

The following serve on Assemblies and Committees of theecumenical bodies of which the Church is a member:-

World Council of Churches

10th Assembly (November 2013) Very Rev Dr S M Kesting,Mr I McLarty,Ms M Weibye

Central Committee Ms M Weibye


World Communion of Reformed Churches

Uniting General Council (2010) Rev Dr A Falconer,Rev A G Horsburgh,Very Rev Dr S MKesting,Mr I McLarty,Rev Dr L Schluter

Europe Committee Rev A GHorsburgh

Rev A G Horsburgh

Conference of European Churches

14th Assembly (July 2013) Very Rev Dr S MKesting,Mr A Kimmitt,Rev A P McDonald,Rev A Stevens

Governing Board Rev A P McDonald

Community of Protestant Churches inEurope(Leuenberg Church Fellowship)

7th General Assembly (September2012)

Rev Dr J L McPake

Churches Together in Britain and Ireland

Board of Trustees Rev Dr G G McGeoch

Action of Churches Together in Scotland

Members’ Meeting

Voting member: Convener of the Committee onEcumenical Relations (alternate voting member:Convener of the Council of Assembly), non-votingmembers: Secretaries of the Mission and DiscipleshipCouncil, Church and Society Council and the EcumenicalOfficer (alternate non-voting members: Secretary of theMinistries Council, General Secretary of the Guild and theModerator of the Youth Assembly)

Joint Liturgical Group Rev D Carmichael,Mr G Fender-Allison


12