In a world of human division, in which conflict is often fuelled by religious difference, it is imperative that Christians grow in their appreciation of other faiths and find ways in which we can work together with people of other faiths for the common good. Our sharing of the riches of Christ includes working patiently, prayerfully and lovingly for a nation and a world shaped in peace. The view of the Doctrine Working Group is that the development of hospitable and respectful relationships with those of other faiths is a proper response to Christ in our day. Christ calls us to live in harmony with all other people and so contribute to a world of peace, justice and hospitality. The proper response to Christ in this new setting is to ask afresh how we should, as followers of Christ, respond to people of other faiths.

The question of how we are to relate to persons of other faiths is a specific expression of the larger question: how can we live with the neighbour who is different? Love is central to Christianity and must continually be brought to bear in this situation. We have to face the hard fact that the Christian Church does not have a consistently good record in respecting and valuing those who we see as ‘different’. How are we to move from a history of exclusion of the other to one that embraces the neighbour? Only through a deeper immersion in the love of God made known in Christ. Our personhood need not be threatened by otherness. One scholar, Miroslav Volf, has suggested that what is needed is the formation of a "catholic personality" (small "c"!), defined as one who is enriched by otherness. Such a personality reflects the character of Jesus.

When the Church was at the centre of Western life it tended to relate to those of other faiths from a position of assumed political and social superiority. Much damage has been done to the human community from the outworking of this false assumption. Today Christians are aware that they share this planet with other faith communities who also believe deeply and are shaped by values and styles of living which have integrity. Of course, questions abound. What is the purpose of God in permitting a variety of religions to exist side by side? Do other religions have a role to play in God’s offer of salvation? How do we speak of Jesus in a world of many religions? Does dialogue lead to a lack of evangelical passion? These are questions that the Christian Church cannot avoid. Our conviction is that both the situation in which we find ourselves and the call to dialogue are God given opportunities to our generation.

In summary it can be said that the evidence neither confirms that ‘alternative communities of faith’ are superior to congregations nor condemns them as inherently worse. Since, like congregations, the membership is made up of people who though redeemed, are at the same time sinners, ‘alternative communities of faith’ can no more guarantee authentic Christian corporate life than can congregations. In certain circumstances alternative ways of being church deserve consideration. Later we shall look at what conditions would need to be fulfilled if such communities are to fit under the Uniting Church umbrella.

The word ‘church’ (ekklesia) is found in Matthew, Acts, the epistles of St. Paul and Revelation, and church is often referred to in Scripture in other ways where the word is not mentioned. In the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures the Hebrew word for the ‘assembly’ of Israel was often translated by the word ekklesia, though it could also be translated by synagogue. That word, of course, was not available for Christian use because of its use within Judaism. In New Testament times ekklesia was a non-religious term, but its use by Christians suggests that they may have thought of the church as the assembly of the New Israel – a people without national identity, territorial bound-aries or even a common language. The word could be used in both the singular and the plural. So Paul could refer to the churches of God in Jesus Christ which are in Judea (1 Thessalonians 2:14) but in Matthew 16:18 Jesus is reported as saying "on this rock I will build my church".

With the root meaning of ‘called out’, ekklesia suggests that the church is God’s creation, brought into being as God has called people "out of darkness into his marvellous light" (1 Peter 2:9). This is reflected in the Basis of Union at a number of points, but particularly in Paragraph 4, which concludes as follows:

The New Testament does not provide us with a doctrine of church but it does provide many resources with which the theologian can work. Particularly significant are the many images for the church which Scripture uses. The New Testament scholar, Paul Minear, lists 96 different images or metaphors. Amongst these there are three or four major clusters. They are "the people of God", "the body of Christ" and "fellowship" or "community", which might be thought of as a community of faith or love, but more typically the "fellowship of the Holy Spirit". These images may give the impression that the church was regarded as something quite supernatural, but there is plenty of evidence that the New Testament writers knew well how worldly and imperfect the church was.

Since the New Testament has so much to say about the church, it is surprising to find that the theology of the church was a late developer. The patristic period (early centuries of the church) focussed on developing the understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ, salvation and the doctrine of the Triune God. There was little attention given to the doctrine of the church. Augustine (354 – 430AD) did take up the issue of ecclesiology and his writings influenced the 16^th century Reformers. Even the Reformers did not really address the fundamental issues about the nature of the church. For them the main question was which, or where, is the true church, and so ecclesiology was discussed mainly in terms of the distinguishing "marks of the church".

The Roman Catholic Church emphasised, as the marks of the church, those qualities mentioned in the Nicene creed as amended at Constantinople, namely unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity. The Reformers did not reject these as marks of the true church but regarded them as inadequate. So to these they added further marks which they saw as necessary to distinguish the true church from the church they were seeking to reform. Two additional marks common to the chief reformers were the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution. Sometimes the exercise of godly discipline was added. To these marks one or two theologians "ahead of their time", like Martin Bucer would probably have wanted to add also the service of the poor, a mark which 20^th century liberation theologians would thoroughly endorse.

Both Luther and Calvin revived Augustine’s distinction between the visible and invisible church. Luther acknowledged that the true church of Christ is not identical with the church which all can see; rather it is hidden within it. Calvin believed that when Holy Scripture speaks of the church it may be in either of two ways. "Sometimes by the term ‘church’ it means that which is actually in God’s presence, into which no persons are received but those who are children of God by grace of adoption… [This] church includes not only the saints presently living on earth, but all the elect from the beginning of the world. Often, however, the name ‘church’ designates the whole multitude of men [and women] spread over the earth who profess to worship one God and Christ… In this church are mingled many hypocrites who have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance."

In making a distinction between the true church and the church as it appeared in the world, the Reformers were admitting that there is a discrepancy between the church as we see it and the church as we might expect it to be if it really is a divine institution. It was clear to them, as it must be to everyone, that there is a difference between the church in history and the church as it is described in the Scriptures. This has been a troublesome problem for many people from the beginning of the church’s history.

In the period of the Enlightenment in the 17^th-18^th centuries this discrepancy was resolved by understanding the church as just another voluntary association of people like any other. It was understood in totally nonsupernaturalist terms. The problem with this view is that it simply disregards the use of the church in the New Testament and for that reason has never seemed adequate to the majority of Christians.

In the 20^th century there has been renewed interest in the doctrine of church. There were many factors that contributed to this development. There was first of all the birth of the ecumenical movement, which might be traced back to the Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910. As mission bodies and churches began to talk and act together they were forced to address the question of the essential nature of church. Closely associated with that was the emergence of new churches from what had once been the mission fields of the older churches in Europe and America. As they began to draft their own constitutions and confessions, they were forced to ask questions about the nature of church. Thirdly, there were a number of church unions, such as the one which brought the Uniting Church in Australia into being. These required the churches uniting to struggle together to define the nature of church. A further factor was the Second Vatican Council, which seriously addressed the doctrine of church, and enabled a new and open inter-church debate by easing tensions between the Roman Catholic Church and other churches. Instead of debating the doctrine of church polemically, the churches were set free to discuss more fundamental issues in ecclesiology in a non-polemical way.

A factor of quite a different kind has been the rise of sociology and the application of its tools to churches. When churches came under the searching scrutiny of the sociologists, they did not appear to be anything extraordinary but seemed to conform quite well to the patterns of other voluntary organisations. Nothing supernatural about them was revealed by this research. The conclusions reached by the thinkers of the Enlightenment were reaffirmed. Again the church was challenged to show how the fine words about the church in the Scriptures and in the writings of the theologians could be squared with the findings of the sociologists.

Numerous suggestions have been made about how the church might respond to the challenge of the Enlightenment and modern sociology, including a recycling of the distinction between the visible and the invisible church. That distinction, however, does not get us out of our bind. The problem with the church is not just that the hypocrites within it prevent it from manifesting its true nature as the people of God, the body of Christ and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit; it is also the sin of those who, by grace, truly belong to the church. If the true members of the church are at the same time righteous and sinners, the church itself will inevitably be sinful also. We are bound to acknowledge therefore that just as the Christian is both righteous and a sinner, so the church is both what the New Testament says of it and what the sociologists say of it. It is by grace alone that it is the body of Christ. The fact that it is the body of Christ may well be hidden from the eyes of an onlooker and visible only to the eyes of faith. Indeed this was the case with respect to Jesus also. Many people only saw in him a peasant from Nazareth and a troublemaker. Only the eyes of faith recognised in the son of Mary the Christ of God.

That is not to say that the church can simply rest comfortably in the inevitability of this "both…and…" At every moment in its life it is to be true to the essential being which has been given to it by Christ. That is why the church is to be always reforming (semper reformanda).

The more cordial relationships between the churches which developed in the last third of the 20^th century has permitted a greater concentration on the classical marks of the church derived from the Nicene Creed, namely unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity. But here too, the discrepancy between the marks of the church, and the church as it really is calls for explanation.

As mentioned earlier, the Reformers did not reject the Nicene marks, but they felt they needed to be complemented by further marks. The two on which Lutheran and Reformed theologians agreed were "the Word of God purely preached and heard" and "the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution". These marks were necessary to counter both the schismatics of the radical reform movement and the Roman church, which claimed that the Nicene marks were already fulfilled within its life and hence reform was unnecessary.

The Reformers’ marks are non-eschatological and more concrete and empirical than the Nicene marks. They made it easier for the Reformers to point out the shortcomings in the Roman church. With the lessening of polemic between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism in the past half-century, the Reformers’ marks have moved out of the spotlight. They are not, however, to be neglected. Though it is not always easy to determine when the Word of God is being purely preached and heard, it remains a central concern of the church to ensure that this is happening. Bonhoeffer was convinced that this was not happening amongst the German Christians in the 1930s and pleaded with the ecumenical movement of his time to declare the non-confessing German church heretical. Some of those who had learnt from Bonhoeffer believed that parts of the church in apartheid South Africa should have been declared heretical on the same grounds.

The Uniting Church takes the task of rightly preaching and hearing the Word of God very seriously. Paragraphs 5 and 11 of the Basis of Union make this clear. In addition it undertakes the work of theological education and the oversight of it very conscientiously and it tests candidates for ordination rigorously. It requires that to be recognised as a lay preacher a person must successfully undertake an approved course of study. It would be important that a Presbytery, in recognising a Faith Community, should ensure that there is provision for this mark of the church to be upheld in its gathered life too.

There is a tendency in some parts of the Uniting Church to regard the administration of the sacraments very lightly. This is in marked contrast to the emphasis that the Reformers placed on the sacraments. The danger is not simply that the liturgy will be done very badly, the sacrament neglected or that new ones will be invented. In addition to these concerns there is the question of the context in which the sacraments are celebrated. The sacraments are constitutive of the life of the church and by the context of their celebration they can become heretical and schismatic, or even a scandal as they were at Corinth, or they can be a witness to the truth of the gospel and unifying in every respect. It is important, therefore, that a faith community under the oversight of a Presbytery should accept the sacramental discipline of the Church.

It might be thought that these six marks of the church are more than adequate for our needs, but other marks have, from time to time, been suggested, and though none of them have achieved the recognition accorded to those already mentioned, at least one deserves further consideration. As mentioned earlier, the Strasbourg Reformer, Martin Bucer probably would have argued for the inclusion of "the service of the poor" as a further mark, and liberation theologians would probably agree. Daniel Migliore makes a similar point when he writes as follows:

The church can hardly be the church of Jesus Christ unless it is a servant of the captives, the poor and the needy, and unless it is a church in which these people are welcome and to which they delight to come. The Base Christian Communities of Latin America are especially for the poor and powerless. In our society, faith communities can very easily be for the well educated and the well-to-do. A place where the poor and less educated feel out of place.

If the church is apostolic, its mission is of fundamental importance. Indeed it is impossible to understand the church without attending to its mission. The church is not an end in itself. It has been called into being for a purpose, and that purpose is to participate in God’s mission of salvation for the world. The New Testament speaks of this mission in many places. It is prefigured in the ministry of Jesus. It is represented in the sending out of the 12 and the 70. Missionary commissions are given to the disciples in the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John, and in the Acts of the Apostles. Where the letter of Peter speaks about God’s call, the reason given for that call is "that you may proclaim the mighty acts of Him who called you" (1 Peter 2:9). The Basis of Union speaks repeatedly of this as the purpose for the Church’s existence. Uniting Church theologian, Andrew Dutney observes that mission is the only reason consistently given for the three denominations’ decision to unite and he quotes senior Uniting Church theologian Norman Young as describing the Basis of Union as "the charter under which we agree to go on mission together".

Not everything the church does is mission, but mission encompasses many things. In the first place, the church’s mission is to proclaim the gospel of God’s love for the world expressed in the sacrifice of the Son, Jesus Christ. In the second place, mission involves the humble service of the poor, care for the needy and support for those who are oppressed. Beyond that still, mission calls for action for justice to free the oppressed and restore human rights to all. It might even be said that worship is part of the church’s mission, because it is one of the things that it has been called to do and is inextricably bound up with the proclaiming of the gospel.

While participation in mission is extremely important both for understanding the church and for the being of the church, it can be over emphasised to the point where other important aspects of the church’s being are lost entirely. For example, it has been said, "the church is the only organisation that exists for the sake of those who are not its members". Christians also need the church. We are not able to make it as Christians alone. No one ever emphasised justification by grace more than Luther, but he always balanced that with the reminder that we are sinners still. In his Lectures on Romans he wrote, "This is a life of cure from sin; it is not a life of sinlessness, as if the cure were finished and health had been recovered. The church is an inn and an infirmary for the sick and for convalescents. Heaven… is the palace where the whole and righteous live." The church is not an army of fit and healthy soldiers waiting to be dispatched on a mission. It is a hospital for sick and convalescents who are called to care for each other while they are being healed by the Great Physician, and as they have the strength, care also for each other and those who still need to be admitted.

It is all too common to hear ‘ministry’ denigrated in comparison with ‘mission’. This is regrettable. Without ministry none of us will be fit for mission, and those who receive new life through the mission will wither and die unless they receive ministry from their fellow Christians and also minister to them.

Too strong an emphasis on mission leads us to think of the church entirely in terms of doing, as if it had no being apart from doing. The impression may even be given that the church must justify itself by what it does rather than being justified by grace. Even from the perspective of mission, the church’s own being is vitally important. Why would anyone want to listen to the church’s preaching of the kingdom of God if the church’s own life is in disarray and exhibits no signs of the inbreaking of the kingdom?

When we think about the being of the church we are immediately reminded that fundamentally the church is a koinonia – a fellowship, a community. The people of God are not just a bunch of individuals who all just happen to be called of God. That call relates us to one another. We are a people, a holy nation, and therefore a community. The metaphor of the body of Christ does not mean, as often interpreted, that the church is Christ’s instrumentality, but that Christians are inter-related and interdependent like the limbs and organs of a body. As the fellowship of the Holy Spirit the church is a community of those who share in the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This community is characterised by a number of distinctive features. It is a community in which distinctions of race, class and gender are rendered void. It is non-hierarchical, multi-ethnic, egalitarian and committed to gender equality. In it love expresses itself in compassion for one another. It is tolerant in the sense that in it people accept one another as Christ has accepted them and forgive one another as they have been forgiven. Since it lives by the gospel it is a community noted for the enlargement of life (liberty), joy and hope.

While the church seeks to manifest this godly form of social life, at present it only manages to do so in fleeting and fragmentary ways, but it looks forward to the full expression of this life in the kingdom of God. It lives, therefore, in hope, but this is not a passive waiting. This is a real hope, therefore, the church continually seeks to bring as much of this hope into its present life as it possibly can and become a sign of the kingdom in the world already.

The term ‘alternative’ calls for some careful consideration. As mentioned earlier, what are now considered ‘alternative communities of faith’ were, in the first couple of centuries of Christianity, the norm. In recent centuries the large gathered congregation standing within a Christian denomination has become the norm. Nevertheless, the small faith community may not regard itself as an ‘alternative’ and may not welcome that designation. The group may regard itself rather as a parachurch, supplementing the life of the congregation, or a faith community on the way to becoming a congregation. It is to be noted that the regulations of the Uniting Church do not use the word ‘alternative’.

On the other hand there are faith communities that do see themselves as alternatives to the church and, for that matter, to any other religious organisation. They may be quite critical of Christianity and unashamedly syncretistic, endeavouring to evolve a new type of spirituality. It would be pointless to try to apply a Christian ecclesiology to such groups. They may be of interest to the church, but they cannot be brought under the umbrella of the church, nor would they want that.

Other faith communities would see themselves as alternative ways of being the church. There may be a number of established congregations in their vicinity but their members do not feel at ease within any of them. They may have carefully chosen a style of being church with which their members can be comfortable. This may involve simplicity and flexibility of structure, minimal rules, no property ties, different patterns of worship, totally lay leadership, and freedom from the constraints of any denominational church.

Some of these features are not necessarily alternative ways of being church. They may well be characteristic of some worshipping communities in remote areas and other places, that still see themselves as part of the ‘one, holy, catholic and apostolic church’ as it is expressed through the Uniting Church. In the Uniting Church there is a good deal of flexibility about how any congregation arranges and expresses its communal life and worship. Where faith communities exist in an area where there are church congregations, yet choose to exist alongside but totally separate from these congregations, they do, however, constitute an alternative way of being church whether or not they choose that designation.

We want to ask such communities, what is your theology of church? How, for example, does your community exhibit the marks of the church? How do you express your concern for the unity, which is Christ’s will? Is your community marked by the catholicity of openness to people of all races and classes, and the catholicity of doctrinal wholeness? Are you engaged in the mission of continuing the apostolic proclamation and example?

Such questions cannot be asked from any position of superiority. In any of its forms the church has a constant struggle with these issues and can only ask these questions in the knowledge that it is constantly falling short. The church must always be open to learn from others. In particular, ‘alternative communities of faith’ have a contribution to make to the Uniting Church in helping us to strike the right balance between ‘doing’ and ‘being’, mission and community.

It could be said that the Basis of Union sought to move the church away from an ‘institutional’ model to a ‘servant’ model. In conformity with the Basis of Union the UCA has subordinated the attraction of institutionalism to the demands of mission to the world and has tried to devise ways to avoid hierarchy and promote mutual service. In the process it has developed a bias towards what some have called ‘mission monism’ (by which is meant the reduction of everything about the church to its mission) so that being church has in practice received inadequate attention. By moving away from ‘institution’ model primarily towards a ‘communion’ model rather than a ‘mission’ model, ‘alternative communities of faith’ can help us to redress the imbalance.

Omitting those communities mentioned above, which have rejected the church and even Christianity, the Uniting Church is presented with three different relationship possibilities.

Some of these relate to other communions. For example, there are many such communities that have close connections with the Roman Catholic Church. There are others that are deliberately inter-denominational and choose to stand at arm’s length from every denomination, though they are not out of sympathy with the churches. With some communities in this category the Uniting Church can have friendly, if not close relationships. It is of note that a Uniting Church deacon in NSW is working with small faith communities associated with the Roman Catholic Church. In that way these communities are benefiting from the Uniting Church and in turn may be able to enrich our understanding of small group life helping us to see how small communities can be held in effective interaction with congregations and the communion as a whole.

There are those that make use of Uniting Church buildings. Some members of these may hold membership in the Uniting Church and sometimes worship in Uniting Churches, but there are no close or formal links with the Uniting Church. One such group is the TOLLS community that uses the Ovingham UCA church in South Australia. In the beginning it received some ‘seed funding’ from the UCA, but its membership is very ecumenical and it has no formal links with any denomination. The community is open to receive help and encouragement from the Church and would have something to offer to the Church in return. A relationship that offers mutual respect and support, without any demand that the community meets certain Church criteria, is worth fostering, just as we already support inter-church dialogue and co-operation.

Examples would be the Pyrmont congregation in Sydney, which is not formally a congregation of the Uniting Church but has grown out of Uniting Church sponsorship and is quite dependent on Uniting Church leadership. It may become officially a congregation of the Church at some time, but many of its members might feel uncomfortable about that at this stage. There are many faith communities in the Uniting Church, which are on the way to becoming congregations.

There is also a group that gathers mid-week at the Prahran mission in Melbourne, though there is no longer a recognised Uniting Church congregation at the Mission or within the municipality. A deacon who works within the Mission leads it, and the group is known to the Presbytery of Nepean and is under its pastoral oversight. It operates outside the structures and regulations which would apply to a Uniting Church congregation. There are many similar faith communities existing in places where there may never be enough members to fulfil all that is required of a congregation.

A third example, is The Branches in Adelaide. A small team of people was commissioned from a Uniting Church congregation in 1992 to form a new Christian fellowship to extend the message of Christ’s salvation in fresh ways. It has a carefully crafted philosophy and practical ministry plan. It celebrates Holy Communion every Sunday with one or more of its own leaders presiding. In this respect it seems not to follow Church regulations with respect to sacramental discipline. A number of other communities have since sprung from the original Branches community.

Towards communities of this type the Uniting Church has a duty of care and oversight, exercised not heavy-handedly but sensitively and encouragingly. The Church might hope that in return for its sponsorship these communities would willingly accept certain conditions, such as the following:

The early Christians assumed that by imitating the ‘Way’ of Jesus they were imitating the ‘Way’ of God himself… Because we have confidence that God has raised this crucified man, we believe that forgiveness and love are alternatives to the coercion the world thinks is necessary for existence.

Paul derives strenuous tolerance not from a soft theory of moral relativism or a pragmatic adjustment to pluralistic reality or in lofty ideals about the unity of all humankind in the transcendent realm, but rather from the action of God in Christ…

This principle of tolerance is not a soft compromise or a pragmatic adjustment to the realities of diversity, but is a "strenuous tolerance" flowing from vital faith. It contrasts with reluctant politeness or grudging acceptance of the other, because vital differences are acknowledged and each person is encouraged to a full and authentic expression of his/her own faith. The basis is God’s action in Christ, whereby each of us is welcomed into the Church. "Welcome one another, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God" (Rom. 15:7).

culture

culture

and outside culture

of Culture transform society

This simple typology does not offer us much help as we move into the kind of multi-faith, post-christendom context we encounter in contemporary Australia.

In Racial Conflict and Healing: An Asian-American Theological Perspective, Andrew Sung Park offers a timely critique of Niebuhr's model, in particular, for overlooking cross-cultural situations and reflecting the perspective of the dominant group, without considering ethnic churches. Park goes on to propose a model, within which the whole Church and Society are examined from the perspective of an ‘ethnic’ church.

In Park’s "transcendent, transmutational model", ethnic Christians have a fourfold task:

The whole process is, of course, nurtured and sustained by our worship, where we are also reconciled to those ‘significant others’. A t this point, however, the cycle turns into a spiral, as we move into the cycle over and over again, each time deepening our encounter with the context into which we are sent. This mission spiral then expands as we seek out God'’ call for us in any given context, drawing the faith community into closer relationships with the world, and the world closer tot the worshipping community.

It is important to note, when talking about mission we frequently overlook the primary gift to us all: the gift of faith. It is this gift that turns us towards God and calls us to live as the people of God in community. This gift demands expression, demands sharing, demands dialogue, to tell of its power and presence to others. Faith leads to discourse.

For some this sharing has been called evangelism, for others ecumenical dialogue, for some partnership and for others prophetic witness. In each case this faith sharing is where we name that which motivates us and demonstrates where our commitment lies. This is what we will call "faith discourse". Such discourse is the intentional committed dialogue between various participants, formally structured in ways appropriate to the context.

The way mission is normally perceived contains many polarities: first, as indicated above, there is the perceived polarity of an evangelical or ecumenical understanding of mission. We have already argued that all mission has as its genesis, a faith discourse. Secondly, there is the polarity of mission perceived as proclamation of the Word, and mission as Deed, the perceived polarity between being and doing. This brief report cannot deal with this polarity in depth. A brief indication is given below as to how both Word and Deed are a necessary part of any act of mission.

For individuals, faith discourse takes the form of personal relationship. For this to be authentic, it must be truly mutual. All participants must immerse themselves in the reality of the other. Only authentic relationship enables the possibility of communicating the Good News. Authentic relationship requires openness to change and growth. It may be we who most need to be converted to the ‘more excellent way of Christ’!

The traditional outcomes sought here are personal conversion and commitment – important responses to the Word of grace revealed in Jesus Christ. Outcomes associated with Deed tend to be associated with church growth, the building up of the church community, an appropriate inward focus and the future well being of the faith community.

Many in the Uniting Church have not responded well to this missional calling. Too often we have turned away from the evangelical thrust central to the Gospel, the requirement to build up the church as an act of witness through personal conversion and church growth.

Such a bold focus on church growth has frequently been seen as an underdeveloped missiological position.

Members of the evangelical stream influenced by Lausanne have dramatically reversed such a position. This group has developed a rich understanding of evangelism including verbal proclamation and social action.

In relation to community (local or global), mission again begins with a faith discourse that is deeply immersed in social encounter. Mission here is driven by the imperative for justice that is inherent in the Gospel.

The Word component of this sector is the call to justice and peace, as the church fulfills its responsibility for the prophetic witness in its time. Such prophetic witness is often directed towards the faith community itself. The Deed component comprises both the social justice activity of the church (justice for the vulnerable and marginalised) and the community service program of the church. This work is frequently best done in rich alliances with people of good will from whatever faith background.

Wherever possible, ecumenical mission is a process of partnership, whether at home or abroad. Such work is best carried out in a spirit of ecumenicity, responding to the call of Jesus that we may ‘all be one’.

The Word focus in these relationships also has to do with unity. These relationships deepen our perception and understanding of the Gospel as we cross not only denominational boundaries but also boundaries of culture and nationality. There is a much greater possibility of expanding our comprehension of the Gospel, as is witnessed at World Council of Churches even