Agreed Statements. Hazards and Possibilities

Abstract

At the end of their frank and comradely talks, the Presidents issued an agreed statement. . . . Not only politicians, it would seem, should concern themselves with such things. Official custodians of doctrine in Churches which claim to teach truth on an important range of issues are showing marked enthusiasm for talks — le dialogue even, in some places — and for issuing agreed statements. Precisely what, however, is being agreed on in an agreed statement? Or, what is it that political negotiators or separated brethren are to be understood as really doing when issuing an agreed statement? That question will not quite be answered in the present inquiry, but enough hazards risked by the well-intentioned when they make such statements will be exposed, to make it easier for someone with enough real knowledge of a wide enough and fair enough sample of agreed statements in doctrine and in politics alike to work out a good answer. My direct interest is in theological doctrines here, and in hazards arising from inadequate analysis. It may well be, however, that in producing agreed statements in doctrine that are of real worth, the crucial issues are neither theological nor analytical, but rather political. I conclude therefore by discussing some of the significant points raised by a jurist only a few years ago in a paper which should be taken into account by those concerned before a new wave of agreed statements comes out.Agreed statements, it should be acknowledged, have played no inconsiderable part in Christian doctrine and in Christian theologies: ‘It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us ...’, ‘This sacred synod decrees . . .’ ‘We believe in God . . .’, and so on. They have played their part in Heilsgeschichte too: There came false witnesses, but their witness did not agree. . . . Then came two false witnesses, who said . . . Simply by agreement false witness does not become true, nor false doctrine trustworthy.