and churches. The Edinburgh 1937 Faith and Order preparatory
report‘Meanings of Unity’makes this idea explicit:
To speak of‘mutual recognition’is to enter the area of inter-church
relationships. As in the case of civil governments‘recognition’is a
condition for further relationships, so it is with Churches. Mutual
recognition may be partial or complete. It does not necessarily involve
any co-operative action or Corporate Union, though it may be a
prerequisite of both.^270In keeping with this basic analogy with secular institutions, the report
states that the so-called‘unity of mutual recognition’is declarative
rather than constitutive, showing the state of affairs rather than
establishing it. Mutual recognition does not‘necessarily lead on to
corporate union’. In the unity of mutual recognition, the related
churches may‘remain clearly distinct from one another in their
own eyes’.^271
In terms of the present study, the ecumenical discussions of the
1920s and 1930s represent neither the long Latin tradition ofagnitio
nor the Hegelian tradition ofAnerkennung. Instead, they employ the
secular resources of the international law. There are some exceptions,
such as a Lausanne 1927 statement by Werner Elert, who claims that
‘we can possess truth only in an act of recognition’.^272 This probably
reflects the influence of dialectical theology. More importantly, a
discrepancy between the legal use of recognition and the burning
theological issues of ecumenism can be observed. This problem is
evident in the Edinburgh 1937 report on intercommunion.
This report takes some elements from the legal language of the
preparatory material, considering that intercommunion is‘the fullest
expression of a mutual recognition between two or more Churches’.
At the same time, the challenging theological problems of sharing the
Holy Communion cannot be resolved by merely legal and adminis-
trative acts of recognition. To tackle such problems, the Edinburgh
report introduces other concepts, such as‘the unity of a living
organism’.^273 As Kelly notes, this and other similar theological con-
cepts move away from a merely legal understanding of church
(^270) ‘Meanings’, 18. Kelly 1996, 49–50.
(^271) ‘Meanings’, 25, 35. Kelly 1996, 50–1.
(^272) Lausanne 1927, 13. Kelly 1996, 42.
(^273) Documentary History,62–3. Kelly 1996, 54.
174 Recognition and Religion