The Lutheran–Roman Catholic Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999) (JDDJ) remains one of the most significant achievements of the modern ecumenical movement. Until now, however, surprisingly few scholarly studies of the document, its genesis or its reception have emerged. Pieter de Witte addresses that deficit with this highly stimulating new work. Well researched and engaging a broad range of authors, his treatment is balanced, perceptive and insightful. The book is indispensable to anyone with an interest in contemporary ecumenism.
Ecumenical documents seldom attract sustained scholarly attention, and so it is both surprising and refreshing to see an author who finds them ‘intriguing’, as de Witte does (p. 1). He is able to find them so interesting because he recognises the dynamism of one of their central challenges: the ‘tension between tradition and openness’ (p. 1). Ecumenists are charged with representing their own tradition faithfully while at the same time allowing it to be confronted – and possibly influenced – by new circumstances. That is a creative tension, but also a combustible one, as the reception process of many dialogues has shown. De Witte appreciates this as well as anyone who has written on the subject, and his treatment of the various tensions surrounding and emanating from the JDDJ profits from that sensitivity.
The author's primary interest lies with the JDDJ's methodology of ‘differentiated consensus’. As any reader of the document will know, much of the text follows a pattern which first articulates a consensus between Lutherans and Roman Catholics (i.e. what the two sides can say together) and then allows each side to present views which appear distinctive to its own tradition but do not disrupt the consensus. In this way, remaining differences between the two sides are acknowledged but, insofar as they are accepted by the other as compatible with the consensus, considered non-church-dividing. De Witte scrutinises that method and some of its assumptions, and uncovers a number of ambiguities which, he feels, may help explain the contentious nature of the JDDJ's reception.
Some of those ambiguities emanate from the notions of ‘fundamental consensus’ (Grundkonsens) and ‘fundamental difference’ (Grunddifferenz). Though neither term appears in the JDDJ itself, both, according to de Witte, lie just beneath its surface. The notion of Grund, particularly when used by some of the authors he cites, has an existential dimension and refers to something preconceptual. Grundkonsens denotes a sense that two sides share something fundamental, even though neither has yet found words to articulate that sense precisely. Grunddifferenz describes differences (often felt as ‘concerns’) which also precede conceptual articulation. One of the challenges inherent in ecumenical dialogue lies in finding words to articulate these realities. Those efforts tend to remain approximate at best, thanks in part to the limits of language itself. De Witte illustrates how such inadequacies manifest themselves in the JDDJ and its literary precursors, and points to a number of ambiguities which, in his assessment, the texts were unable to resolve entirely. Treated in detail in the final chapter, the most important of these surrounds the role of human cooperation in justification. De Witte describes how, throughout the JDDJ's complicated drafting process, this issue remained elusive, and how, after the document's publication, it became contentious.
The author's assessment of the consequences of the text's ambiguities or of the methodology's future viability remains less clear. While he is forthright about the JDDJ's limitations, he also recognises its achievement. In the end, he seems to share the optimism that, whatever inadequacies may remain, they come a distant second to those aspects of the Grundkonsens which the text holds fast.
