JPIC — A Conciliar Process

JPIC - A Conciliar Process

Emilio Castro

The Vancouver assembly of the World Council of Churches, held in 1983, called for the development of a conciliar process for justice, peace and the integrity of creation (JPIC). Three basic concerns came together in shaping this fundamental emphasis of the modem ecumenical movement. First, the realization that the world as a whole was in danger. Nuclear and chemical weapons were a threat looming on the horizon; this was the first generation with the capacity to destroy the whole of creation. Even after decades of international work for development, the reality of the growing gap between rich and poor and the tremendous burden of the foreign debt in the non- industrialized countries were condemning millions of people to starvation and an early death. In addition, the ecological threat symbolized by the cry of the Pacific delegations against chemical dumping in their waters and nuclear testing in their atolls was perceived in all its terrible potentialities. An urgent appeal for responsibility vis-ti-vis creation was heard and imposed on the consciousness of the churches.

The assembly realized that these three issues were three faces of the same comprehensive human problematic. It was impossible to address the question of peace without the dimension of justice and ecological responsibility, and vice versa. So the first concern was that the churches should be fully conscious of the gravity of the world situation, and of the importance of keeping together these three fronts, so that a coordinated and holistic approach could be attempted.

The second concern was the need to articulate theologically our understanding of that human predicament and to spell out theologically our specific Christian responsibility. A previous emphasis of the World Council on the search for a “just, participatory and sustainable society” came to a halt in a heated discussion about the reading of the participation of the poor in history as expression of a messianic movement of God. People’s theologies, liberation theology, were demanding the acceptance of the protagonist role of the poor in the transformation of the present reality in the direction of the kingdom to come. Many saw that specific affirmation as

0 The Rev. Dr Emilio Castro is general secretary of the World Council of Churches. This is the text of a lecture given at the symposium on “Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation”, held at Iliff School of Theology, Denver, Colorado, USA, in April 1992.

29 1

THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

depriving the event of the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ of its unique redeeming character, making of it only a paradigm, a model for all kinds of liberation movements in history.

But the basic theological issue remained unresolved: What is God’s relation with nature and history? And what role has our human activity inside that relation? Are our historical actions and decisions consequences of our faith, or expressions, components of the act of faith? Is the church of Jesus Christ only to be defined by relation to its internal sacramental life or is that sacramental life symbol, sign and engagement in relation to the transformation of all reality according to the will of God?

To indicate this dimension of the seriousness of our historical engagement, the Vancouver assembly put the word “covenant” in the title of this programme emphasis. Inside the covenant of God with creation and with humankind we need to listen to God’s call for repentance and to discover meaning, relation and strength for our own historical participation.

In this way the assembly was seeking to underscore the “confessional” nature of the JPIC challenge: our response as churches to the crisis posed by injustice, war and the destruction of creation was seen as a test of our basic confession that Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour. JPIC pushed the churches to declare that saying “yes” to this affirmation of faith entails, intrinsically, saying “no” to these threats to life and survival.

The third source of concern to which this search for a conciliar process responds is precisely the central question of the modern ecumenical movement, the unity of the church. Could it be that the common concern for peace, justice and creation - thinking, praying and struggling together - would have no meaning for explaining the unity that God has granted in Jesus Christ? Could our being church be tested by our response to the basic challenges of human life today? Inside this search for conciliarity as a new avenue towards overcoming the divisions among the churches there is a double challenge. First, our ecclesiology should include a reference to God’s basic attitude towards creation and history, and be tested by it. Word and sacraments should be brought together with the poor in whom Jesus Christ comes to our encounter in our attempt to describe and to understand being the church of Jesus Christ.

But also, secondly, engaging in a common process of confronting the issues of the day should help us to discover in depth the unity already existing and facilitate growing into wider unity. Of course, the WCC has always supported ecumenical approaches to social action. But in JPIC, we are searching for a social-political approach to ecumenism.

Let me add here that the expression “conciliar process”, in addition to its theological interpretation, also had another political intention, in the challenge to the churches to come together in visible unity, to articulate a calling to repentance and a promise of new life for the whole of humankind at a moment in which so much was at stake. The dream was to have a visible event that with authority could speak to the challenging issues of the world today. Much energy was given to this attempt to bring all the churches to counsel publicly together, and much energy was lost in this process.

Vancouver to Seoul to Canberra This, then, was the emphasis coming from Vancouver. What have we achieved

after years of reflection and work? Obviously it is impossible to make a list of the

292

JPIC - A CONCILIAR PROCESS

reverberations produced by the themes in practically every church. Perhaps the most glamorous ones were the prayer meetings in the German Democratic Republic, where participants concentrated their attention on texts related to the JPIC process, and from there went onto the streets in a splendid manifestation of non-violent resistance that ended in the crumbling of the Berlin wall. It would be equally difficult to put together all the articles and books published around this major emphasis of the ecumenical movement. The central process of reflection was carried on by a special working group that attempted to produce a consensus document introduced at the Seoul convocation in early 1990. There it proved impossible to come to terms with the theological conceptual foundation of the whole process. A strange alliance developed between people from the third world, who mistrusted a fully-rounded document that they considered to be too Western in style - even if most of the drafters were themselves people from the third world - and persons coming from churches of a more classical Western style of doctrinal formulation who were not happy with the concepts contained in the first part. (Special reference could be made to Roman Catholic criticism of the ecclesiological assumptions of that document.) However, if the document as such was not owned by the convocation in Seoul, the general trends - a Christological incarnation approach, a new emphasis on creation and an openness to the truth experience of other religions - did permeate the minds of most participants.

Through that process of discussion ten affirmations, which are a substantial r6sumC of convictions held by the ecumenical movement, were agreed upon to guide participation in the search for a more human society. Four areas were highlighted as demanding a special covenanting in the present situation of the world. These four covenants are invitations to be more specific in concrete areas, where common action and networks of solidarity could be established. The main criticism levelled at this whole process is the general character of the affirmations and the headings of these covenants. We are still bound to advance in the effort to give historical content to those affirmations and, particularly, to provide specific avenues, middle axioms or inter- mediary targets where the effort could be concentrated at a particular moment and in a particular place. The Canberra assembly, for example, affirmed a major focus on the growing phenomenon of racism by providing space for the full manifestation of the claims, aspirations and cultural contribution of the Aboriginal people of Australia.

Canberra confirmed the covenant from Seoul in a liturgical celebration and advanced the theological reflection by providing as a frame of reference the humble prayer of the main theme: “Come, Holy Spirit - Renew the Whole Creation”. It is a prayer for the presence of the Holy Spirit that will give a sacramental character to all relations with God’s creation. Through a Trinitarian theology it is possible to confirm the autonomy of the human and creation history, and hence to affirm our responsibility for them and, at the same time, keep that autonomy inside an understanding of God’s concern, God’s presence, God’s providence.

A Trinitarian approach, especially with the affirmation of the proceeding of the Spirit from the Father - without the filioque - facilitates listening to other religious expressions. It sets “our vision.. . of people of different faiths beginning to learn from each other’s spirituality and inspiration while developing practical examples in commitment to community and sharing”. 1

The boundless mystery of the universe, the abundance, beauty and grandeur of creation and of this precious planet manifest the glory of God. We confess the Triune God as the

293


source of all life. The Holy Spirit, to whom we pray ..., manifests God’s energy for life present in all things and reminds us of the total dependence of all things on God. *

While in Seoul the church was, almost unavoidably, conceived as a sociological reality, a people called to develop activities for the safeguard of creation, justice and peace, Canberra described the church more as a sign, a symbol of God’s purpose for creation, giving new importance to the priestly intercessory role of the church. This should not be seen as opposition or correction of Seoul, but as a foundation for that sense of participation in the struggles of the world, that should manifest the reality of our calling to be in history - through repentance, denunciation, and solidarity with the struggling poor - an anticipation, an aperitif, of the kingdom to come.

The new world situation The situation of the world has changed dramatically in many respects since the

Vancouver assembly. While nothing has challenged the fundamental importance of the four areas for covenanting and the recognition of their interaction, it is obvious that new situations demand new analyses and will impose additional concrete responses. Perhaps a common term to characterize the new situations could be “ambiguity”. For example, practically all countries in Latin America have passed from military dictatorship to a liberal style of democracy during this period. In this sense, there is real progress, but those democracies are not able to cope with the growing impoverish- ment of the situation of the people. Hence the ambiguity.

In Central and Eastern Europe we have been witness to the formidable expression of popular participation in reactions against rigid political and economic systems, which have produced changes that could not be foreseen at the time of Vancouver. The fall of the Berlin wall and the uprising in Timisoara are symbols of people’s demand for freedom that belong to the best pages of world history. The total collapse of the centralized socialist system brought the promise of freedom, but has created a chaotic situation in which the way into the future is difficult to perceive. Both the radical transformation of economic systems and the growth of nationalism and ethnic and religious tensions shape an overall situation in which easy answers are not possible.

In the southern part of Africa we have seen the independence of Namibia and the dramatic change of current in South Africa with a tremendous symbolic meaning: racism has received a tremendous blow and those who have expressed solidarity with anti-apartheid forces all over the world should feel their struggle is being rewarded. But the question of restitution and justice for the deprived masses still awaits an answer.

The gap between North and South, the tension between wealth and poverty, have continued to grow in dramatic ways. The issue has been recognized internationally, mechanisms to cope with the problem of foreign debt have been devised, GATT has carried on conversations on free trade, the IMF and the World Bank have provided recipes for adjustments to most countries, but the net result so far is enormous social costs and a growing fear in the rich countries of being confronted with a potential massive influx of migrants looking for new possibilities in life.

There is a new awareness of the ecological crisis and a substantial change in public opinion in the perception of this issue, visible not only in the growth of green political parties, but also in the recognition in third-world countries that ecological responsibil-

294

PIC - A CONCLIAR PROCESS

ity belongs to the struggle for justice. The forthcoming conference of UNCED in Rio de Janeiro will, we hope, approve the Earth Charter as expressing the hope of the whole of humankind for a responsible handling of the environment.

We should emphasize here the importance of the UN and its role. It is a matter of political will in international relations which can rebuild credibility and trust. Unless there is such a climate to generate a new wave of political will, the Earth Charter will become another false covenant. The churches should also attempt to create new moral strength to generate such will.

Meanwhile, the uncontrolled use of energy is still the rule, the warming of the atmosphere continues unabated, and international constraints are not yet in place to oblige people to comply with basic requirements of ecological responsibility. Moreover, the dominating economic paradigm functions without taking account of ecological realities, limits and values. Increasingly, both grassroots activists and academic “experts” insist on new ways for officially measuring and valuing “growth’, “progress”, the “gross national (or natural) product” of a country or region. Reflecting those voices, Canberra called for “a new ethic of economy and ecology”.

One radical change since Vancouver is the practical elimination of the danger of nuclear war. This was one of the commanding factors in the vision of JPIC in Vancouver. The end of the cold war opened up a new period in world history. In the past, nuclear deterrence prevented a major war between the super-powers in Europe, but it did not prevent those two super-powers from waging war against each other by encouraging local or national conflicts in many parts of the world. Today many of those conflicts remain, and some of them have reached a degree of violence almost unheard of, e.g. in Liberia and Somalia, but they do not seem to receive attention from world opinion. Unfortunately, there are also wars in Peru, Myanmar, East Timor, Bougainville, Sri Lanka and Sudan; ethnic wars are manifested in the conflict in Yugoslavia and in the former Soviet Union; tribal wars continue in or around Rwanda and Burundi; Afghanistan remains a hot place notwithstanding the end of the cold war - and the list could be continued. Some of those wars and conflicts should be interpreted as the struggle of the people for liberation, but perhaps most of them are much more ambiguous, because they involve people - very often poor people - of different ethnic groups or different ideological or religious persuasions engaged in battles against each other. Other categories beyond that of economic exploitation or foreign political oppression will need to be used to interpret those conflicts and to develop strategies for peace.

Recent developments reveal the links between environmental deterioration and war. Perhaps the most undeveloped connection in our analysis and theological understanding within JPIC is that between the integrity of creation and peace. Today, deteriorating ecological conditions are creating hundreds of thousands of environmental refugees and migrants, and are new sources of conflict and potential war. In the present Middle East negotiations, one of the key issues is access to and control of water.

There is also good news, such as the events in Nicaragua where the transfer of power has been possible in a largely peaceful way, and in El Salvador where the recent peace agreement indicates the opening of a new period for that country. In both cases, however, rules for democratic coexistence have been established at the expense of something of the dream that had motivated people to start the armed struggle.

295


Another radical change since Vancouver is the expression of the feminist revolution all over the world. I use the word revolution quite intentionally, because what is going on in people’s consciousness, family life and cultural and political discussion is of tremendous significance and will have consequences for the future of humankind. It is more than the pursuit of economic and political justice. It is the affirmation of values, perspectives and experiences that are coming to the forefront of the intellectual and spiritual debate in every society and will have consequences for the future shaping of those societies. Fundamentalist reactions are emerging and threatening these developments.

Population growth continues to be a subject of global concern. The numbers are becoming dramatic, and the number of young people who are denied educational possibilities or who do not have access to an organized work market is growing steadily, creating unrest and facilitating all kinds of exploitation. The growth of fundamentalism, be it political or religious, surely has one of its main roots in this population explosion, for people do not find avenues of self-fulfilment at the present level of economic and cultural development of nations.

One factor, present surely before Vancouver, is the accelerating development of science and technology, which demands increasing investment in research facilities and in educational policies, and which feeds the gap between the rich countries which can afford such research and those who are not able to compete due to economic constraints. This whole field deserves a serious critical look to uncover the exploitation and manipulation camed out in the name of progress and modernity.

There are certainly many other aspects of the current situation which are substan- tially different from what they were in 1983.

However, I would like to end this section by referring to changes in the situation of the churches which render more difficult the dream of a council to speak with authority on matters of justice, peace and creation. The identification of ethnic conflicts with confessional conflicts in Balkan and Eastern European countries has created a situation of tension among the churches that does not facilitate speaking with authority vis-a-vis the problems of the world. The churches are deeply involved in the ambiguities of the historical situation, and our real ecumenical challenge is to keep the lines of communication open in order to see if, even in the midst of conflict, there is a commonality of vision that could be affirmed, even if in the concrete situation of our national conflicts we are not able to articulate ways for the application of that vision. The notion of conciliarity is being severely tested even as the need for it is felt more keenly.

What next? 1. Notwithstanding the overwhelming nature of the problems confronting human-

kind and the ambiguity of many results of historical events, one thing is clear: in the faith perspective, resurrection has the final word. We cannot accept history as a closed process because the Spirit of God is at work. Faith, historically, has motivated people to resistance, endurance, perseverance, expectations of a new morning, hope. If our theology is not a motivating one and does not have a clear missionary component, it is not Christian theology at all. All over the world, we are witnessing a revival of religiosity and organized religion. This could be an escape from the conflicts and ambiguities of daily life, but it could also provide the ways in which we help each

296


other to survive and to work towards the new day. The vision of shalom in the Old Testament and the coming of the kingdom in the perspective of Jesus are promises of a different tomorrow and an invitation to challenge all existing realities. Faith enables us to keep perceiving the goal clearly in the midst of relativities and limitations.

The covenants as described in Seoul can be exercised in frustrating situations and in powerlessness, or in the frustrations of the exercise of power that cannot deliver at the level of our own Christian expectations. Christian hope is not to be confused with optimism or with utopianism. It knows the ugly reality of sin in the cross of Jesus Christ, but it is even more aware of the power released in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and of God’s faithfulness in life and in eternity.

2. Our theological task should begin with a new consideration of our epistemological situation. The notion of conciliarity should apply from the outset to the processes of analysis and interpretation. In the last several years, a series of theological systems have come to life, claiming to bring forward the fruits of the experience of particular groups in dealing with the teaching of the Bible and the reading of modem reality. So people’s theology in Korea or liberation theology in Latin America include a particular epistemological option for the poor. They are those who, in their powerlessness, are able to grasp with more clarity God’s judgment and promises. Something similar should be said of the newly affirmed and life-centred theological vision of women.

Our theological generation has inherited the legacy of those masters of suspicion, Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, who invited us to look beyond the articulation of words and phrases at the actual ideological positions, psychological conditioning and power relations in which people found themselves.

I mentioned before that at the Seoul convocation many third-world delegates could not accept at face value the document presented to them because they suspected that, through it, underlying conscious or unconscious categories of thought of the rich world were being smuggled in. Women are also tempted to follow the same pattern in their participation in the theological debate, suspecting a priori the male, patriarchal content of our theological formulations. However, we claim to be members of the body of Christ; we claim to have a common world of reference in the revelation of God in the message of the Bible. That means that, notwithstanding our different social, economic, political and ideological presuppositions, we share a commonality of being in the sacramental life of the church that is a given of the epistemological situation. As General Simatupang put it once, addressing Christians in the Netherlands after the years of bloody colonial war in Indonesia: “There is nothing in this world that could unite us. I need to look at you as my enemies, but because of Jesus Christ we are obliged to talk to each other and to understand each other.”

In the ecumenical movement we have been proclaiming the preferential option for the poor in the gospel of Jesus Christ as the central yardstick for judging any particular social situation. That does not mean, however, to sacralize the epistemological position of the poor. The poor are inside different ideological systems and come sometimes to conflictive proposals. There are other poor who are not necessarily recognized by those who are economically or politically powerless, for example poor women, poor ethnic racial minorities; their perspective should also be brought to the total debate. There is in the testimony of the Bible and the lessons of the history of the church the experience of the poor of yesterday which could also enrich our search for

297


truth and interpretation today. There is also the service rendered by the accumulation of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge, especially in social science, cannot be exonerated from ideological presuppositions, but the data elaborated are a fundamental component of all discussions on interpreting a particular reality. We should not surrender to academia or assume that technocrats are more able to run a society than politicians, but we should also not surrender to populism in a naive affirmation of some selective popular wisdom. We should exercise a certain suspicion in every direction, but we are also called to trust out of the forgiveness and reconciliation and the sacramental givenness of the church’s life.

Ecumenical dynamics should provide for accountability and reciprocal correction. The preferential option for the poor is a clear indication of solidarity following the model of Jesus Christ, but our solidarity with the poor will not be honest if it does not involve all our mind and all our knowledge. So, as the love of God should embrace our soul, our heart and our mind, the love of our neighbour should involve the totality of our personality including our critical capacities.

This epistemological conciliarity is of enormous importance if we want to avoid the pitfalls encountered in all directions. For example, technocrats who develop master plans for every single country of the world, following lines that could adapt perfectly to highly-developed industrialized countries, but that very rarely fit the situations of dependent economies with very poor infrastructures. The end result and the absence of the voices of the powerless and marginalized from this planning bring sacrifice and suffering to the common people and very little economic progress.

Many will criticize the Seoul convocation because of the numbers of activists who participated in proportion to the number of social scientists or politologues or economists who were involved in the process. The Seoul convocation is there to be judged, but the aim of the World Council of Churches is clear: to bring together in the conciliar debate of correction and inspiration all sectors of the human family with their particular experience of God’s revelation to them, to humankind and to the world. It is only by real participation that exchange takes place and correction can happen, and easy idealizations of our particular positions can be avoided. I quote here a Roman Catholic sister: “I am not interested in discussing the question of women’s ordination in my church until women are in those instances in my church authority where decisions concerning ordination could be made.”

Most of the synods and assemblies of our historical churches, sociologically speaking, are in the hands of male persons beyond middle age. They rely heavily on the trust relations provided by the sacramental unity in the church. This is a traditional value that should not be taken lightly, but at the same time those decision-making bodies need to be questioned with a view to their conciliarity with all other sectors of the people of God so that their deliberations incorporate, even if second-hand, the experience, perspectives and insights of the others.

However, as we look at decision-making processes and the reading of concrete historical situations, be it in the ecumenical movement as a whole or in the concrete situation of our local communities, let us keep alive both suspicion and trust, both commonality of belonging and awareness of our own dependency on the values of the class or group to which we belong. It is only in the cross-fertilization of those two components that the Bible can be opened to shed light on the complexities and ambiguities of our present history.

298

P I C - A CONCILIAR PROCESS

3. A conciliar process of investigation and interpretation should aim at the formulation of alternative projects to the prevailing reality, but projects and dreams that are possible. We criticize the two great economic and socio-political systems. The collapse of the socialist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe has unveiled the angelic character of Marxist anthropology which concentrated so much on the elimination of classes that it did not perceive the growing corruption that power produced precisely in those who were supposed to be avant-garde in the new society. The overall impression is that the market system has triumphed. However, we from the third world know differently. There is no such thing as a free market. Try to stop the subsidy for your farmers’ exports and see how free the market is! Try to sell sugar in the United States! The market is the best way that has been found so far to multiply production to respond to the demands of purchasers. It is a good master but a bad servant because it has not been designed to respond to the demands of poor human beings. Neither has the socialist or the capitalist system been able so far to respond to the ecological challenges or to the crisis of inner-city life, etc. So we should not contemplate the collapse of the socialist regimes with nostalgia, nor should we idolize the market system. We need to enter as a community into the process of designing possible alternatives where the values of the market as a system of exchange could be preserved but put at the service of the totality of the population. (The central committee of the World Council of Churches in August will consider an “Ecumenical Statement on Economic Life” which will be an attempt to spell out the JPIC vision in relation to economic justice.)

A reading of the ten affirmations of Seoul should be helpful in providing a sense of direction and a set of challenges to any model of society proposed. We need to recover the search for a “sustainable society”, understanding sustainable in a double sense: “possible to be sustained”, that means with ecological responsibility for the coming generations, but also “worthy of being sustained” in that the quality of humanity assured inside that society serves the loyalty of its citizens. We need to find our way between the realism of the givenness of human limitations and constraints and the utopia of the kingdom of God, the shalom which is the promise of God. I cannot find a better expression for the society we are looking for than a caring society, where whatever competition is demanded by the economic system is softened, supported, humanized by a tissue of human relations and protective structures that constitute a permanent jubilee year, a permanent re-beginning, a permanent rehabilitation of people from the periphery or marginalization into a manifold process of participation, support, restoration.

By affirming a sustainable society we run the risk of affirming the relativism of the prevailing ideology, of pragmatism in terms of what is possible inside our human parameters as the maximum aspiration of a given society. While we recognize the freedom given to human beings in creation, and with that freedom the autonomy over political decisions, this freedom and this autonomy need to be conceived inside a frame of theological reference that invites us to use that freedom in terms of responsibility and accountability towards the aims of the kingdom to come. In that way, our historical decisions, as they incorporate our love for neighbour in structural and behaviour forms, express the degree of seriousness of our love for God because, according to Jesus, the second commandment is similar to the first commandment. With the same seriousness with which we consider as heresies those opinions

299


concerning God that do not reflect the basic convictions of Christian tradition, we are entitled to consider heretical all attitudes in relation to neighbour which do not emanate from expressions of love, responsibility and care for every creature. Once again, the Trinitarian theology provides us with a model to understand the right relation between freedom, autonomy if you prefer, and accountability in the sense of belonging. We recognize at the same time the ambiguous and penultimate character of all our historical decisions, but we see inside that penultimate the values of the ultimate at stake.

It is not how much a given society is able to produce that is the commanding yardstick, but how the production of that society is intended to constitute, to build a texture of solidarity and human fulfilment.

4. While we intend to deepen our theological analysis of historical situations, and while we unite forces in developing alternative models of societies, whether local or global, we are called by the process on JPIC not only to reflect on the meaning of God’s covenant with humanity, but also to enter into our responses to that covenant, in terms of our solidarity and reciprocal support. The struggle against apartheid in South Africa is perhaps the most beautiful example of this solidarity, this belonging to the covenant of God, inside the particular situation of the struggle against apartheid carried on by the people and the churches in South Africa, but also in the international network of solidarity groups which have made that struggle their own, with the sharing in the faith commitment of the South African people. While obviously their solidarity has manifestations in the field of economic struggle through sanctions or political struggle through the formation of public opinion, its fundamental value is in the moral- ethical-theological recognition that that common struggle was an integral part of our belonging to the covenant for justice that God has shaped for all humanity in Jesus Christ.

That model should help us to understand, appreciate and be thankful for the many similar instances of people coming together to confront issues of peace or justice or ecological responsibility. We mentioned that the threat of nuclear war has almost disappeared from our horizon, but on the contrary the multiplication of local wars is a tragic reality. This demands new strategies. Peace groups that were committed to eliminating the cold war need to rediscover afresh their potential for peace services in relation to specific conflicts.

In Geneva, Switzerland, under the slogan “Christians for the Year 2000”, a covenant pledge is being circulated, engaging the community to stand up for the defence of political asylum-seekers in a climate of growing xenophobia and rejection of foreigners. In the difficult situation of today, it is very important to be able to plant signs of hope, to strengthen networks of support and to create, not islands of retreat from the world, but centres of renewal, of new potential, of new vision. Canberra invites us to pay attention to the strengthening of the civil society, the multiplication of groups of reciprocal support and inspiration. Churches, local parishes, are invited to become what they are supposed to be in God’s plan: communities of healing, centres of human renewal. Churches’ delegates gathered in Canberra affirmed the four main covenants called for by Seoul. We have all right to expect that the mandated priorities concerning these areas of engagement should become visible in the worshipping life of the churches, in their diaconal life, in their prophetic ministry. But obviously general commitments of assemblies will be meaningful when they come to inspire local and

300


global solidarity actions where our covenant with God is tested, affirmed, strength- ened and celebrated.

One of the most moving moments at Seoul was the witnessing and celebrating of specific “covenants” made there between various groups and churches. These were promises of solidarity and commitment made among specific participants. For example, Caribbean participants made commitments to acts of solidarity with the people of

. Haiti. Participants from the Netherlands made commitments with the National Council of Churches in the Philippines to work against the international exploitation and trafficking of Filipino women. Churches in Canada, USA and Europe made commitments to work for reduced emissions of greenhouse gases in their countries. Evangeli- cals at Seoul made commitments to take the JPIC focus into their networks. Twenty such examples were shared at Seoul. But these could be multiplied into 20,000. Part of the ongoing challenge is to inspire and encourage such actions reaching into the local and parish life of our churches.

The affirmation of the presence of the Holy Spirit supporting and sustaining all creation, and of the actions of that Spirit inspiring challenges in the movements of history of humankind, is not only a clear commitment to confess our faith in the daily decisions of history, but also to see in those commitments components of our ecclesial reality and of our search for the unity of the church.

If, as Canberra affirmed, the church is a sign and sacrament of God’s particular care for God’s creation, it is logical to affirm that the way in which we as Christian communities engage in history manifests the degree of our ecclesial reality, and that by being together, planting signs, being symbols, reflecting the sacramental reality of God’s love for the world, we are expressing a unity that needs to be recognized for what it is, a conciliar reality, a belonging together inside God’s covenant, that has ecclesial significance.

Expressions of God’s covenant with humankind in the creation of solidarity chains among those who respond to that action of God, cannot be considered as being indifferent to the being of the community of faith that we call the church.

We must not allow contradictions between the search to overcome doctrinal differences among the churches, so that they all together may come to confess or to articulate the common faith, and the reality of living, enjoying, testing that commonality of faith in concrete historical actions, in manifestations of our love of God in neighbour that is also a confession of our faith. A normal component of conciliar fellowship should be the consideration of the socio-ethical options that are opening up in our ecumenical pilgrimage. So the affirmation of the equal dignity of all human beings, regardless of the colour of their skin, is not an option, but a faith affirmation that belongs to our being church and to our search for the unity of all churches. So the preferential option for the poor is a given of the gospel and is a non-negotiable of our ecclesial reality. The doctrinal articulation continues to be necessary to be able to respond with all our minds in praising the unity given by God in Christ. But that doctrinal articulation will be helped by the reality of our common engagement in society, of our living out there under the directions of the Holy Spirit, the reality of the presence and action of the Triune God in creation and history.

The conciliar process towards justice, peace and the integrity of creation provides a unique opportunity to bring together into a common understanding the movements of Faith and Order and Life and Work. There is resistance to this interpretation. Those

30 1


who are engaged in urgent historical struggles sometimes do not have the patience, the time, or the concern to discuss the consequences of their engagement for the being of the church and the unity among the churches. Those who are concerned fundamentally with overcoming centuries-old doctrinal conflicts are inclined to be afraid of the activism of those who would like to jump from common action in history to common affirmations about the being of the church. But it is impossible to divide what God has united. Doctrinal articulation cannot be of real service to the life of the churches if it is not closely related to the missionary engagement of those churches to their being in history, to their becoming signs and outposts of the kingdom to come.

5. I have concentrated on the Christian perspective of the conciliar process. And this is done with all intentionality, because we need to put our house in order. We need to contribute the commitment of the Christian community to humanity’s struggle for peace and justice and integrity of creation, so that our work with others from other religious persuasions can be relevant and credible. Obviously, concern for the future of humankind is not a province reserved only for Christians. The wish to confront the problems that assail humanity and creation cannot be the monopoly of the Christian faith. Obviously we have been learning a lot from the kind of religious relation that people whom we call “aboriginal” have with earth and creation. Obviously we have much to learn from the Buddhist understanding of the interdependence of all beings, and from the depth of their understanding of “being at peace”. We need also to be open to the correction that comes from other religious groups to our historical record as Christians. But we will contribute to this common search of the whole of humankind in a constructive manner, in a positive manner, only if we carry with us both the contribution of our Christian heritage and the reality of the Christian church in the world today.

I come from Latin America where, as in the USA, we will be remembering the 500th anniversary of the arrival of the conquerors and, later on, of the evangelists. We have homework to do to confront that history, to highlight the dimension of repentance and to see how the present generation covenants with the marginalized and the powerless sectors of our society in order to redeem that yesterday and to project a new reality for today and tomorrow. But obviously, this cannot be done without an attempt to recover something of the spirituality of the aboriginal inhabitants of Latin America and of the richness the black population brought with them from Africa and developed since then. Our role is to work from inside the Christian community, to open it up to recognition of others, to learning from others, to reconciliation with others and, we hope, to covenanting with others for the shaping of a different future.

The world of secular scientific technological thought, the old world of religious wisdom, the different ideological configurations that compete for humankind’s allegiance, also need to be present in our attempt to shape together a commonality of dreams for the future of society and creation, but we should come to the encounter of those worlds of thought and experience with clarity about our identity and in a humble spirit of repentance and hope.

A final word. We are today in situations where very often it is difficult to see the openings on the horizon of humankind that could change the situation of frustration for great masses of people. We tend to develop, and rightly so, theologies of survival and services that will help people to go through this present period with the hope that they will still be alive when history will open again and new chances may appear.

302


I mentioned hope. A theology of faith against all odds of history is fundamental even for survival. Children are being born, God is still faithful. There are still also 7000 who have not given loyalty to Baal. In this hope the conciliar process must continue. The Spirit will surprise us with undreamed-of possibilities.

NOTES

'S igns of the Spirir, report of the WCC's seventh assembly, Canberra, Australia, 1991, ed. Michael

'Ibid., p.54. Kinnamon, Geneva, WCC, 1991, p.59.

303

Documents

JPIC — A Conciliar Process