Editor EMILIO CASTRO

Managing Editors T. K . THOMAS THOMAS F. BEST MARLIN VANELDEREN

Editorial Assistant JOAN CAMBITSIS

The quarterly of the World Council of Churches

Edi tori a1

Twenty-five years ago, in July 1966, the World Council of Churches convened in Geneva a world conference on Church and Society. It was in many ways a memorable event: Martin Luther King preaching in the Cathedral St Pierre, from Chicago, via a TV hook-up, to a Eurovision audience of millions (the Geneva conference was the first ecumenical meeting to benefit from the growing popularity of television); the first participation of the Russian Orthodox Church in a major WCC conference after joining the WCC in 1961, with Archbishop Alexis of Tallinn as one of the six presidents of the conference; the first WCC meeting to be truly worldwide in participation with more than half of the official participants coming from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East (but no one from the Pacific); the first ecumenical meeting to include in the discussion of Christian social responsibility a large body of lay persons (but only a few women) - economists, sociologists, politicians, social workers, businessmen (but only a few scientists and technologists).

The 1966 conference was a “study” conference, convened to speak to the churches about the Christian responsibility in the contemporary world social problems. It brought together radicals and conservatives, experts and academics as well as activists engaged in the struggle for political and economic justice and freedom. And a large number of youth participants.

The turmoil created by the political and economic upheaval and the demand for social justice in the late 1950s and early 1960s provided the subject matter for the conference. This was recognized by the planners in selecting the theme: “Christians in the Technical and Social Revolutions of Our Time”.

The results of the meeting greatly influenced the content and direction of ecumeni- cal work on social issues for the following decades. Predictably it also provoked much controversy in the churches and in the press long after the event. The 1966 conference was often blamed for leading the WCC into a “theology of revolution”, or “liberation theology” as it later came to be called.

305

THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

The conference itself refused to give blanket approval to a “theology of revolution”, which disappointed many of the younger theologians and lay participants. But some churches were annoyed that the conference even discussed the subject and, in response to the controversy, two years later, in March 1968, this issue was directly addressed at a consultation of 45 theologians, convened by the Faith and Order Commission and the Department on Church and Society, in Zagorsk, USSR. Its conclusion was that the churches had to avoid giving absolute approval to the idea of revolution as a goal in itself, while affirming that radical social change was necessary to achieve social justice. As the Zagorsk statement made clear, “Christian theology warns us against sacralizing either the status quo or the revolution”.

But interest in a “theology of revolution” continued, especially in student circles, and by 1969 the World Student Christian Federation had become embroiled in a theological-ideological conflict over the Christian commitment to revolutionary change in church and in society. The controversy was so devastating that it deeply divided the student movement in the ensuing years.

It was my privilege to preach at the opening worship services in Geneva 1966 and the subsequent theological meeting in Zagorsk, and I have been a participant in many of the later ecumenical discussions of Christian social responsibility. Going through the different accounts of the meaning of 1966 for the ecumenical movement, it is clear that on a few fundamental issues there was general agreement. For example, practically all accepted the need for a radical Christian stand against racism. But on the issue of a just economic and political order the response was less definite and more divided. It seemed that no economic ideology provided the answer to contemporary economic problems.

Nevertheless, in the following years the WCC increasingly supported demands for “revolutionary changes in economic and political structures” (Nairobi assembly). There was increasing hope in a “new economic order” which would replace the capitalist system. However, by 1988 this perspective faced a new challenge. The problems of the various forms of “real socialism” were increasingly apparent and in 1989 the collapse of the communist system in Eastern Europe confronted the world and the churches with a dramatically new economic-ideological situation.

Today, therefore, we observe the 25th anniversary of the conference of 1966 in a greatly changed and uncertain ideological climate. Some hold that the examination of this new social situation should have been addressed by the WCC’s programme on Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation. But the world convocation on JPIC in Seoul, in March 1990, was not designed as a study conference and was not prepared to make a new analysis of the economic and political changes in the world. When the problem of Eastern European socialism was raised at Seoul, it was felt that the theological-ideological situation there was a regional matter which did not concern a world ecumenical meeting. However, by the time of the WCC central committee meeting in Geneva, later in the same month, the situation in Eastern Europe had become too dramatic to be ignored. It simply had to be addressed. In my report to the central committee in Geneva I spoke to these developments as follows:

The events in Central and Eastern Europe raise the question that will be analyzed in detail later in our meeting: What type of society are we seeking to build? . . . In this new departure in world history, the hope is that a fresh debate will open up, both locally and globally, in the quest for possible alternatives.

306

E D I T O U L

The central committee welcomed “these events which are bringing new liberties and processes towards participatory democracy in many countries”, and it urged WCC member churches “to enter into dialogue with the churches in Europe in the search for new models of social and political justice, ensuring the widest possible participation in decision-making structures”.

Some hoped that such a dialogue about “new models” would begin at the assembly in Canberra, February 1991. But attempts to do so in assembly section 11, on the theme, “Spirit of Truth - Set us Free!”, produced only the following brief mention in the section’s report to the assembly:

After the economic system of the so-called “socialist countries” plunged into deep crisis, many hopes were expressed about the system of the free-market economy. But it appeared that the free-market economy is also unable to adjust to the new world economic order without new social and ecological institutions.

Understandably this limited reference has created the suspicion that the WCC did not wish or was not prepared to hold a frank and open dialogue on this issue.

In response to these doubts we present in this issue of The Ecumenical Review some recent ecumenical contributions on this theme, especially from those who believe that the new ideological situation has yet to be addressed by the ecumenical movement. Four of the papers - by Nancy Cocks, Charles West, Paul Abrecht and Petr Macek - come from an international meeting of theologians and lay persons that was held in the Vancouver School of Theology, in July 1990, to reflect on ecumenical social thought after the Cold War. At the end of their two-week meeting they wrote to me an “Open Letter” to express their concern about the future of ecumenical social thought. They urged the need for more dialogue on the theological-ethical understanding of the new social-ideological situation.

Among the other papers, C.T. Kurien’s was written specially for this issue of the Review. Gerhard Linn writes about his own experiences under communist rule. In the two comments we have included, Lesslie Newbigin and M.M. Thomas provide valuable theological insights on the new situation we face today.

We hope ecumenical discussion of this controversial problem will continue. The ideas of 1966 and the thought and action that grew out of them have been overtaken by the dramatic events of recent years. But the spirit of 1966, its openness to new ideas and its readiness to examine the different views held in the church on the meaning of economic justice, are still fundamental to our ecumenical calling.

EMILIO CASTRO

307