Towards a Common Understanding and Vision

Towards a Common Understanding and Vision

Marlin VanElderen

During the last three days of August, WCC General Secretary Emilio Castro invited a group of people to Geneva to talk about setting in motion a process of consultation “Towards a Common Understanding of the World Council of Churches”. Among the participants at the meeting were: Mrs R. Andriamanjato, Rev. Dr Paul A. Crow, Jr., Bishop Jeremias, Archbishop Aram Keshishian, Dr Jost Miquez Bonino, Dr Ishmael Noko, Metropolitan John of Pergamon, Ms Birgitta Rubenson, Fr Thomas Stransky, Dr Pauline Webb, and Dr Constance Tarasar.

The convening of this group was in response to actions by the WCC central committee in Moscow (1989) and Geneva (1990). At the Moscow meeting the committee asked “the general secretary to develop a process of consultation on: (1) the common understanding and vision of the WCC; (2) the relationship of the WCC to its member churches; (3) the relationship of the WCC to non-member churches and other Christian groups”. In Geneva, it approved a process and timetable for this process whose first step was “that a small task force, under the leadership of the general secretary, be invited to do some brainstorming, to define the process more precisely, and to begin preparation of a study booklet to be shared with the churches, councils and related Christian organizations”. *

The three-day encounter was informal, without a printed agenda, although the general secretary intervened regularly to focus the discussion during particular periods of the meeting. Before coming, the participants received copies of several earlier documents to stimulate their thinking, but no papers were prepared for the conversation as such. Nor was time taken from the three full days of conversation to articulate a consensus or draft a report.

What follows is one attempt to classify insights from the discussion under several general headings. Such a summary can suggest important elements for a broadened discussion as well as identifying points at which issues need to be sharpened or

0 The author i s editor of the WCC’s monthly magazine One World.

138

TOWARDS A COMMON UNDERSTANDING AND VISION

concretized if the churches are to participate usefully in the process which the central committee has asked for.

The process: what are we trying to do? What the central committee has called for is nothing less than a comprehensive and

critical reassessment of our ecumenical fellowship within the WCC. This process is an intentional one, but it is by no means something unprecedented. Nor is it a one-time effort; it must be something ongoing, for an essential part of our fellowship in the WCC is continuing to examine how we understand and experience this fellowship. If such an examination is to fulfill the central committee’s expectations of it, a concern for reception in the member churches must be built into it.

As the participants sought to define the process, both visionary and phenomenologi- cal elements surfaced, as well as specific procedural comments.

A common vision of the WCC was described as both the criterion for and the susraining power of all that the WCC is and does. Talk about vision must have an element of the “utopian”; it must involve “dreaming dreams” and being open to the “surprises of the Spirit”.

Yet vision cannot be described in a vacuum: it is an “extrapolation from the present on the basis of the perspective of the eschaton”. The vision must, for example, provide hope even when there seems to be little ground for hope. Perhaps, it was suggested, the focus ought not to be on articulating a vision but on creating and forming a people who will be able to produce a vision.

Whether or not one would use the term “crisis” (“mid-life” or otherwise), the ecumenical movement is surely in a period of transition. In many ways, the world situation and “religious field” are vastly different from what they were in Amsterdam a generation ago. Any discussion of a common understanding/vision of the WCC must be well-informed about “the way things are”. Several participants shared their own perceptions of how things are ecumenically from the point of view of Latin America, Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

Of course, even our descriptions of the way things are may be disputed. Generaliza- tions about social revolutions, “new thinking” in politics or a “shift in the centre of gravity” of the church are challenged by questions about how much the pattern of NortherdWestern domination has really changed.

But even apart from differences of analysis, any search for a “common understanding and vision of the WCC” is made more difficult by contemporary self-affirming individualism, associated with (spreading) urban society and a growing tendency to polarization evident in many churches.

We must do more comparing of our diverse experiences of church unity. At the same time, the “common ecumenical memory” of those taking part in the ecumenical movement (including WCC staff) must be developed. From the sharing of ecumenical experiences it will be apparent that there are many different entry points into ecumenism; the simplicity of some of these should be encouraged, not despised.

Information about how member churches now in fact “receive” what the WCC does should be collected. These data should be analyzed to see what works and what doesn’t work.

Three specific problems should be highlighted: language (how many members of member churches are fluent enough in the WCC’s “working languages” to take an

139

THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

active role in the process?); economics (financial realism is mandatory if visions are to become reality); contradictions (some parts of the vision will work at cross purposes; e . g . , involving more people while cutting down the number of committees).

Finally, it was noted that it is desirable to take advantage of the seventh assembly to give this process important momentum.

What do we understand by unity? It is often said (by the Vancouver assembly, for example) that the goal of unity is the

integrating point for all WCC activities. Whether or not that is a descriptive as well as prescriptive statement, there is clearly a need for more exchanges on how we see the “one church” (which is not just a “goal” but a “given”).

Locally, working together (de ficro ecumenism) often leaves little time for reflection on unity; indeed, in pluralistic situations where cooperation is possible, reflection on unity may be seen as an unnecessary distraction. And there is a perpetual tension between unity and justice, invariably reaffirmed as two aspects of our obedience to the one gospel but often sundered in fact.

Not that unity has been utterly neglected. “Models of unity” is a recurring Faith and Order topic, the more so with the apparent decline of “organic unity” conceived as “church union”. Extremely pertinent to the “understanding and vision” discussion is that element of the “models” discussion which seeks to articulate what ought to become of our “confessional” identities.

Unity cannot be the preoccupation of only theologians, for it must be an existential reality, not just a theological proposition. In many cases, common witness, not doctrinal agreement, is the motor of the drive to unity. Indeed, the importance for unity of doctrinal agreement may be overestimated; within a single church persons may be in Christian fellowship who disagree about (or never even consider) apparently central points of doctrine. Moreover, even as doctrinal harmony grows by way of convergences identified. new divisions arise around ethical issues (to what extent may these be compared to or equated with doctrinal differences?).

Fundamental to all of this is ecclesiology. Many of the most difficult questions about unity seem to boil down to “who are the churches?” Ideas of unity - or unities - must be reconceived to take account of new historical realities.

The 1950 central committee “Toronto Statement” - “The Church, the Churches and the WCC” - came up often in the discussion, even if it is not the point of the current process to produce a “revised” or “new” Toronto statement.

Toronto remains an important tool for reflection, but questions were raised about its adequacy (its “negative” affirmations have stood the test of time better than its “positive” ones), its scope (though ecclesiology is the heart of the matter, Toronto sidesteps ecclesiology) and its status (it is not a dogmatic formulation and should not be treated as one, though Orthodox churches often link it inextricably with their WCC membership). We may have gone “beyond’ Toronto, it was said, but in some ways we have not yet caught up with Toronto.

What do we mean by “fellowship”? Many comments brought out different aspects of the often-abstract reality variously

called “fellowship”, “communion”, “koinonia”. Koinonia involves a sense of belong- ingness (and an accompanying sense of the church) which runs counter to much

140


contemporary Christian individualism. It was seen as implying a further set of often- abstract realities: participation, relationship, sharing, growing. Fellowship should mean not just co-existence alongside each other in some kind of federation, but pro- existence. At the same time, is there not also a sense in which the WCC and ecumenical movement have been a “fellowship of controversy”?

Enhancing the reality of fellowship means recognizing that the WCC is people- oriented, not programme- or institution-centred. Relationships are thus “everybody’s business”. Exposing people to ecumenical experience is critical. The psychological and social dimensions of our togetherness are important: even our consultations, the obvious place for involving people, usually pay too little attention to developing human relations (for example, not allowing enough free time in the programme schedule). The same charge may be levelled against many ecumenical “team visits”: the choice of the people who are visited means they do not always live up to their potential as the ideal method of building relationships. More broadly, the question was raised, does ecumenical experience help us to love each other better?

Over the years, many observers have tried to specify further the nature of the fellowship in the WCC. Some have called it “partial communion” - in obvious recognition of our inability universally to share around the Table of the Lord. But how can communion which is centred in Jesus Christ be partial? Still, worshipping together is perhaps the most frequently cited visible expression of our ecumenical communion.

“Broken fellowship” is perhaps a more helpful specification than “incomplete”; but no matter how we modify the word “fellowship”, we must try to see what its implications - ecclesiastical and otherwise - are. Fellowship has consequences for the life of the WCC - though how well koinonia can survive our efforts to “organize” it is an important question.

The WCC as it is and as it should be As descriptions of contemporary ecumenical trends and current perceptions of the

WCC were shared, comments were made about the WCC as it is (or as it is seen) and the WCC as it should (or might) be. (To avoid repetition, the following statements omit such qualifiers as “some people believe that.. .”).

Although everyone acknowledges the importance of fellowship and the consequent need for the WCC to focus on relationships, and although the WCC has had noteworthy successes in expressing solidarity in some local situations, the Council is in fact structured for operation (of which it does too much) rather than for participation. Programmes too easily become institutionalized. The WCC’s attempt to broaden participation - by bringing into commissions and working groups a wider variety of persons than are represented on governing bodies - has had mixed success (and creates problems of its own).

The WCC is not well-known. Where it is known, it is too often seen only as an international donor agency, not as a fellowship of churches.

On the most difficult doctrinal and ethical questions facing the churches, there is no genuine dialogue within the WCC. Many issues are dealt with in a superficial manner; and the WCC has lost its role as a centre of Christian thinking.

The WCC needs to recover an emphasis on the vocation of laypeople, helping them to become aware of global issues. It cannot and should not seek to do this by itself (indeed, a priority for the WCC should be coming to terms with the “vocation of

141


limitation”); but it can play a role in coordinating the enabling of people that is going on in many places. The WCC should do less study, and be more concerned with the reception of its studies. It should have fewer permanent committees and sponsor more small consultations.

The WCC should speak clearly and should devote more attention to communicating what it says.

Where do we go from here? The actors in the process The key to whether or not this process will bear fruit is, in the first instance, whether

the WCC member churches make it their own. The hope is that this will involve a genuine engagement with the Zaos, the reality of the several churches, but what this engagement means specifically will differ from church to church.

To say that the discussion must be owned by the member churches is not merely to hope for 31 1 different discussions going on around the world. In this connection, one may note several comments about the particularities of the Orthodox churches as partners in ecumenical discussions such as this (and about the danger of creating and perpetuating our stereotypes of each other).

But the “common understanding and vision” is not just the property of the WCC and its member churches, for it has countless implications for other Christian groups, including churches who do not choose to be members of the WCC or are ineligible for membership. Among those who have a part - and a stake - in the discussion process are:

Christian World Communions. An initial caution: one should not confuse CWCs with their organizational manifestations (LWF, WARC, etc.) nor generalize about these organizations without regard for their widely varying sizes and self-understand- ings. Bearing that in mind, how do these communions make the WCC a part of their life? To take a concrete example, is there a sense in which the LWF’s eighth assembly (Curitiba, 1990) might have been seen as part of the preparation process for Canberra?

Related to this are bilateral ecumenical initiatives (including, but not limited to, bilateral theological dialogues). The theological output of these over the last 25 years has been too great for any church properly to digest. Bilaterals do proceed, it was observed, from a certain recognition of equality between the partners which is unfortunately not always present in the multilateral forum of the WCC. Ideally, perhaps, the WCC ought to provide a context for these bilateral relationships and to identify and address the major issues emerging from them. But (to take a specific example) what (if any) role does the WCC have in a knotty bilateral situation like that raised by the uniate churches?

A similar qualifier applies to regional and national ecumenical bodies: they differ in size, structure, vitality and self-understanding from place to place. Their importance for our process is summed up in the famous New Delhi conviction about the unity of “all in each place”. Their geographical limitation may mean that they can be closer to the churches, or the churches can feel closer to them than to the WCC. In a growing number of cases, they bring along the added dimension of full or partial Roman Catholic participation.

“Movements”. Once again a warning against generalizing: some movements are centres of activities congenial to the WCC, others are anti-ecumenical. In some cases, there are polarized movements within a single church - as in the movements for and

142


against the ordination of women in the Church of England. Moreover, it is a false dichotomy to contrast movements with the “institutionalized church - any movement with which the WCC is likely to have contacts will also be institutionalized.

Although tensions should not be minimized, the “movement” vs “church” opposition is not necessarily accurate. Some would say that the contribution of movements to ecumenism should and can come through their influence on the churches. Given these qualifications, the WCC’s attitude towards movements should be one of “critical reception”.

“Conservative evangelicals” might be seen as a particular case of “movement”. Some felt that the WCC has never really taken seriously its relationship to conservative evangelicals. The growth of conservative evangelical groups is not only for ecumenically negative reasons; in fact some of these groups are addressing the classic ecumenical agenda with a new vitality and energy.

There were a few comments to the effect that ecumenical rheological institutions and ecumenical study centres are an untapped resource which could contribute to this process.

The specific issue of the participation in this process of WCC non-member churches was not discussed.

As noted earlier, the process is not seen as “Geneva-centred” (a project of the WCC staff) or even for that matter “assembly”-centred. Yet the WCC staff and governing bodies will inevitably have an important role in shaping the discussion of a common understanding and vision; and a number of comments about the overall role of the WCC may be seen as bearing on this process.

There were calls for the WCC to display courage in proclamation even when that means taking a position in opposition to member churches. There were appeals for a recovery or continuation of the “prophetic” role, mobilizing people for advocacy and giving them courage to struggle together. This may mean tension within the WCC, but it can be “creative tension”.

It was said that the WCC must not merely “describe” but also “prescribe” - otherwise, the churches will lose interest in it or see it only as a platform for their own concerns. Yet the WCC cannot take this type of “leadership” without listening to the churches (which does not just mean taking orders from them).

How, then, should the WCC’s role be described? Is it an “instrument” of the ecumenical movement? Is it the “servant” of the movement (and if so, what kind of “servanthood” is this)? Is it a “steward” of the movement?

* * *

The above outline of what happened at the meeting in Geneva suggests a few initial responses:

1. The 1990 central committee proposal cited at the beginning of this article expressed the hope that a meeting such as this might already produce the outline of a “study guide” to start the process in the churches. The breadth and depth of the discussion at the Geneva meeting - and the enthusiasm and conviction of the participants - suggest that it would have been premature to try to draft a text and questions of sufficient brevity and clarity to serve usefully in a wide variety of small groups.

143


2. What was noted on several occasions was the importance of using the WCC’s seventh assembly as a forum for broadening the range of participants. The plans for Canberra do allow for setting aside a couple of periods of section and sub-section work to listen (and record) what delegates have to say about (1) their impressions of the WCC; (2) the entry-points by which they personally came to be ecumenically involved; (3) their vision of the vocation of the WCC; (4) the implications of this vision for the structure of the WCC.

3. As the process continues, there will have to be theological debate on the understanding and vision of the WCC within its governing bodies appointed at Canberra. Participants in the Geneva meeting in August also received a copy of a resolution from the Standing Commission on Faith and Order (which met in Dunblane, Scotland, two weeks earlier). Faith and Order agreed that the subject of a common understanding of the WCC should be on the agenda of the fifth world conference on Faith and Order (proposed for 1993).

4. Answering the question “How do churches and their members presently perceive the WCC?” requires more than sending out a survey as widely as possible and collating the results. Such responses will be heavily weighted in favour of people who ( 1 ) understand the issues, (2) have time to reflect and articulate a response (probably in one of the WCC’s working languages), (3) care enough about the WCC to take the trouble. Of those who reply, many will no doubt do so in terms of how they would like the WCC to be seen in their constituency. A more accurate picture might involve a certain amount of research (to take one example, a study of how - and how often - member church periodicals mention the WCC or deal with ecumenically important issues).

5. Certain subjects were notable for their absence during the discussion. One must, of course, be cautious about inferring too much from what doesn’t get talked about in a relatively brief meeting for which there is no written agenda. As noted above, the question of the relationship of the WCC to non-member churches was not touched on, though there was no suggestion that the participants considered this unimportant. More intriguing was the comparative lack of reference to actual WCC programmatic activities (an exception was the Programme to Combat Racism as a specific case of the controversial nature of a prophetic witness). Some went so far as to say that relations are so important that programmes must be cut if necessary to foster this aspect of the Council’s work.

6 . This emphasis on relationships links the “common understanding and vision” discussion with the effort, ultimately deferred, by the central committee between its Moscow (1 989) and Geneva (1990) meetings to approve a “programmatic reorganiza- tion” of the WCC (as well as with earlier efforts to give a specific structural place to “relationships” in the life of the WCC).

7. Another link with ongoing WCC discussions is the financial one. As noted above, the group in Geneva recognized the need for “financial realism” in translating “vision” into reality; but only after that gathering did the extent of the consequences of the WCC’s current financial status and prospects become evident. Obviously, arriving at a long-term understanding and vision of the WCC and dealing with short- and medium-term financial possibilities cannot happen in isolation from each other. The implications go in both directions: a more clearly articulated understanding and vision may have a significant influence on the availability of resources in the future.

144


8. Finally, all the participants at the Geneva meeting were experienced ecumenists. A key question is how to bring into future discussions those who do not have such an extensive ecumenical background - those who are (in the words of one participant) “at a different level of ecumenical development”.

A US sportswriter, reflecting on the lack of interest in his country in soccer’s World Cup (which the US will host in 1994), observed that he had difficulty describing a game in which one might say that one of the teams “built up an insurmountable 1-0 lead’. There is a perhaps not dissimilar difficulty in trying to explain to most church people that “the key issue facing the WCC is ecclesiology” - no matter how often one is driven to that conclusion.

The pedagogical problem here is a difficult one, but if it is not solved, the entire discussion of a “common understanding and vision” may appear to most Christians as self-centred introspection - the sort of navel-gazing that institutions do when they have lost their way.

NOTES

‘ Central Committee: Minutes of the Fortieth Meeting (Moscow), Geneva, WCC, 1990, p.66. ’Central Committee: Minutes of the ForpFirst Meeting (Geneva), Geneva, WCC, 1990, p.90.

145

Documents

Towards a Common Understanding and Vision