73

The Catholic Presbyterian (1879-1883) The Quarterly Register (1886-1936) The Presbyterian Register (1937-1948) The Presbyterian World (1949-1955) The Reformed and Presbyterian World (1956-1970) Reformed World (1971- )

Volume 55 N 2 June 2005

Editor Odair Pedroso Mateus

Contents
Editorial............................................ Towards a new ecumenical configuration for the 21st century, Konrad Raiser.................. The reconfiguration of the ecumenical movement an overview, Hubert van Beek........ Towards a people-centred ecumenical configuration, His Holiness Aram I......................... The vision and values guiding the ecumenical movement, Konrad Raiser...................... Visions from the youth consultation on reconfiguration...................... From Antelias with love Statement from the consultation on reconfiguration............... Mapping the oikoumene, Jill Hawkey........................................... Changing global context and the challenge to 21st century ecumenism, Samuel Kobia ..... On dreams and visions: living the deepening contradictions of ecumenism, Musimbi Kanyoro.............................................................................................................. Reformed voices on the ecumenical movement, K.C. Abraham, C.M. Akale, E. Santana, J.H. Thomas, R. van Houten...................................................... Final statement from the consultation on ecumenism in the 21st century...... The gospel and our service to the ecumenical movement, W. Ariarajah.....
Reformed World is published quarterly by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches 150, route de Ferney, PO Box 2100 - 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland www.warc.ch

75 77 96 104 111 119 122 127 140 146 154 171 179

Rev. Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick Mr. Helis H. Barraza Daz, Rev. Dr. Henriette Hutabarat-Lebang, Rev. Dr. Gottfried W. Locher, Mrs. Marcelle Orange-Mafi, Rev. Dr. Ofelia Ortega, Rev. Prof. Lilia Rafalimanana Geneva Secretariat Rev. Dr. Setri Nyomi - General Secretary Rev. Patricia Sheerattan-Bisnauth - Partnership of Women and Men Ms. Jet den Hollander - John Knox-WARC Mission in Unity Project Mrs. Renate Herdrich - Finances Mr. John Asling - Communications Rev. Dr. Seong-Won Park - Cooperation and Witness Rev. Dr. Odair Pedroso Mateus - Theology
President Vice-Presidents
Copyright by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, Geneva. Except where otherwise stated, the writers of articles are alone responsible for the opinions expressed. No article may be reproduced in whole or in part without permission.

74

Editorial

Ecumenical imagination in the age of commodity as communion

God, in your grace Next February in Porto Alegre - the southern Brazilian city that has become world famous for hosting the main international forum of movements and organisations committed to an alternative globalisation addressing peoples and earth Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, Evangelical, and Pentecostal representatives from all over the world will gather at the 9th assembly of the World Council of Churches. They will review and hopefully renew the wide range of visible expressions of their common Christian calling to mutual vulnerability and mutual belonging, which - particularly in the age of commodity as communion - is a vital element of the Christian witness to Gods gospel of gracious freedom for gracious solidarity. Their ten-day meditation on their common calling to receive one another as Christ graciously received us for the glory of God will take place in the light of a prayer, and prayer, according to an ancient monastic spirituality, is a sister of hospitality. They will constantly pray God, in your grace, transform the world, an act of contemplation that calls them to hopeful humility and active compassion for themselves, for the old who are burying the young, for the women who are dying before time, and for the redemption song sung by the earth community. God, in your grace What is given is transcendental, foundational, final. As a model of relation, Gods grace in Christ is asymmetric generosity. It calls us to a spirituality of active resistance to the growing submission of human and earth relations and life (human bodies and water sources included!) to the greed-based models of symmetric commerical exchanges that announce the advent of communion through commodity. It is in this spirit of active resistance to the false promise of commodity as communion that the 2004 Accra confession of faith, adopted by Reformed Christians in the context of the last WARC general council, represents and introduces a contemporary corrective to the modern anthropocentric (and androcentric) understandings of the Christian stewardship of creation as domination. Transform the ecumenical movement. As the participants in the Porto Alegre assembly review in prayer the visible expressions of their common calling to mutual vulnerability and mutual belonging, their ecumenical conversations will address not only what has been called a complex [ecumenical] situation full of uncertainties, but also the
75

urgent need to seek greater coherence and overall integration among the different instruments of organised ecumenism. The perception is widely shared that the ecumenical vision, in its different expressions, today requires a new set-up of its institutional means. This issue of Reformed World is a fresh reader on this pressing task, often described as the reconfiguration of the ecumenical movement. In the past three years, the World Council of Churches has facilitated two international consultations on the reconfiguration of the ecumenical movement. People from different cultural and confessional backgrounds, with a longstanding and diverse commitment to the ecumenical movement, have contributed to the launching of the discussion. With the kind assistance of the WCC staff and the permission granted by the authors, Reformed World has made a selection of texts prepared in connection with the reconfiguration process. Their presentation here seeks to reflect the chronological order in which they were produced. The word pressing is not rhetorical. While this editorial is being generated, Ishmael Noko, the general secretary of the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) is addressing the annual session of the LWF Council, meeting in Jerusalem and Bethlehem, on this very same issue. Noko is calling upon the Lutheran Federations Council to put in place, by 2010, what he calls a new LWF. He argues that the changes that have taken place during the past 20 years support his appeal for a radical renewal of the institutional instrument of the Lutheran Communion. He goes on to ask the LWF Council to appoint a Renewal Committee to review the Federations sustainability, its governing bodies, regional work, Geneva secretariat, and style of work. But this is not all. The Renewal Committee should also, according to Noko, look at the wider ecumenical context, including the time rhythm, size and relation of the LWF Assemblies to those of the WCC [World Council of Churches] and World Alliance of Reformed Churches. There was a time in which (Western) history and culture seemed to make the idea of Christian unity highly transparent to itself, at least for those who were then its main ecumenical actors. There was a time in which the geography of the ecumenical movement tended to be coextensive with the geography of Christianity. There was a time in which the ecumenical novum seemed to authorise ecumenical impatience. That time is no more, and the conflicting language about the (most recent) crisis of the ecumenical movement transition or paradigm shift, ambivalence of ecumenical achievements, epiphenomenon of the decline of modernity, departure from the biblical vision articulated in New Delhi points to the present, hopefully momentaneous, opacity of what we pray and work for. The texts gathered here pay evidence to the sincere effort to let perplexity be transfigured by imagination.

Odair Pedroso Mateus

76

Towards a new ecumenical configuration for the 21st century

Konrad Raiser

Ecclesiology and the case for a new ecumenical configuration

The German Protestant theologian and ecumenist Konrad Raiser is the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches (WCC) from 1993 to 2003. He addresses the WCC Central Committee in 2002 on what it means to be the church in a context of globalisation and violence. In this contemporary ecclesiological framework he makes the case for a review of the existing institutional arrangements and relations within the ecumenical movement. According to Raiser, the complex situation full of uncertainties that marks the ecumenical movement is also reflected in a lack of coherence and overall integration at its organisational level. Koinonia (communion), in its local and global manifestations, is the essential dimension of what it means to be the church. The objective of a new ecumenical configuration must therefore be to regain the fundamental ecclesiological interdependence between the local and the global manifestations of being church. Its decisive test is to organise effectively the interplay between the global and the local dimensions and create an organic framework for this purpose.

Ecumenism today confronts a complex situation full of uncertainties. On the one hand, ecumenical commitment is claimed by most Christian churches and integrated into their self-understanding. Only a minority of Christian communities would openly question or resist the call to greater fellowship. On the other hand, we see an increase of denominationalism in all parts of the world and the tendency among churches to affirm particular identities and to strengthen their institutional profile. In most churches ecumenism no longer seems to have the quality of a vision which

mobilises people to transcend inherited traditions and to engage in acts of renewal. The younger generation which, in the early stages of the ecumenical movement, was its main protagonist is less and less attracted by the search for visible institutional forms of church unity and cooperation. While there is a genuine spiritual quest, the concern for Being Church cannot easily be communicated, particularly through the secular media. Simultaneously, church leaders defending the commitment to ecumenical fellowship find themselves confronted with
77

conservative and fundamentalist positions that identify ecumenism with tendencies that relativize and weaken the foundations of culture and religion. For many even the term ecumenism provokes suspicion and rejection. These uncertainties have also caught up with the ecumenical commitment to the struggle for justice, peace and the integrity of creation. The new dynamic which was generated through the conciliar JPIC 1 process has lost much of its appeal, particularly among the younger generation, and it remains to be seen whether the Decade to Overcome Violence can rekindle some of this enthusiasm. At the same time, single-issue campaigns and civil society organisations have begun effectively to compete for support, public attention and funding, including support by church-related agencies. The multifaceted approach of the traditional conciliar ecumenical organisations encounters difficulties in a climate dominated by the expectation of effective immediate action and visible results. The WCC and most of its partner organisations on the regional and national levels have come under severe pressure due to this shift in funding interests. Difficulties in terms of orientation and objectives are also reflected in a lack of coherence on the organisational level. Until the early 1970s the conciliar model of ecumenism represented by the World Council of Churches and based on the membership of autonomous churches seemed to provide the appropriate form of
78

organisation for ecumenical initiatives. The integration into the WCC of the International Missionary Council in 1961 and of the World Council on Christian Education in 1972 seemed to validate the claim of the WCC to be the privileged instrument of the ecumenical movement. Soon however the situation began to change. After the Bandung Conference in 1956, a new form of ecumenical organisation began to emerge in the continental regions. The process of creating regional ecumenical organisations which was begun in Asia in 1959 reached its completion in 1982 with the inaugural assembly of the Latin American Council of Churches. Regionalization thus became a dominant trend in ecumenical organisations and the regional ecumenical organisations found their particular profile in strengthening regional identity, sometimes in competition with the WCC, and drawing inspiration from the agenda of the nonaligned movement around decolonization, liberation and development. At the same time, the decision of the Roman Catholic Church not to seek membership in the WCC and instead to give priority attention to bilateral dialogues with Christian world communions strengthened the voice of these communions as important ecumenical actors. Bilateral ecumenism became an important counterpoint to the multilateral approach favoured by the WCC. Today, at the beginning of the 21 st century, we therefore encounter a highly complex picture. The World Council of Churches is still the most comprehensive

and

representative

ecumenical

has become a strong counterpart seeking its own profile on the global scene, supported by effective networks of cooperation between agencies in Europe, on the one hand, and in Australia, New Zealand and North America, on the other. A regular WCC Roundtable meeting with agency representatives has begun to consider the question of the appropriate place of this group of ecumenical partner organisations in a new ecumenical configuration for the 21 st century. The ecumenical responsibility for emergency response has been transferred to a new joint organisation Action by Churches Together. Meanwhile, this initiative has been followed by the creation of the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance with the participation of a wide range of ecumenical partner organisations. Mention must also be made of the regular links, which the World Council of Churches maintains, with non-member churches, in particular with the Roman Catholic Church through the Joint Working Group and more recently with the Pentecostal community through a Joint Consultative Group. Finally, there are the many non-church and nongovernmental organisations with an ecumenical agenda. For the purposes of cooperation with the WCC they are grouped in the WCC Rules under the general rubric of International Ecumenical Organisations. Obviously this inherited pattern of ecumenical organisation lacks overall integration. Much of this configuration can only be explained by particular historical circumstances. The significant organ79

organisation worldwide. It maintains working relationships with a great variety of ecumenical partner organisations, but all these organisational manifestations of ecumenism remain independent in policy setting and decision making. Coordination bodies have been created with several groupings of ecumenical partner organisations, but they remain consultative and have no authority for decision making. The oldest of these bodies is the Conference of Secretaries of Christian world communions, which meets annually with the participation of WCC representatives, but follows its own procedures. A similar regular meeting between the General Secretaries of the World Council of Churches and regional ecumenical organisations has been taking place annually for almost twenty years and has significantly improved relationships and cooperation. Many of the regional ecumenical organisations, however, face severe financial and structural crises and in some of the regions, sub-regional fellowships of churches and councils have moved to the fore, raising the question of the continued significance of the traditional continental regions in an age of globalisation. More recently, church-related agencies for development and humanitarian assistance have moved into the foreground and have begun to establish themselves as new global actors on the ecumenical scene. The Heads of Agencies Network, created some ten years ago with WCC assistance,

isational expansion of ecumenism over the last thirty years was facilitated by funding made available through churches and public sources of funds for the general purposes of social development, education, health, human rights and similar concerns. As has been indicated already, there is currently a clear decrease in the availability of such funds and the number of actors in civil society competing for such resources has increased. The process of globalisation has added further difficulties. The influence of the non-aligned movement in the postBandung period has largely disappeared, weakening the case for classical regionalism. Instead there is a strong temptation for all ecumenical actors to gain global visibility. The ethos of competition and the logic of the corporate world are beginning to make their inroads into the field of ecumenical organisation. The WCC has begun to focus its attention on the task of convening, coordinating and networking among the partners, leaving the operational responsibility to others. This however implies a loss of visibility and of clear profile with immediate consequences for the availability of funds. On the part of the churches, a pragmatic view of ecumenical organisations seems to prevail, judging their importance by the added value or the comparative advantage of the services they render. To give an example: the WCC does not seem to be as effective in promoting church unity as Christian world communions through bilateral agreements. Also ecumenical resource sharing seems to be more effective
80

in bilateral relationships between churches and funding partners than through multilateral instruments coordinated by the WCC. In addition it appears that many of the traditional ecumenical organisations depend for their leadership on circles of ecumenical friends with the consequence that the organised churches as members feel only a limited sense of co-responsibility. The formation of a new generation of ecumenical leaders has been neglected for too long. In this situation the WCC adopted the policy document on a Common Understanding and Vision (CUV) placing all the emphasis on the understanding of the World Council as a fellowship of churches. The CUV perspective certainly has the potential of generating a new quality of relationships. Together with the reports of the Special Commission 2 and the Membership Study Group a new ethos and culture of ecumenical organisation is emerging which would represent incentives for shaping an alternative to the vision of globalisation. However, can we honestly assume that the churches are fully committed to fellowship and genuinely seek to be and to act together in all areas where they are not prevented from doing so by deeply rooted differences of conviction? The report of the Special Commission has clearly stated the ecclesiological challenge which is inherent in the CUV perspective, but this challenge has not really been accepted by all member churches. Nevertheless, this lack (so far) of decisive

response on the part of the churches cannot and must not have the consequence that the WCC should give in to the pressure to adopt the NGO3 model emphasising and sharpening its programmatic profile according to the political or corporate logic. Indeed, the very challenges of globalisation should lead the ecumenical organisations to maintain and strengthen their ecclesial and spiritual character and vocation. While in many of the areas of traditional ecumenical activity, including the concerns for peace and conflict resolution, justice and development, human rights and ecological responsibility, the churches and ecumenical organisations will find their role increasingly challenged by secular NGOs, it is the act of spiritual discernment which gives credibility to their prophetic voice. It is in this way that they can make a difference globally and locally. Therefore the focus on what it means to be church remains decisive, not least for the search for an ecumenical alternative to globalisation. Fellowship, both in the full ecclesial sense of koinonia/communion and in the secular understanding of living in community, is the essential dimension of what it means to be church. With the notion of the catholicity of the church and its expression in conciliar forms of life, the early church has developed an understanding which holds inseparably together the global or universal and the local dimensions of the church as fellowship/koinonia. The objective of

shaping a new ecumenical configuration for the 21 st century must be to regain this fundamental ecclesiological interdependence between the local and the global manifestations of being church. The traditional vertical model which distinguishes the different levels (local, regional, global) will have to be replaced by the horizontal concept of interlocking networks. In both directions, i.e. the global and the local, a new ecumenical configuration should aim at building community and developing a new culture of dialogue and solidarity, of sharing and communication, of non-violence and reconciliation. The decisive test for a new ecumenical configuration will therefore be whether it can organise effectively the interplay between the global and the local dimensions and create an organic framework for this purpose. All the intermediate and/or parallel forms of organisation should be related functionally to either of the two focal points. For the global expression of the fellowship of churches the WCC remains the principal instrument. Ways should therefore be found of associating the other global ecumenical actors organically with the WCC. This refers particularly to the Christian world communions and the regional ecumenical organisations. They should be directly related to the forms of decision making of the churches on the global level. The largely uncoordinated sequence of major assemblies of these
81

bodies should be transformed to develop a framework, which begins to respond to the vision of a genuinely universal council. The local manifestation of the fellowship of churches is dependent on historical, cultural and geographical conditions. In most instances, the national councils of churches would be considered as the appropriate organisational framework. Traditionally, however, many councils of churches have limited themselves to furthering cooperation in practical fields relating to development, mission, education, health, etc. Only a limited number among them have considered the promotion of ecclesial fellowship as part of their mandate. However, the living fellowship of churches in each place is the decisive test for an understanding of the nature and mandate of any ecumenical organisation as strengthening the fellowship of churches. Considering the obvious weakness of national councils of churches in many parts of the world and taking seriously the recommendations of the Membership Study Group regarding a grouping of churches locally for the purposes of participation and representation in the World Council of Churches, a new ecumenical configuration must place priority emphasis on strengthening local ecumenical organisations. This should include openness for alternative ways of organisation and networking beyond the classical conciliar bodies, e.g. coalitions of churches and ecumenical organisations, fraternities, etc. The newly formed sub-regional councils and
82

fellowships should be considered as being functionally related to the task of supporting the local expression of the fellowship of churches. Obviously these indications do not yet provide an outline but only a few basic criteria for a new ecumenical configuration. They are related to ongoing conversations with the partners in regional ecumenical organisations as well as Christian world communions. The meeting of representatives of national councils of churches which has preceded this Central Committee meeting has also underlined the need for reviewing the patterns of ecumenical organisation. The same is true for the discussions with the Heads of Agencies Network. The financial pressure felt not only by the WCC but also by the majority of ecumenical partner organisations gives added urgency to these reflections. Among the recommendations of how the WCC could respond to its difficult financial situation has been the proposal to regionalize certain activities and share responsibilities, including staff and financial resources, with regional ecumenical organisations (REOs). This presupposes an otherwise viable form of ecumenical organisation on the regional level. This assumption, however, has to be qualified in view of recent experience. In medium or long-term perspective it would be more in line with the general orientations formulated earlier to seek ways of integrating the WCC and the REOs into a common framework which might eventually also

include the Christian world communions. They tend to operate as independent ecumenical actors on the global level but are exposed to the same need to hold together the global and local dimensions of being church. Ways should be found to recognise within the global fellowship of churches not only geographical or regional groupings but also distinct affinities of churches belonging to the same confessional family. In any case, the existence of multiple membership of churches in international ecumenical organisations and the difficulties arising from this parallelism have often been pointed out by member churches and require a response. In the light of the general orientations developed before about the interdependence of the local and the global,

a new configuration must overcome the situation that the allegiance to different international or global ecumenical organisations fragments the community of churches in a given place and undermines its potential of growing into a genuine fellowship of churches. In order to help the formation of a new ecumenical configuration, national councils of churches and similar local ecumenical frameworks have to be encouraged to consider their ecclesial character and to become spaces for common witness and shared life. In many instances the participation of the Roman Catholic Church in councils of churches on national and regional levels has helped this development which in turn opens the possibility of associating the Roman Catholic Church more directly with a future ecumenical configuration.

Contours of a new ecumenical configuration

In March 2003 Raiser takes a step further his call for a new ecumenical configuration. Addressing a meeting of the heads of church-based charity and justice organisations, he proposes what he calls the contours of a new ecumenical configuration. According to Raiser, the ecumenical movement finds it difficult to respond to the major challenges of the 21st century, namely economic globalisation and the US hegemonic unilateralism, inter-religious encounter and cooperation, and life issues such as environment and bioethics. This is due in part to what he calls a very complex institutional set-up and to the impact of institutionalism. Raiser goes on to illustrate the gap between the requirements of contemporary ecumenical developments and the limits of the institutional forms of organised ecumenism. A new configuration should affirm multilateralism and remain open for new partners on the ecumenical scene. What might be emerging, he concludes, is a configuration of interlocking circles or a federalist system of being together. Around the circle of the fellowship of churches on different levels could be grouped three functional circles representing the three classical foci of the ecumenical mandate: unity, mission, and justice/service.
83

The challenges of the 21st century have often been analysed and described; this is not the place to enter into a detailed exposition. Nevertheless, it is important to recall some of the principal features. These include the fact that since the end of the cold war the foundations upon which the post-war international order had been built have been called in question. The first challenge came with the process of economic and financial globalisation. This was reinforced, particularly since 11 September 2001, through the open defiance from the side of the US administration, which in its war on terror seems intent on pursuing a hegemonic unilateralism building on its crushing military superiority. In this situation, the ecumenical movement is obliged to manifest its alternative vision of a just and sustainable world community. This is connected with the second major challenge which relates to the fundamental changes in the religious field and the reemergence of religion in the public arena. Inter-religious encounter and cooperation will move to the centre of the ecumenical agenda. Finally, the farther we move into the 21 st century the more pressing the challenges arising from ecological disturbances and from the possible manipulations of life-processes will become. In any case, the ecumenical agenda will continue to change and move away from the priorities of ecumenical commitment 30 or 40 years ago. So far, the ecumenical movement has had great difficulties to respond to these
84

changes in the agenda. This is in part due to the fact that the ecumenical movement has become tied to a very complex institutional set-up and is suffering from the impact of institutionalism. The CUV document said: The WCC as an institution must not be paralysed by institutionalism, for its vocation in the service of the churches and the ecumenical movement requires that it be a living organism, responding to new challenges brought by changing times, new ecumenical partners and growing discernment of the ecumenical calling (3.13). What is said here about the WCC is valid also for the other ecumenical partners, many of whom have developed elaborate institutional structures and procedures accompanied by a high degree of professionalization of their activities. There are, of course, different institutional cultures: some are following the model of government or civil service; others have adopted structures known in private business. In either case the dynamism of the ecumenical movement is being subjected to increasingly strict institutional demands which are reinforced by the requirements of representativeness. Over against this bewildering diversity of institutional structures we also find in the ecumenical movement a variety of networks, non-governmental organisations, initiatives and campaigns. They are loosely connected with the institutional churches and are largely dependent on institutional funding. Most of them have been formed around specific issues and are time-limited

in their activities. They continue to represent the movement dimension of the ecumenical movement, i.e. they are flexible, have only limited institutional arrangements and are essentially based on personal commitment. They are heavily dependent on leadership figures and have begun to make maximum use of the modern, electronic means of communication. It would be misleading, however, to create an antagonism between the institutional and the movement dimensions: they represent complementary aspects in the development of ecumenism. However, there is legitimate concern that in the present situation of the ecumenical movement the institutional constraints have become too dominant, thus marginalizing the innovative and critical voices and initiatives. Closer analysis reveals that churches have always manifested this double face of institution and movement. On the institutional side they are characterised by an ordered life, recognition of authority, an ordained ministry, official teaching, etc. On the movement side most churches have developed specialised ministries of varying degrees of permanence responding to particular needs or challenges, especially in the areas of mission, service, formation, etc. These ministries have often started outside the institutional churches and have sought to maintain a degree of independence in their activities. They have a leadership structure that is predominantly in the hands of lay people or at least opens large space for lay responsibility. Whereas the

institutional life of the churches is oriented essentially towards maintaining the integrity of the churches internal life, the specialised ministries for mission and service/diaconia are directed to the wider community, towards the world. This brief description would have to be qualified when looking at specific contexts. The differentiation between the institutional churches and specialised ministries which has emerged among many (but not all!) of the large historic churches, does not in the same manner apply to the churches in the South or to the Orthodox churches. The WCC has tried throughout the more than 50 years of its existence to keep these two faces of the life of the churches together. This reflects the conviction that mission and diaconia belong to the being of the church and not only to its activities. While ecumenical discussion about the missionary vocation has led to a closer link between the institutional church and the missionary movement and even to create new international communities of churches sharing a common mission history (CEVAA, CWM, VEM4), we observe in many places the emergence of a growing specialisation, professionalization and institutional separation of church and different service ministries. In fact, an independent institutional culture has developed in the service field, which follows different criteria than are being applied in the organised churches. The efforts of the WCC to keep together the commitments to unity, mission and service/diaconia/justice is put to a
85

severe test at the beginning of the 21st century. This manifests itself in divergent ecumenical profiles which each claim priority attention in the constituency and thus contribute to the sense of fragmentation and lack of coherence. The majority of the historic churches, if one follows the statements of their leaders and theological spokespersons, place primary emphasis on the goals of churchly ecumenism, i.e. the search for visible unity of the church and for agreements in the area of ecclesiology. This has emerged as the central focus in the work of the Special Commission. It is the main concern on the part of the Roman Catholic Church and has found expression in the widespread activity of bilateral dialogues between churches and church families. The revised constitution of the WCC even declares that the visible unity of the church is the primary goal of the WCC. The CUV document recognises this orientation by describing the Council as the fellowship of churches on the way towards full koinonia (3.5.2). The question must be asked, however, whether self-image and reality correspond. A realistic assessment would rather lead to the conclusion that most of the churches as institutions are more concerned with maintaining and defending their identity and integrity than with strengthening unity and fellowship. The Churches Together model, as it was developed in England, Australia, New Zealand and now in the USA has done little to rekindle the spirit of ecumenical movement and has contributed
86

to an even greater dependency of the ecumenical bodies on the official leadership structures of the churches. This trend should be avoided for the WCC. In any case, the mandate of the WCC must not be reduced to the search for visible unity as an end in itself; the commitment to unity cannot be separated from the engagement for common witness and the service for justice, peace and the integrity of creation. The time has come to recognise that the ecumenical movement and the ecumenical agenda have outgrown the institutionalised churches. In fact, the ecumenical movement is too precious to be left to the churches and their leaders alone! The ecumenical movement is an affair of the whole people of God and it must regain its original vocation of being a renewal movement of and in the churches. The heavy institutionalisation of church life corresponds less and less to the actual needs of the Christian people. Many would also consider the search for visible unity to be a concern mainly of the institutional churches. Their priority would be the search for life in true community, especially on the local level, as is manifested by the growth of Pentecostal and evangelical communities everywhere. While the WCC cannot and should not give up its character as a council of churches, it must be able to respond to such movements of renewal in specific contexts that may not correspond to the institutional structures of its member churches. The influence of the member churches should be concentrated on those areas that concern directly their

relationships in fellowship with each other. For these, however, they should be made responsible and accountable. Here the new international mission communities could serve as examples to provide inspiration. For the WCC this could mean, introducing a clear distinction between churches who are genuinely committed to strengthening their fellowship with each other on all levels and those who are merely associated but not active. Readiness to make the required financial contribution would have to be considered one important criterion. For much of the agenda of the WCC the active partners are not the institutional churches as such, but church-related partner agencies, specialised ministries, networks and movements of people. Many of them contribute substantial funds, they receive reports, but at present they are not part of the planning and decision-making. The traditional system of the WCC to have specialised commissions composed essentially of persons representing the member churches does not reflect the realities of ecumenical work any more. If the WCC is to effectively play its role of furthering the coherence of the one ecumenical movement, then it will have to develop a mode of governance which takes the emerging reality of the organisational separation between the institutional churches and their specialised ministries fully into account. Membership which has been the form of participation by churches so far is not the appropriate category for these partners. A form has to be found to

structure the network of cooperating partners in ways that allow the WCC to exercise its enabling and stimulating role. The WCC and the REOs will increasingly serve as intermediaries to connect, analyse, interpret, and provide the space that is needed to agree on priorities for ecumenical action. The implementation will lie with partners on different levels. However, even the partner organisations with which the WCC carries out much of its work present only a part of the ecumenical movement. On the ground, in the different local contexts, new networks and movements of Christian people are constantly springing up which cannot easily be fitted into the existing frameworks. Thus, in many countries of the South we see new, non-denominational communities emerging, while on the other hand denominationalism seems on the increase among the historic churches. Fraternities or coalitions around particular concerns are forming which challenge the existing conciliar structures. Christians are setting up local NGOs, often in cooperation with partners from other faith traditions or of secular orientation. In any case, the ecumenical scene is in constant flux and the highly institutionalised ecumenical organisations have difficulty in following the movements on the ground. In the development of inter-church partnerships as well as in the programmes of mission boards and of specialised service ministries bilateral relationships with a selected group of partners had become a preferred mode of
87

working. While this approach may increase effectiveness it can equally contribute to fragmentation. The new situation at the beginning of the 21st century calls for a reaffirmation of multilateralism on all levels, a multilateralism that remains open for new partners on the ecumenical scene. This new multilateralism has been manifested impressively at the recent World Social Forum in Porto Alegre. To further such multilateralism will remain the indispensable role of all conciliar bodies, i.e. the WCC, the REOs and subregional fellowships, as well as of NCCs5. Within the overall ecumenical configuration they would probably remain the backbone of ecumenical cooperation charged with maintaining the coherence of the ecumenical movement on all levels. They should be so related to one another that they could effectively stimulate the interaction of the global and the local. They are based essentially on membership by churches but should be open for the association of other partners. It should be the objective of a new ecumenical configuration to so interlink the different levels of conciliar ecumenism that a genuine sense of fellowship emerges between the churches from the local to the global level. Their structures of governance must be simplified and interlinked reducing the number of uncoordinated assemblies and arriving ultimately at a common understanding of the implications of membership. This is a long-term programme but the discussions in the annual meetings
88

between the WCC and the REOs as well as in the periodic meetings of NCCs are beginning to point in this direction. The specific roles of the conciliar bodies on local, national, regional and world levels need to be worked out more carefully. Clarity begins to emerge, however, that their role will more and more be to coordinate multilateral and ecumenical approaches and to facilitate, interpret, connect and provide for the communication flow for the entire multilateral ecumenical configuration. We should recognise that the ecumenism of church unity, of missionary renewal, of diaconia and service and of justice and peace have each developed or maintained their own constituencies, and followed their own methodologies and forms of cooperation. This diversity should be seen as a source of strength rather than as an organisational weakness. To some extent, the profiles of the original streams that came together in forming the WCC and thus gave shape to organised ecumenism have remained alive and are demanding to be recognised. There is even talk of the continuing Faith and Order Movement, and the JPC 6 constituency is reclaiming the legacy of the Life and Work Movement. In addition, the former missionary movement has to some extent been reconstituted through evangelical initiatives. It has been pointed out before that in many of the larger churches these expressions of the comprehensive ecumenical mandate have developed institutional forms separate from the churches themselves. In the structure

of the WCC the area of mission concerns has been able to develop and maintain a pattern that allows, through the periodic Conferences of World Mission and Evangelism and through the association of Christian or Mission Councils, to keep itself open to the cooperation of partners which are not formally members of the WCC. This model might be further developed and extended to the two other areas as well. What might thus be emerging is a configuration of interlocking circles or a federalist system of being together. Around the circle of the fellowship of churches on different levels could be grouped three functional circles representing the three classical foci of the ecumenical mandate: unity, mission, and justice/service. The coalition model developed in Canada could serve as an example. The specialised organisations within the system of the United Nations could also provide valuable insight. In their way of organisation these three circles should respond to the needs and expectations of their respective specialised constituencies. The Christian world communions e.g. would have to be linked organically with the circle of church unity, the mission boards, communities, etc. with the one on mission, and the specialised ministries in the field of development, advocacy and diaconia with the third one on justice/service. They should develop their own forms of governance not limited to representatives of churches and they would have to manage their own resources. The important question to be resolved

is how these different circles can be so interrelated that as a result a more coherent, dynamic and responsive configuration of the ecumenical movement would emerge. New models of governance have to be developed. Obviously, opportunities must be created for all expressions of the ecumenical mandate to come together and to engage in common exchange and planning. What has so far been the assembly of the WCC could be transformed into such an occasion. The Global Christian Forum has been another attempt to envisage such as a comprehensive gathering of all stakeholders of the ecumenical movement. The preliminary exchanges suggest that this approach might first be tested out in more limited contexts, i.e. on a regional or subregional level. The suggestions for a reshaping of the AACC seem to point in a similar direction for the African context. In any case, provision needs to be made, at least on the global level, so that the governing structures of the different circles are closely interlinked to allow for the formulation of common policies and to keep the common vision alive. It would be the role of the WCC to animate the respective framework in order to maintain and strengthen the coherence of the ecumenical movement as a whole. For the three functional circles a more flexible form of participation should be adopted than membership in the institutional understanding. The churches as institutional bodies may want to
89

participate in these circles as well; an opportunity should, therefore, be created for opting in or out, i.e. for declaring their willingness to be actively involved in the activities in the respective area. This reconfiguration will have consequences for the internal organisation of the WCC, in particular for its traditional system of forming commissions and advisory groups for particular areas of concern. The WCC should, however, be prepared to provide the organisational and administrative infrastructure for the three functional circles while respecting their relative autonomy in setting policies and formulating particular programmes of action. It is clear that the implementation of such a proposal for re-configuring the ecumenical movement requires time for consultation with the different partners involved. We are still in the laboratory phase of the discussion. Some tentative

steps in this direction are being taken already, e.g. in the form of the proposed global alliance or the earlier creation of ACT7 and of the EAA8; they would have to be re-assessed in view of the overall picture emerging. The three years until the next general assembly of the WCC as the most comprehensive and representative ecumenical organisation on the global level should be used to engage in the necessary discussions so that a considered proposal can be presented at the time of the assembly together with the necessary changes in the constitution and rules of the WCC as well as the subsequent changes in its ways of operating. A number of assemblies of ecumenical partner bodies will be held in the intervening years. These are welcome opportunities to consider further such proposals for a reconfiguration of the ecumenical movement.

The ecumenical vision, the World Council of Churches, and the reconfiguration of the ecumenical movement
In his last address to the WCC Central Committee as its General Secretary, in August 2003, Konrad Raiser unpacks the proposal for a consultation on the reconfiguration of the ecumenical movement involving experienced ecumenical co-workers from the different partner networks and reflects on the role that the WCC is expected to play in the reconfiguration process. Raiser notes that the WCC, by convening a meeting on the future ecumenical configuration, is not acting out of institutional self-interest. The objective of a reconfiguration, he writes, is not to centralise the ecumenical movement and to bring it under the control of the WCC. On the contrary. Unlike what is suggested by some critics of the reconfiguration proposal, Raiser insists on the need to relate this proposal to the goals and objectives of the one ecumenical movement, and notes that the ecumenical vision and values can come in conflict with the prevailing values of our globalised world. The
90

reconfiguration process is not therefore to be mixed up with a trend to respond to the challenges [of global governance] by way of pragmatic organisational and structural changes, hoping to increase relevance by adopting looser, lighter and more flexible structures.

There is a general feeling among the main ecumenical partners of the WCC that a review of the organisational configuration of the ecumenical movement might be necessary and desirable, even though the sense of urgency is not shared by all in the same way. An intensive process of internal evaluation at a retreat of the Staff Executive Group and subsequently during the Week of Meetings with the whole staff, led to the proposal that the WCC should convene a meeting of a small group of experienced ecumenical co-workers from the different partner networks, i.e. REOs, NCCs, CWCs9, specialised ministries, international ecumenical organisations, together with persons from the WCC governing bodies. It would be the objective of the meeting to analyse the main challenges, to consider the options for change and to prepare a memorandum which could become the basis for a process of consultation and study leading up to a firm proposal to be presented to the respective organisations. The proposal of such a meeting had first been made by the Heads of Agencies Network (HOAN) in a letter of April 2003 addressed to the WCC officers. At their meeting in May the officers expressed their support for the proposal and the Moderator, H.H. Aram I, issued an invitation for the meeting to be held in November of this year in Antelias, Lebanon.

The WCC takes this initiative not out of institutional self-interest, but in response to its constitutional mandate to further and maintain the coherence of the one ecumenical movement in its diverse manifestations (WCC constitution, art. III). The role of the WCC as the convenor of this process of reflection has been affirmed by all partners in the conversations so far. It has further been observed in the course of the consultations that the United Nations are facing a similar challenge regarding the sustainability of their inherited pattern of organisation. The need for change is arising in particular from the rapid spread of the process of globalisation and its impact on the functioning of the international system. Governments and inter-governmental organisations find it difficult to adjust their ways of working and there is an intensive search for new forms of global governance. The specific problems faced by the system of the United Nations are very similar to those we experience in the ecumenical movement: shortage of funds, increase of bilateralism, growing competition between UN agencies and the NGO community, and defensiveness of governments over against the influence of civil society organisations on the shaping of a new international order. Generally, there is a trend to respond to the challenges by way of pragmatic
91

organisational and structural changes, hoping to increase relevance by adopting looser, lighter and more flexible structures. While the World Social Forum is propagating the slogan another world is possible, there is so far no clear vision beyond the growing critique of the neo-liberal ideology which has provided the momentum for the process of globalisation. The objective of re-configuring the ecumenical movement should obviously be to strengthen its capacity to move the Christian community worldwide to a common witness and service in the world of the 21 st century. The ecumenical movement is not an end in itself but responds to a common calling that arises from Gods will to create a new human community in Christ. Responding to this call is not an option among others, but constitutes a gospel imperative. Any such statement of objectives will be based on a number of assumptions that would need to be spelled out and explored further. It is not my intention here to put forth a normative definition of ecumenism. I would rather refer you to chapter 2 of the CUV10 document, which reviews the different formulations offered in the course of the ecumenical discussion to describe the goals of the ecumenical movement. Quite deliberately, the CUV document addresses the questions about the objectives of the ecumenical movement before speaking (in chapter 3) about the self-understanding of the World Council of Churches. It affirms the interdependence of the ecumenical visions
92

expressed in John 17:21 (that they all may be one so that the world may believe) and of Ephesians 1:10 (Gods plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth). But it also recognises the continuing tension and sometimes antagonism between those who advocate the primacy of the social dimension of ecumenism and those who advocate the primacy of spiritual or ecclesial ecumenism (cf. para. 2.5). Against this background, the CUV document offers some basic distinctions and marks of identification as a common basis and starting point for all those engaged in the ecumenical movement (cf. para. 2.8). The projected process of consultation would have to test the validity of these perceptions. While, therefore, the question of the goals and objectives of the one ecumenical movement has to receive attention in the course of the discussion about reconfiguration, it should be clear at the outset that the ecumenical movement is guided by a vision and is committed to values which can come in conflict with the prevailing values of our globalised world. The purpose of the envisaged reconfiguration must, therefore, be to uphold and strengthen the vision and to achieve greater coherence around the values that motivate the ecumenical movement. We cannot be content with a pragmatic and functional readjustment of structures to facilitate cooperation and render it more effective. Important as a consideration of the funding

base may be for the different partner organisations, this is just one factor within a larger goal of sharpening the profile of a value-driven ecumenism. The aim should be to rally the partners again around a common set of values and attitudes, to sharpen the sense of a common mission; this will facilitate reaching an agreement about the necessary institutional and structural changes. Through the CUV process the WCC on its part has tried to articulate its ecumenical vision and to describe the understanding of its role and place in the wider ecumenical movement. The CUV document has initiated a shift in the institutional perspective of the WCC. It recognises the polycentric character of the ecumenical movement. It offers the understanding of the WCC as a fellowship of churches on the way to koinonia in faith and life, witness and service. This has organisational consequences. As an institution, the WCC accepts the mandate to foster the coherence of the ecumenical movement without claiming a position of central control. More recently, the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC has articulated its vision of a Council which will hold churches together in an ecumenical space: where trust can be built; where churches can test and develop their readings of the world, their own social practice, and their liturgical and doctrinal traditions while facing each other and deepening their encounter with each other; where churches freely will create networks

for advocacy and diaconal services and make their material resources available to each other; where churches through dialogue continue to break down the barriers that prevent them from recognising each other as churches that confess the one faith, celebrate the one baptism and administer the one Eucharist, in order that they may move to a communion in faith, sacramental life and witness (para. 11). The notion of an ecumenical space which the Special Commission has appropriated has gained increasing importance in the reflections about reconfiguring the ecumenical movement and envisaging the role of the WCC in this process. The study process on ecclesiology and ethics has spoken of the WCC as space-maker. In terms of methodology this means that the role of the WCC is one of providing inspiration and facilitating the process. But the implications of this notion go beyond methodology. It suggests a fundamental value option: in favour of multilateralism vs. bilateralism, in favour of a conciliar model of ecumenism over against the confessional model, in favour of open participation rather than insisting on institutional membership, in favour of a wide notion of ecumenism over against the concentration towards an ecumenism of churches as organised bodies. It means, in particular, to hold together in one space the local and the global manifestations of the ecumenical movement. The legitimate partners in this emerging conversation are all those who, irrespective
93

of their relationship with the WCC, recognise the basic affirmations of faith as expressed in the basis of the WCC, and who acknowledge that the churches, in spite of their institutional limitations, are the main actors of the ecumenical movement. They should also accept that the unity of the church, the missionary proclamation of the gospel in the whole world, and the active commitment to diaconia and service for justice and peace are interdependent expressions of the ecumenical vocation. The ongoing conversation about a global Christian forum is based on these understandings and it can provide important clues for the beginning conversation about re-configuring the ecumenical movement. Most of all, we need among those participating in this conversation a spirit of openness to change and the readiness to allow our respective institutional claims to be challenged through such encounters. The partners in this conversation are obviously of very different kinds. At the centre are the churches themselves. They are already linked in diverse networks of cooperation and relationships: Christian world communions, regional ecumenical organisations, national councils of churches, mission communities like CEVAA, CWM and VEM 11 , and church fellowships like Leuenberg12, Porvoo13, etc. These existing networks are characterised by overlapping membership and (sometimes) competing demands on the churches. In addition, we have a growing number of church-related organisations or agencies in the areas of
94

mission, diaconia, and service. Many of them are organised as independent NGOs and therefore not organically related and integrated into the church structures. Much of ecumenical activity is being carried out with funding provided by these organisations. Thirdly, there is a host of international ecumenical organisations and voluntary associations of Christian people, initiatives, groups and networks around the commitment to a particular cause and reflecting the broader ecumenical commitment. The oldest among these are the World Associations of the YMCAs and YWCAs as well as the WSCF14; but many others have been created more recently. As is evident from this rapid survey of partners, the ecumenical movement is wider than the relationship between the churches as organised bodies. The future of the ecumenical movement cannot be left in the hands of the churches alone. It obviously also reaches beyond the constitutional limits of the WCC. The objective of a reconfiguration is not to centralise the ecumenical movement and to bring everything under the control of the WCC. The WCC should and will remain in the first instance a fellowship of churches seeking to deepen their relationships in the direction of full koinonia in faith and life, witness and service. Membership of the WCC implies a firm commitment to each other in the praxis of mutual accountability. The WCC should, however, continue to provide the space for the ecumenical objectives to be pursued in cooperation

between a larger range of partners beyond the institutional churches. The guiding principle here is not membership but participation. We need to recognise that there are at least three clusters of partner organisations around the issues of unity, mission, and diaconia/service. Each of these clusters responds to its own constituency and has developed its specific methodology. We can no longer assume that they should be managed and coordinated under the institutional control of the WCC, i.e. by commissions composed mainly of

representatives of the churches. Obviously, a new model of governance is needed which, while maintaining the integrity of the WCC, would facilitate broader participation and respect the distinct profile of the partner organisations. The conciliar bodies on the different levels would have to assure the linkage between the local and the global manifestations of ecumenism. The ecumenical space would have to embody the values of conciliar fellowship, which represents the strongest response of the churches to the challenges of globalisation.

Notes
Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation, a major WCC programme 1983-1990 Editors note (EN). 2 A commission appointed to review the Orthodox participation in the WCC, 19982002 - EN. 3 Non-Governmental Organisation EN. 4 Respectively: Communaut vanglique daction apostolique, Council for World Mission, Vereinte Evangelische Mission (United Evangelical Mission) EN. 5 National councils of churches EN. 6 Justice, Peace and Creation EN. 7 Action by Churches Together EN. 8 Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance EN. 9 Respectively: regional ecumenical
1

organisations, national councils of churches, Christian world communions EN. 10 Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of Churches, wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/cuv-e.html - EN. 11 See footnote n. 4 - EN 12 Community of Protestant Churches in Europe (CPCE) EN. 13 Communion of episcopally ordered Lutheran and Anglican churches in Northern Europe EN. 14 Respectively: Young Mens Christian Associations, Young Womens Christian Associations, World Student Christian Federation EN.
95

The reconfiguration of the ecumenical movement - an overview of the discussion so far

Hubert van Beek

A former executive staff of the World Council of Churches (WCC), van Beek provides a comprehensive chronological account of the reconfiguration discussion leading to the consultation held in Antelias, Lebanon, November 2003. Van Beeks account includes the catalysing role played by the 1997 document Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of Churches, the dialogue between the WCC and the regional ecumenical organisations, the Global Christian Forum, the work of the special commission on the Orthodox participation in the WCC, and the search for strengthened forms of relationship between the Christian world communions and the WCC.

International relationships, governance, economic power, communication, and the role of religion in society have changed dramatically since the World Council of Churches and many ecumenical organisations were established. The relevance and the need for a reflection on the reconfiguration of the ecumenical movement have been discussed and studied in the World Council of Churches for several years. All these processes, and other discussions, have recognised that the proliferation of international church and ecumenical organisations and instruments is not viable or sustainable, and undermines the coherence of the one ecumenical movement. This document was prepared in consultation with a small WCC staff group
96

for the purpose of providing background information and context to the broader process of discussion on reconfiguration. The relevance and the need of a reflection on the configuration of the ecumenical movement are implied in the policy statement on Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of Churches (CUV)1. Three aspects of the CUV in particular point in this direction: a) The emphasis on the fellowship of churches and the distinction between belonging and participation on the one hand, and membership and representation on the other hand. b) The concept of a polycentric ecumenical movement in which the World Council of Churches (WCC) is by definition no longer the centre but a

privileged instrument which has the role to foster the coherence of the movement. c) The conviction that the fellowship is not complete as long as the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelical and Pentecostal churches are not part of it. Already in the mid-1990s a discussion began to develop with the regional ecumenical organisations (REOs), in the REOs-WCC General Secretaries Group. In 1997 the WCC representatives in this group presented a paper referring to the need for a new configuration of the ecumenical movement in its global and regional expressions. One fundamental consideration was that with diminishing resources the WCC and the REOs would soon no longer be able to sustain separate, autonomous organisations which had basically the same purposes and functions. But the discussion was not only financedriven. There was also a conceptual proposition that the WCC and the REOs should move beyond consultation, coordination and cooperation to explore ways of joint priority setting and decision making. Questions of linking governing bodies, a common ecumenical agenda and the integration of global and regional structures were raised. A comprehensive document on WCC-REOs Relationships was presented to Policy Reference Committee I at the Harare Assembly, which approved recommendations aiming continuation of these efforts. at the

steps were taken: formation of Liaison Groups with two REOs (Conference of European Churches and Christian Conference of Asia), a meeting of the African members of the WCC Central Committee with the General Committee of the All Africa Conference of Churches, etc. Some comments made in the 1997 discussion are worth noting here. It was said that a reconfiguration of the WCC and the REOs should bring a new and integrated form of managing the ecumenical movement. It should not reflect a centreperiphery or regions-to-Geneva model and neither a regions-to-regions structure without a clear global dimension2. Also at the Harare Assembly, representatives of Christian world communions (CWCs) fostered a recommendation to facilitate and strengthen the relationships between the WCC and CWCs as called for in the CUV document. This led to the formation of a WCC/Lutheran World Federation (LWF)/ World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC) staff group which explored three areas with a potential to go beyond existing relationships: joint or coordinated assemblies, membership, and planned programme cooperation. The WARC General Council had already proposed joint assemblies with the WCC and LWF in 1997. The staff group went as far as it could but was unable to formulate innovative proposals. Some small steps were taken with regard to the coordination of assemblies, e.g. mutual representation on the assembly
97

While the discussions did not yet result in a coherent proposal some small

planning committees of the three bodies (WCC, LWF and WARC). One of the complicating factors in the discussions with the CWCs is their diversity. Some have a membership which overlaps up to 70 or 80% with the WCC (e.g. the Anglican Communion, LWF, WARC), others have a constituency which is little or not at all represented in the WCC (e.g. the Mennonites, the Reformed Ecumenical Council, the Seventh-Day Adventists). Inbetween these are bodies like the World Methodist Council and the Baptist World Alliance. The CWCs also differ in terms of their purposes and functions. For the discussion on re-configuration it might be more effective to focus on the group of CWCs which are closest to the WCC. However, such a differentiation could have negative implications for the group as a whole. The leadership of the Conference of CWC General Secretaries met with the General Secretary of the WCC at their preparatory meeting on May 19, 2003. The discussion with the specialised ministries3 has developed over the past couple of years in the context of the WCC Round Table. Earlier stages were the formation of Action by Churches Together (ACT), and more particularly the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance (EAA). The specialised ministries are an ecumenical partner group which has no formal status with the WCC (whereas the REOs, CWCs, NCCs and International Ecumenical Organisations are recognised in the Rules). Their relationship with the Council is very specific because of
98

their role as funding partners. They have constituted their own body, the Heads of Agencies Network (HOAN) in which the WCC is represented by invitation. Whether by design or not, the process with the specialised ministries has led to their de facto recognition as an ecumenical partner group. Their mandates and policies are not all the same, and there is a significant difference within the group between autonomous agencies such as Christian Aid, ICCO, etc. and boards which are part of the structure of a member church, e.g. the United Church of Canada Division of World Outreach, EKD4/Bread for the World, etc. Because of their role as funding partners there is a wish on the side of the specialised ministries to be associated with the governing and decision-making structures of the WCC. Some of them tend to see the discussion on reconfiguration as a possible solution to this question. Mention should be made of the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC. This has been primarily a forum for dealing with issues internal to the fellowship of the WCC. It has also been the place for an exhaustive reflection on several models of radical restructuring of the Council and a study on membership, which has resulted, among other things, in the proposal of a new category of churches in association with the WCC. Parallel to the above-mentioned discussions, but clearly related, is the process of the proposal of a Global Christian Forum5. The Forum Proposal is a direct

result of the CUV. It seeks to respond to point 1.3 of this summary: the widening of the fellowship towards Evangelical, Pentecostal and Independent constituencies while including also the Roman Catholic Church and the churches and organisations which have traditionally been part of the ecumenical movement. It is understood as a process of gathering representatives from all the main Christian traditions around the table, widening the circle especially to those who until now have not been in conversation with one another. The process aims at an event at which it is hoped the leaders and decision-makers will come together. Mission and unity are the two foci of the dialogue that is evolving. There is no intention to set up new structures. Three consultations have taken place so far: at Bossey in 1998, and at Fuller Seminary (Pasadena, USA) in 2000 and 2002. The third one was by far the most representative. A Continuation Committee was formed at the first consultation and has since been expanded to represent also Evangelicals and Pentecostals. It has taken full responsibility for the process and has designed a 3-5 year plan of global consultations with regional emphasis covering all the regions and leading up to a global event. Within the Forum context, the issue as such of re-configuring the ecumenical movement has not been on the agenda until now. However it is implied in what the Forum proposal is all about and it will be appropriate to invite the Continuation

Committee to join the discussion. In terms of partner groups, the international ecumenical and para-church organisations participate in the Forum and many of the CWCs were officially represented at the last consultation. On the other hand, the group of REO General Secretaries has indicated that it sees the Forum primarily as a process of churches, in which the REOs do not need to be represented as such (at least not for the moment). In section III of his report to the WCC Central Committee in 2002 the General Secretary put on the table for the first time the need for a reflection and discussion on the reconfiguration of the ecumenical movement which would take into account all its various aspects. While discussions may be going on in the different bilateral settings (such as mentioned under points 2, 3 and 4 of this summary), the proposal of the General Secretary implies a multilateral process for which a space needs to be created and which provides a place for convergence of the hitherto separate discussions. The Central Committee agreed with the proposal and recommended that a report be prepared for the Ninth Assembly in 2006. This action provides for a certain timeline of the discussion. A meeting in Geneva in December 2002 of the REOs, the specialised ministries and the WCC offered a first multilateral setting after the 2002 Central Committee for discussing the reconfiguration6. The General Secretary presented a summary of section III of his report to the Central Committee.
99

The issue of reconfiguration became the frame within which this meeting addressed the questions on its agenda, e.g. clarification of the respective roles of the REOs, the Agencies and the WCC, the relation between the local and the global, the strengthening of local communities (churches) as a common task, the need for a process of continued dialogue, the sustainability and support of REOs. The meeting brought to light a general consensus that it was necessary and timely to re-think the overall configuration of the ecumenical movement. It was felt that unless a new architecture emerged, it would be difficult to find satisfactory solutions to the specific problems affecting the cooperation between REOs and specialised ministries. It was the first time that the REOs and the specialised ministries came together around the table as partner groups, rather than in bilateral settings between one REO and its cooperating funding partners. The participants experienced that the multilateral setting provided a different and better frame for discussions on relationships and cooperation. In this respect, and with reference also to point 2 of this paper, it should be underlined that in recent years several REOs have demonstrated a remarkable capacity of renewal in situations of adverse trends such as diminishing resources, declining viability, perceived loss of relevance, etc., often with the active support of the WCC. Examples are the Latin American Council
100

of Churches (CLAI) which conducted a process on viability, the All Africa Conference of Churches which has done a critical review, and the Caribbean Conference of Churches which is re-affirming itself. The next step in the process has been the WCC Round Table7 in April 2003. The General Secretary was asked to take the discussion one step further by suggesting what a re-configured ecumenical movement could look like. He addressed and developed a number of basic issues (membership, governance, multilateralism, interlinking levels of conciliar ecumenism, reclaiming historical strengths, the interaction between institution and movement) and proposed a model of four intersecting circles representing conciliar ecumenism (the fellowship of churches at different levels) at the centre and unity, mission and justice/ service as three petals grafted at that centre 8. The participants at the Round Table asked that a meeting on the reconfiguration of the ecumenical movement be convened in the second half of 2003. During the WCC Staff Executive Group retreat on 2-3 May and the ensuing Week of Meetings, the team coordinators and the whole staff engaged in discussions on the reconfiguration. This helped to open the reflection at staff level and brought some very interesting new insights. Contributions by staff members from various teams showed that the changes which are affecting the ecumenical movement and its institutions are a mirror reflection of

processes at the international political level, the United Nations and its agencies, the NGO world, etc. The question was also raised whether the reflection on the future should be primarily structure-oriented or should focus on the agenda of the ecumenical movement. A first and rough timetable9 of a reflection process was presented, taking the Ninth Assembly as an end station and some events already scheduled in 2003 as building blocks: the preparatory meeting of the CWCs on May 19, the REOs-WCC General Secretaries Group on September 17-18 followed by the REOs-specialised ministries follow-up on September 19-20, the Forum10 Continuation Committee on October 18-20, the CWC Conference of Secretaries on October 2124 and the proposed meeting on the reconfiguration in November. A second, more elaborate version of this road map was drafted, spanning the threeyear period until the Assembly 11 and suggesting successive stages of a memorandum for discussion (November 2003), a draft proposal (November 2004) and presentation of an agreed-upon proposal at the time of the Assembly. This revealed the danger of locking the discussion up in an institutional process of conflicting interests in which each partner group would defend its own views and seek to maximise its own stake in the end result. It also highlighted the need for a concrete project or proposal to be submitted for discussion, rather than an open-ended process. There was agreement among staff that

the term road map should be avoided, that more emphasis should be put on creative thinking not linked to any institutional interest, and that the November meeting should be seen as a first step in the multilateral process aiming at producing a memorandum that would facilitate, guide and inspire further discussion. The Officers of the WCC considered at their meeting in May 2003 the proposal for a consultation on the reconfiguration of the ecumenical movement. They decided to convene such a meeting, bringing together a group of around 25 wise people similar to the founding committee of the WCC in 1937. The Moderator of the Central Committee, HH Aram I, issued an invitation for the consultation to be held in November 2003 in Antelias. A staff group was set up to prepare the meeting. In his report to the Central Committee in 2003 the General Secretary reflected further on the issue of reconfiguration. He referred to the similarity of the problems experienced in the ecumenical movement and those facing the UN. Both result from the impact of the rapid process of globalisation on the international system. The objective of re-configuring the ecumenical movement should be to strengthen its capacity to move the Christian community worldwide to a common witness and service in the world of the 21st century. From its beginning there have been diverging understandings of the goals of the ecumenical movement and tensions between the social and ecclesial
101

dimensions of ecumenism (see Ch. 2 of CUV). The proposed reflection process would therefore have to address the question of a common understanding of the ecumenical movement. Beyond this, its primary purpose should be to strengthen and uphold the vision of the movement and to rally the partners again around a common set of values. A re-adjustment of structures to rationalise cooperation would simply not be good enough. Necessary structural and institutional changes should flow from a renewed common sense of mission and vision. It would be particularly important to hold together the local and global manifestations of the ecumenical movement and design new ways of interlinking them. Expanding on the concept of common values the General Secretary suggested some fundamental options: multilateralism vs. bilateralism, the conciliar model of ecumenism vs. the confessional model, participation rather than institutional membership, a broad notion of the ecumenical movement over against a restrictive ecumenism of institutionalised churches. The partners in this conversation on reconfiguration are all those who recognise the basic affirmations of faith as expressed in the Basis of the WCC, acknowledge the churches as the main actors in the ecumenical movement, in spite of their institutional limitations, and accept that the unity of the church, the proclamation of the gospel and the commitment to diaconia, justice and peace
102

are

essential

and

interdependent

expressions of the common witness of the churches in the world. A new model of governance of the ecumenical movement could be derived from these three core functions, recognising that broadly speaking the ecumenical partner organisations cluster around these same three issues. At the centre of it would be the conciliar ecumenical bodies. Such a new configuration should embody the values of conciliar fellowship, which represent the strongest response of the churches to the challenges of globalisation. The WCC Central Committee welcomed and affirmed the process of reflection, in particular the proposal for the consultation in November 2003 and recommended that: a) the member churches should be as fully involved as possible and be engaged in a direct manner that leads to their full participation and feeling of ownership in the process; b) in view of the possible lack of time to secure the churches support, and in the light of this, the incoming General Secretary be asked to develop a clear outline for the process involving the member churches and providing clarity as to the forthcoming direction of the reconfiguration; c) as the process continues, as wide as possible a range of interests and experience should be engaged, and the process should focus on the full participation of all member churches with consideration to East/West and North/South concerns; d) the process should be grounded in the

core vision, values and basis of the WCC, and recognise the integrity of the WCCs fundamental concerns and commitments; e) the focus should remain on the strengthening of the common witness and service of the Christian community worldwide, so as to ensure that neither financial implications nor the level of financial contributions by individual actors are driving the process; f) in pursuing its role as ecumenical space-maker and convenor and monitor of the process, the WCC should not lose its prophetic voice, while recognising that this is not its exclusive reserve. Some tentative questions as possible avenues for further reflection and exploration are: a) What are the major changes and trends in the world and the churches that

are affecting the ecumenical movement? b) What are the major concerns and weaknesses in the current forms of the ecumenical movement? c) Can the vision that has guided the ecumenical movement through its history be re-affirmed, or do we need to re-articulate it in the new context, in order to guide the movement into the future? d) What are the marks of a common understanding of
st

the

ecumenical

movement for the 21 century? e) Which are the fundamental core values that should shape the common witness of the churches through the ecumenical movement? f) What are the guiding principles for a new model of governance of the ecumenical movement?

Notes
For the CUV document see: wcc-coe.org/ wcc/who/cuv-e.html EN. 2 It is important to note that these reflections were essentially focusing on a reconfiguration of the WCC and the REOs. They did not take into account the broader picture of other ecumenical partner groups. 3 Church-based charity and justice organisations such as Christian Aid or Danchurchaid EN. 4 Evangelical Church in Germany EN. 5 At the third consultation, in June 2002, preference was given to this name rather than the original Forum of Christian Churches and Ecumenical Organizations.
1

This meeting was scheduled well before the General Secretarys report to the Central Committee. 7 See item 4 of this paper on the specialised ministries EN. 8 See the paper Reflections on re-configuring the ecumenical movement, by Konrad Raiser, March 2003. 9 Somewhat unfortunately called road map in reference to the media headlines of the day. 10 Global Christian Forum, see item 6 of this paper EN. 11 The 2006 WCC General Assembly - EN.
6

103

Towards a people-centred ecumenical configuration

His Holiness Aram I

The institutional expressions of the ecumenical movement, writes His Holiness Aram I, have become incompatible with the new ecumenical realities and expectations. The host of the November 2003 Reconfiguration Consultation goes on to ask: what kind of ecumenism do we want: an ecumenism of institutional churches or an ecumenism that embraces the whole people of God? He adds: we must take the ecumenical movement to the people at the grassroots and open it to new horizons. Aram I is the head of the Armenian Orthodox Catholicosate of Cilicia, presently in Antelias, Lebanon. He has been the moderator of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches since February 1991.

This is not an ordinary ecumenical consultation. We, a group of selected theologians, ecumenists and church leaders from different churches and regions, engaged in ecumenical witness in different ways, are invited by the World Council of Churches to assess the present situation of the ecumenical movement, identify emerging issues, problems and challenges, and propose a framework for the future course of the ecumenical movement. The purpose of this meeting is not, therefore, to take decisions but, rather, first, to embark on a process of reflecting together with a forward looking vision; and, second, to prepare a working paper, which will be the basis for further discussion. It is very important that immediately after this initial meeting churches, both members of the World Council of Churches (WCC)
104

and those not members, play an active role in this process. As a person who has been involved in the ecumenical movement for the past 35 years, I would like, at the very beginning of this process, to share with you my own experiences, expectations. perspectives and

1. The ecumenical movement is Gods gift and call; it requires human response. Our response to the ecumenical movement is strongly affected and shaped, and largely conditioned, by realities and developments that surround us, as well as by the churches requirements and needs. The ecumenical movement is not a fixed reality; it is, and has, throughout its history, always been in constant re-evaluation, restructuring and re-articulation. These features will continue to impact the

ecumenical movement, which will thereby acquire different shapes and manifestations until its goals are realised. Recently, an ecumenist stated that he believes that the main problems of the ecumenical movement are the ordination of women, homosexuality, decision making and proselytism. These are certainly problems for the ecumenical movement. But in my judgement, the ecumenical problems go far beyond these issues. The real problems are those associated with global changes, major geopolitical and economic developments, and the resurgence of religion in the public sphere; all of these have profoundly affected the life and witness of the churches, as well as the ecumenical landscape. The ecumenical movement is facing acute concerns and enormous challenges that call for a serious reflection. We must seek a new orientation for the ecumenical movement. We must look for alternatives and new models with and for the new generation. This should be the aim of this process entitled the New Ecumenical Configuration for the 21st Century. The dictionary describes configuration as form, shape, structure, frame, pattern, model, feature, style, profile, outline. We should include all these nuances in this process. We must not simply re-structure or re-adjust; we must look at all the aspects and manifestations of the ecumenical status quo and see where it needs changing. It is often difficult and risky to seek change.

Yet, such a venture is creative, challenging, transforming and renewing. I believe that ecumenism, at this point in time, is in dire need of such a creative venture. 2. For many years, the ecumenical movement was dominated by Protestant conservative thinking, which paved the way for a theological interaction and ecumenical collaboration with the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The emergence of Western liberal Protestant ecumenism has created a new situation. As a result, the two ecumenical ethoses, namely conservative ecumenism and liberal ecumenism, are in tension. The signs of tension are seen in nearly all aspects and at all levels of ecumenical life, even within the same confessional family or church. Conservative ecumenists maintain that visible unity is the goal of the ecumenical movement, and therefore, the whole ecumenical work must be directed towards it; whereas liberal ecumenists believe that working for justice and peace should become the priority for the ecumenical movement. Marked by activism, liberal ecumenism is spreading in many regions and within churches, shaking the ecumenical paradigms. New faces of ecumenism, new patterns of ecumenical reflection, and new ways of living ecumenically are emerging. The ecumenical panorama has already changed considerably. We cannot ignore these changes and become captives of our ecumenical ethos. The conservative and liberal approaches must not become
105

mutually exclusive. We must provide space for them to engage in creative dialogue and to move towards convergence. We need to explore again new ways of being, reflecting and working together ecumenically. 3. We speak of ecumenical crisis. In my view, it is not the ecumenical movement, but its institutions that are in crisis. Because of our deep concern to preserve history, memory and tradition, we have encouraged institutional ecumenism and have perpetuated it. Institutions are both a necessity and a handicap. Let us not confuse movement and institution, instrument and vision. The institutional expressions of the ecumenical movement have become incompatible with the new ecumenical realities and expectations. The ecumenical vision, and particularly the way we have articulated it through the CUV1, cannot be confined to the present ecumenical structures, patterns and forms. It takes us beyond the present institutional ecumenism. The ecumenical movement should not be paralyzed by institutionalism (CUV). But we cannot, as some suggest, deinstitutionalise the ecumenical movement; it requires structures to survive and to function. At the same time, the ecumenical movement cannot progress and re-vitalise so long as it resides only in self-contained and self-centred institutions. Therefore, the ecumenical movement needs an effective organisational structure (CUV) to function properly. For a structure to be sustainable, it must respond to concrete needs. Clearly, our vision and the context of the present
106

world must determine the ways and means, and the structures and forms by which the ecumenical movement is articulated and practised. The question is can we design a new ecumenical configuration that preserves a proper balance between movement and institution, vision and context? In such an attempt we must a) develop an ecumenical vision that is not conditioned and overwhelmed by its institutional expression; b) articulate the ecumenical vision in a way that makes it relevant and inspiring; c) shape the sort of ecumenical structures that widen the ecumenical circle, the scope of our witness and participation; d) and set the kind of ecumenical institutions that respond to present circumstances and meet the expectations of the churches. 4. The modern ecumenical movement was built mainly on the personal commitments of a group of church leaders and theologians. With the gradual involvement of the churches, the ecumenical movement has acquired ecclesiastical character and has become church-centred and church-controlled. In fact, the emergence of new expressions of being church, on the one hand, and the strong reaction to institutionalised ecumenism, on the other hand, took the ecumenical movement beyond the strict control of the institutional churches and made it an open space where intraecclesiam and extra-ecclesiam developments, problems, agendas and tensions are on display.

This shift from ecclesiastical to what I call people-centred and oriented ecumenism has generated different reactions: a) some churches want to control the ecumenical movement without owning it. b) Some churches feel more secure opting for bilateral or at best confessional ecumenism. c) A few churches have made ecumenism integral to their selfunderstanding and self-affirmation. d) Finally, some churches have simply become anti-ecumenical, because they believe it threatens their own identity. The present ecumenical panorama indicates that the ecumenical movement is at a crossroads and needs clear orientation. Therefore, we must decide. What kind of ecumenism do we want: an ecumenism of institutional churches or an ecumenism that embraces the whole people of God? Speaking about the WCC, Dr K. Raiser says that it must have more freedom and flexibility in its work and liberate itself from the exclusive control of its member churches (Report to the 2003 WCC Central Committee meeting). I agree. We can no longer keep ecumenism in its frozen institutionalism; it must enter into a dynamic dialogue and a creative interaction with changing realities. Further, we must take the ecumenical movement to the people at the grassroots and open it to new horizons. I would, however, disagree with Dr Raisers approach if that approach threatens to push the churches to the periphery of the ecumenical movement. Although the churches should not possess the ecumenical

movement, they should become its primary agents. The ecumenical movement is first and foremost a challenge to the churches to come out of themselves and engage in dialogue with each other and with the world. It is a reminder for the churches to become more credible, relevant and united in their witness to the world. Therefore, in my view, people-centred and oriented ecumenism is the right way to follow. Such a perception of ecumenism will first, take the ecumenical movement beyond the institutional churches, as well as beyond the institutional boundaries of ecumenism; second, it will generate new ecumenical models, which will then enable the churches to interact closely with grassroots movements and with the civil society at large. Such a vision of ecumenism calls for an active role by church-related agencies, specialised ministries and ecumenical partners. There should be a real partnership between the churches and these ecumenical bodies; and mutuality and complementarity should become the defining elements of this partnership. We must be careful, however, for such a partnership may also create problems. With their organised networks, alliances and advocacies, donor agencies and specialised ministries have a strong impact on media and development programmes. They organise humanitarian assistance better than the churches and even, in some cases, the state-run institutions. Therefore, with their financial resources and expertise, and with their
107

ecumenical commitment, these ecumenical partners may move to the centre of the ecumenical movement and that, in turn, may, sooner or later, change the whole nature of the ecumenical movement. It is vitally important that the nature and the scope of partnership between the churches and the ecumenical partners be clearly spelled out. 5. Can this shift from the church-centred and highly institutionalised ecumenism to a rather holistic perception of ecumenism lead the churches to conciliar fellowship? The ecumenical movement will lose its integrity and credibility if it is not expressed through a common life, shared decisions and common action by its constituting bodies. One of the major contributions of the ecumenical movement was the revival of conciliarity. In fact, sharing, trust-building, listening, accepting each other and praying together helped the churches to experience and articulate conciliarity, though not in its fullness. However, conciliar ecumenism is in decline, and confessionalism and bilateralism are replacing multilateral ecumenism. The experiences we have gained through conciliar ecumenism must help us to move forward towards conciliar fellowship. After more than 50 years of common journey, and in spite of significant developments in conciliar ecumenism, the ecumenical structures have not enabled the churches to take concrete steps towards this goal. The Global Christian Forum is
108

emerging as a new form of multilateral ecumenism. Can the forum with a Charta Oecumenica ensure a broader basis and bring all the churches together? Can it, with its open participation, less institutionalised structures and complex procedures, help the churches to deepen their fellowship and experience and express deeper sense conciliarity? The time for institutionalised ecumenism is coming to an end. The time for conciliar life, conciliar decision and conciliar action must begin. The ecumenical structures and decision-making processes should be reshaped and developed in a way that challenges the churches to grow together towards conciliar fellowship. Conciliar fellowship is, indeed, a strong challenge to confessionalism, parochialism, universalism and bilateralism. 6. We must bear in mind two other concerns when discussing reconfiguration: responsiveness and coherence in the ecumenical movement. Although these are not new concerns, they have re-emerged more acutely and with new urgency. Let me briefly make a few remarks: a) Our ecumenical reflection and action are basically reactive. We set our ecumenical agenda to protect and defend the positions of the churches; and they react strongly whenever they perceive their identity and position threatened. The ecumenical movement must become responsive rather than reactive or protective, so that it may be contextual, discerning, dialogical and interactive. The WCC Programme Planning Document for 2003-2005 calls for a new

ecumenical configuration which will effectively respond to the challenges of the 21st century. This is precisely what the ecumenical movement should do. As it wrestles with a changing world, it should reconfigure itself and articulate its goals clearly. b) Unity, mission and diaconia have been the major goals and the permanent foci of the ecumenical movement. However, the question of their priority and their interconnection has generated serious debate. The Orthodox Churches have always considered the visible unity of the church as the ecumenical issue, and have always complained that it is not given a clear priority on the ecumenical agenda. The churches of the Protestant tradition have always sought the centrality of mission in ecumenical engagement. The ecumenical partners have always struggled for the urgency of social diaconia. Since these approaches and concerns are legitimate and will continue, we must try to establish coherence, interaction and complementarity between them. Let us remind ourselves that the ecumenical movement emerged as the churches common commitment to witness the Gospel together to the world. Therefore, all issues that concern the Gospel are ecumenical issues. In order for the ecumenical witness to become more effective, it must first become coherent, integrated and contextual. If we fail this critical task, the ecumenical movement will suffer fragmentation and depart-

mentalisation and will lose much of its integrity and wholeness. c) Ecumenism does not deal with concepts; it deals with realities, not with structures but with people. The driving force of the ecumenical movement is a vision that determines its form, shape and structure, its reflection and action in a given time and place. What is the call of God through the ecumenical movement today? The conceptualisation of the ecumenical movement will take us away from the concrete realities of life. The ecumenical movement must discern the signs of the times, and must be continually reviewed and renewed, reconfigured and reshaped in response to Gods call, vis--vis the needs of the churches and the challenges of the times. Can we develop new models, new structures and new frameworks that will enable us to organise our ecumenical life more effectively, harmoniously and creatively? d) The growing pace towards regionalization and polycentredness may play a pivotal role in this process. These features belong to the very essence of the ecumenical movement. The CUV points towards this direction. Therefore, the reconfiguration must be organised in a way that encourages regionalization and multicentredness, which will ensure broader participation and deeper fellowship. 7. What should the ecumenical movement become in the 21st century: a forum, a context, a framework for collaboration among the churches, or, a
109

fellowship of churches aimed at the visible unity? Probably the reconfiguration process must start with this crucial question, since most of the problems that we are facing in the ecumenical movement are, in one way or another, related to it. Those who consider the ecumenical movement as a fellowshipbuilder, look with great suspicion at the growing openness of the ecumenical movement to secular organisations, nonchurch-related structures and other religions. Those who perceive the ecumenical movement as an inclusive reality transcending the boundaries of the institutional churches, and as an effective global instrument to promote justice, peace and human rights, are frustrated by the limited scope of the ecumenical agenda. If this dichotomy is not reconciled and converged within a holistic vision and articulated through a dynamic and comprehensive framework, it will eventually lead the ecumenical movement to disintegration and polarisation. The problem, in my judgement, is not so much between the Orthodox and Protestant Churches, or, between the WCC and the Catholic Church; it is essentially between the ecumenical movement and the

churches, as well as between the ecumenical movement and the new world situation. If the aim of the ecumenical movement is to help the churches to take Gods call seriously in the world today, it must engage in a serious process of renewal. I consider reconfiguration as only one important dimension of renewal. The youth have expressed their concerns and outlined their perspectives. The churches and the ecumenical partners are now invited to take an active part in this process. Some may say that the ecumenical boat is left alone in a stormy sea without any clear orientation. Others may even say that the ecumenical boat is sinking. The ecumenical movement is in the hands of God; we are called, in obedient response to Gods call, to protect and enrich it. The ecumenical movement is future-oriented. From time to time it must pause to look ahead more clearly in order to move forward more confidently. This is the time for critical self-reflection and discernment, a time for prayer and to listen to the Holy Spirit. How do we understand, define, articulate and live out the ecumenical vision as we enter the 21st century? This is the urgent call and a serious task before us.

Note
1

Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of Churches, wcc-coe.org

110

The vision and values guiding the ecumenical movement from today into tomorrow
Konrad Raiser

Addressing the participants in the 2003 reconfiguration consultation, Konrad Raiser notes that any attempt at reconfiguration that starts from the organisational and financial dilemmas faced by all partners in the ecumenical movement is bound to lead to defensive conflicts of institutional interest. It is necessary to start from the vision. This includes issues such as the oneness of the ecumenical movement and the plurality of the language about its vision and values.

1. The World Council of Churches (WCC) has invited you to this consultation on Reconfiguration of the Ecumenical Movement. The letter of invitation suggests the following objectives for the consultation: To analyse the main challenges presented by the changing world situation and their implications for the configuration of the ecumenical movement; to identify the key areas of change and renewal necessary for a reconfiguration; to design a process of consultation and study leading to a report on reconfiguration of the ecumenical movement to the Central Committee in 2005 and eventually to the WCC Assembly (2006). This initiative of the Officers of the WCC has elicited controversial responses. They all reveal a general agreement that it is indeed necessary (and even urgent) to reflect

about the shape and the future of the ecumenical movement; but they express misgivings about the way the issues have been formulated, about the intentions and motives behind this particular initiative, and the appropriateness of its timing, coinciding as it does with a change of leadership in the WCC and suggesting a possible timeframe oriented towards meetings of the governing bodies of the WCC. 2. You have received a background document that indicates that the initiative of the WCC Officers has a rather extended prehistory. The discussion about a possible new configuration of the ecumenical movement began more than six years ago and has involved various groupings of ecumenical partners like the regional ecumenical organisations (REOs), the national councils of churches (NCCs), the
111

Christian world communions (CWCs), ecumenical agencies/specialized ministries, but also partners on the side of the Roman Catholic Church and among Evangelical and Pentecostal communities. It was first opened up for the governing bodies of the WCC through my report as General Secretary at the Central Committee meeting in 2002. The Central Committee encouraged the continuation of the exploration and suggested a possible timeframe. Our consultation has to be seen in this broader context and is meant to test the validity of the analyses and perceptions that have emerged in the process so far. 3. In taking this initiative, the leadership of the WCC was fully aware of the fact that the ecumenical movement is wider than the constitutional constituency of the WCC. It even extends beyond the churches as institutional entities. It is a polycentric reality and none of its organizational manifestations can lay exclusive or normative claim to it. As most of you are aware, the WCC, before its Harare Assembly (1998), undertook an extended process of reflection about its self-understanding and its role in the wider ecumenical movement. This resulted in a policy document entitled: Towards a common understanding and vision of the World Council of Churches (CUV, 1997). As a consequence of this selfassessment the Harare Assembly accepted a revision of Article III of the WCC Constitution which spells out the purposes and functions of the Council. The article opens with the declaration: The World
112

Council of Churches is constituted by the churches to serve the one ecumenical movement. This opening statement is then further developed in the second part of the article which says: In order to strengthen the one ecumenical movement the Council will: nurture relations with and among churches, establish and maintain relations with national councils etc, support ecumenical initiatives, facilitate the creation of networks, (and) work towards maintaining the coherence of the one ecumenical movement in its diverse manifestations. 4. This constitutional mandate provides the basis of the initiative that has brought us together here in Antelias. It presupposes that we can legitimately speak of the one ecumenical movement. This assumption cannot be taken for granted and has in fact been challenged. Too obvious are the lack of coherence and the great diversity of activities and organizations which claim to be part of the ecumenical movement. Too great is the tension between the different understandings of the goals and objectives of the movement. To speak of the one ecumenical movement could perhaps be justified by referring to the common historical origins at the turn from the 19th to the 20th centuries. But even then one would have to acknowledge the different streams which continue to be active up to today. What has remained, however, is a certain affinity of spirit between those engaged in the ecumenical movement so that some would prefer to speak of the ecumenical

family to which they belong and which imposes certain obligations on its members. Yet, this does not provide a sufficient empirical basis for the affirmation of the oneness of the ecumenical movement which is being challenged and contradicted further by increasing signs of fragmentation. 5. The CUV document clearly recognized the uncertainty, ambiguity and even confusion that prevail among churches and ecumenical organizations about what is meant by the one ecumenical movement. The document states: There is agreement that the term ecumenical embraces the quest for Christian unity, common witness in the worldwide task of mission and evangelism, and commitment to diaconia and to the promotion of justice and peace. But there is no authoritative definition of the term, and it is in fact used to characterize a wide range of activities, ideas, and organizational arrangements (2.2). What holds the movement together is the sense of a common calling from God, of obedience to a Gospel imperative. The ecumenical movement is not an end in itself promoting self-defined objectives; rather, it responds to a vocation which arises from Gods will and promise to create a new human community in Christ. The source of its integrity and its oneness lies outside the movement. 6. Important as clear goals and objectives as well as organizational coherence are to keep the ecumenical movement from disintegrating, the core of its vitality is the ecumenical vision which is handed to us

in the biblical witness. This vision is expressed in the prayer ut omnes unum sint (Jn 17:21), in the parables of the kingdom of God, or in the eschatological images of the new Jerusalem and the new heaven and new earth (Rev 21:1ff). This vision has to be appropriated afresh in each generation. In the most recent encounter with the General Secretaries of REOs it has therefore been suggested that we should rather speak of re-visioning instead of reconfiguring the ecumenical movement. 7. Several attempts have been undertaken during these last years to spell out the ecumenical vision for the present context. The Harare Assembly used a vision statement in the form of a litany of affirmations as the basis for its service of recommitment (cf. Together on the Way, Geneva 1999, 113ff). The key elements of this vision are the visible oneness of the body of Christ, the healing of human community, the liberating power of forgiveness, and a culture of dialogue and solidarity. More recently Michael Kinnamon published a book with the title The Vision of the Ecumenical Movement and How It Has Been Impoverished by Its Friends1. For him, as for many others, unity as Gods gift is the core of the ecumenical vision. This includes a call for renewal with the call to move beyond mere cooperation; it also means that uniting diversities does not correspond to the vision. He emphatically wants to hold unity and justice together, but is sceptical about the tendency of professionalizing the advocacy for justice.
113

While he affirms the value of interfaith relations, he maintains the specificity of the search for Christian unity. His book, leaving aside some misplaced polemics, is a welcome reminder of the rich legacy of articulations of the ecumenical vision that we have inherited. 8. Still other attempts of expressing the ecumenical vision for our time could be referred to. Some go back to the original meaning of oikoumene in the sense of the whole inhabited earth and speak of Gods oikoumene as the ecumenical earth or as the household of life as symbols for a lifecentred vision (L. Rasmussen). In a small booklet published before the Harare Assembly under the title To Be the Church2 I have myself tried to sum up a renewed ecumenical vision with a similar thrust in five key terms: a vision of wholeness and of fullness of life, not only for human beings, but also for all creation; a vision of shalom and of right relationships in a sustainable human community; a vision of reconciliation based on the belief in the liberating power of forgiveness; a vision of sufficiency that lives in the certainty that enough is provided for everyones need as long as all are prepared to share with each other; and a vision of the catholicity of the church as the worldwide community of those who live by the promise of Gods kingdom and celebrate the signs of its presence already now3. 9. This brief survey leads to the conclusion that focusing on the vision of the ecumenical movement does not yet necessarily lead to a greater sense of
114

oneness. While there is a common intention, it can hardly be captured by one definition. The CUV document concluded therefore that any common understanding of the meaning of ecumenical and of the ecumenical movement would have to embrace multiple perspectives and a diversity of subjects. It tried, however, to offer some basic distinctions and marks of identification (2.8). These include the following affirmations: The dynamic of the ecumenical movement is rooted in the tension between the churches as they are and the true koinonia with the triune God and among one another which is their calling and Gods gift. The ecumenical vision encompasses the renewal of church and world in the light of the gospel of Gods kingdom. In the face of all threats to life it affirms the Christian hope of life for all. The ecumenical movement is rooted in the life of the Christian churches. Yet it is not limited to the concern for inter-church relationships and is wider than the various organizations in which it has found expression. The ecumenical movement is a renewal movement in and through the churches which has found expression in diverse initiatives and networks among lay people, especially women and youth. While the ecumenical movement has a worldwide scope it points more specifically to the catholicity of the church, that is, the essential relatedness of churches

and Christian communities locally, nationally, regionally and globally. In each place and in all places, the ecumenical movement is concerned with the true being and life of the church as an inclusive community (2.8.1-5). 10. I have dwelt somewhat extensively on the question of the ecumenical vision since it has emerged clearly from the discussions so far that any attempt at reconfiguration that started from the organizational and financial dilemmas faced by all partners in the ecumenical movement would be bound to lead to defensive conflicts of institutional interest and would block the search for more coherence. When in the initial phases of the discussion the term of a new architecture of the ecumenical movement was used, it was criticized for this same reason and replaced by the term configuration which was felt to be more open to the dimension of the vision and values which serve as marks of identification of the ecumenical movement. We should, therefore, in this discussion test the validity of these perceptions. The objective of any reflection about re-configuring the ecumenical movement should obviously be to strengthen its capacity to move the Christian community worldwide to a genuinely common witness and service in the world of the 21 st century by strengthening the sense of a common vision and by achieving greater coherence around the values which motivate the movement. 11. However, important as vision and values are for the integrity of the ecumenical

movement, we cannot disregard the acute challenges confronting the movement today and the difficulties of formulating a coherent response which are due to its uncoordinated organizational shape. The different institutional manifestations of the ecumenical movement have emerged in response to an earlier historical and cultural situation; they do not adequately reflect the changes that have taken place in the relationships between the churches and within the Christian community, thanks not least to ecumenical efforts. The organized ecumenical movement in its ethos, its working styles, and its priority concerns is still largely shaped by the tradition of the historic churches and even more specifically those of the Protestant Reformation. This has come to be recognized in the recent encounters with the Orthodox churches. Meanwhile, however, the Roman Catholic Church has become a full participant in the ecumenical movement. In addition, the centre of gravity of World Christianity has moved to the Southern hemisphere where new ways of being church and of confessing the Christian faith have emerged. This is true particularly in Africa and in Latin America and it is bound to affect the ecumenical movement. But there has also been a fundamental change in the field of religion in general. The early ecumenical pioneers assumed that Christian culture and values would become universally accepted as the basis of a viable human community. Today, we witness a revitalization of religious traditions
115

worldwide and religious plurality has become a permanent feature in most societies, challenging the universalising perspectives of an earlier phase of the ecumenical movement. More and more it is being recognized that the search for ways of living together in mutual respect with people of other religious traditions has become an urgent requirement. New ecumenical initiatives are emerging which expose even more painfully the lack of coherence in the ecumenical movement. 12. Other challenges arise from changes in the international social and political environment. This is due in particular to the rapid spread of the process of globalisation and its impact on social, economic and cultural life in individual societies as well as on the functioning of the international system. There is a striking parallel between our discussion about a new configuration of the ecumenical movement and the broader discussion about new forms of governance, both on the national and the international level. This will be analysed more fully in the presentation by Beth Ferris. Here it is sufficient to point to some of the developments that have radically changed the environment within which the ecumenical organizations are operating. (1) Ecumenical work is oriented towards multilateral cooperation, but we witness a constant increase of bilateral relationships between specific partners and a new affirmation of denominationalism. (2) The ecumenical movement is rooted in the churches and is oriented towards renewal
116

of the churches to strengthen their common witness and service in the wider community. However, more and more of the classical areas of ecumenical witness and service are now being taken over by secular NGOs thus creating a competitive situation in which the ecumenical organizations are at the losing end. (3) The resources available for ecumenical activities have become scarce due to a change in the culture of public finance which follows the values of the corporate world, i.e. effectiveness and evidence of measurable results. 13. Many of these changes are impacting the life of the churches as well and there is a growing trend to respond to these challenges by way of pragmatic organizational and structural changes hoping to increase relevance by adopting looser, lighter and more flexible structures. In any case, the organized ecumenical movement finds itself at a disadvantage over against the emerging networks and alliances of social movements and organizations in civil society, which have developed more flexible and effective forms of responding to globalisation. The ecumenical movement will therefore have to develop and transform its organizational expressions in ways which facilitate the linking of the global and the local; which affirm diversity as an essential dimension of human community and not as a threat to unity; which allow for ways of decision making that make room for dissent; and which integrate new ways of being church

that do not follow the model of centralized national churches. 14. How are we to respond to this situation? In the light of what has been said before it should be clear that we cannot be content with a pragmatic and functional readjustment of structures to facilitate cooperation and render it more effective. In spite of the sense of urgency and the insistence of some partners that a new configuration should be put in place quickly we must engage in a process of discernment among all the ecumenical partners which will require time. Important as the erosion of the funding base may be for the different partner organizations, we must avoid the impression of a resource-driven process and rather sharpen the profile of a value-driven ecumenism. The aim should be to rally the partners again around a common set of values and attitudes, to sharpen the sense of a common mission; this will facilitate reaching agreement about the necessary institutional and structural changes. It may also help to clarify who are the true partners in this emerging conversation. They will be ready to acknowledge the ecclesial nature of the ecumenical movement. They will also accept that the unity of the church, the missionary proclamation of the Gospel in the whole world, and the active commitment to diaconia and service for justice and peace are interdependent expressions of the ecumenical vocation. The ongoing conversation about a Global Christian Forum is based on these understandings and it can provide important

clues for the beginning discussion about reconfiguring the ecumenical movement. 15. What are these common values and attitudes? At its heart the ecumenical movement is concerned with transforming and deepening the quality of relationships in and between the churches and in the human community, in response to Gods promise to create a new human community in Christ, to bring about the reign of God. This emphasis on right relationships, not only with our neighbours, but also with the earth and with God, the creator, embraces the classical foci of unity and justice, of reconciliation and truth which must not be played off one against the other. The values that are included in this relational understanding of the ecumenical movement should find expression in the ethos and culture of cooperation between the different partners. What the CUV document, in its effort to interpret the WCC as a fellowship of churches, calls mutual accountability could also be applied to the ecumenical movement as a whole. It is the expression of a deeper, more costly ecumenical commitment which can take many different forms in the relationships between the ecumenical partners: recognizing their solidarity with each other, assisting each other in cases of need, refraining from actions incompatible with brotherly and sisterly relations, entering into spiritual relationships to learn from each other (CUV para. 3.5.6). 16. It is obvious that this emphasis on relational values places partners in the
117

ecumenical movement at a disadvantage or even in direct contradiction to the values promoted under the banner of globalisation. A background document prepared for the discussion about the ecumenical response to globalisation at the Harare Assembly of the WCC spelled out four essential values which are inherent in the life-centred vision: participation as the optimal inclusion of all involved at all levels; equity as basic fairness that also extends to other life forms; accountability as the structuring of responsibility towards one another and earth itself; and sufficiency as the commitment to meet basic needs of all life possible and to develop a quality of life that includes bread for all but is more than bread

alone (s. Together on the Way, Geneva 1999, 260). This echoes the call of the previous Assembly at Canberra (1991) for a new concept of value, based not on money and exchange but rather on sustainability and use. What is just and right, then, must be found in social, biological and physical relationships involving humanity and earth (s. Signs of the Spirit, Geneva 1991, 63f). The core values have been explicated here in relation to the challenges of globalisation and a growth-oriented understanding of development. They apply by analogy also to the relationships within the ecumenical family and help to translate the ecumenical vision into an alternative form of life in community.

Notes
1 2

Saint Louis, Chalice Press, 2003, 183 pp. K. Raiser, To Be the Church: Challenges

and Hopes for a New Millennium, Geneva, WCC, 1997 EN. 3 K. Raiser, To Be the Church, p.87-88-EN.

118

Visions from the youth consultation on the reconfiguration of the ecumenical movement
According to the participants in the 2003 youth consultation on reconfiguration, the ecumenical movement bears witness to the inclusive nature of the Church . It should therefore connect the prophetic voice of the Church with the voices of peoples organisations and movements, and see people of other faiths as being part of Gods household. The reconfiguration reflection should be based on peoples reality both in Church and society.

Thirteen young people, hosted by the Armenian Apostolic Church, at the invitation of the World Council of Churches, discussed and reflected on the reconfiguration of the ecumenical movement. Embracing our diversity and richness of experiences, we shared dreams and visions of the ecumenical movement in the 21st century. We are meeting at a time of increasingly changing global circumstances characterised by violent conflicts, the widening gap between the rich and the poor, economic injustice, HIV/AIDS pandemic and environmental degradation, to name only a few. In the broken lives of millions we see the suffering of Christ and hear His cry for justice and healing. With this, the call for more responsive and concerted Christian action is growing louder. Therefore, we affirm the need to revisit

the vision and direction of the ecumenical movement and to look beyond the current structures and organisational formulas. The very word movement implies dynamism, constant self-evaluation and change. Despite the decline of youth presence and activity in churches in most parts of the world, the passion and commitment of many young Christians to the ecumenical movement still remain. This gives us hope and encouragement. However, we witness that their desire to solve the current problems of oikoumene is finding more and more expression outside the churches and ecumenical organisations. This raises the question of relevance of the ecumenical movement.

Our Vision of the Ecumenical Movement

Let us do together what we can do
119

together. What we think we cannot do together together let us find the way to do it together. We envision a new ecumenical movement characterised by a renewed commitment of churches and ecumenical organisations. Being ecumenical belongs to the very essence of being Church and is not just an issue of external relations. New understanding of the role of the ecumenical movement will emanate from a new understanding of the mission of the Church as an inclusive community caring for life, not only for Christians, but for all people of God, for creation, for the whole oikoumene. The 21st century will see churches sharing in the eucharistic fellowship, praying and acting together for a reconciled and healed oikoumene in visible unity. The Ecumenical Movement of the 21st century must provide a safe space for honest and respectful dialogue that is devoid of cosy ecumenism but fosters a love relationship among partners with trust, mutual accountability and lasting commitment as key values. We dream of an ecumenical movement where young people, with all their talents and skills, take an active part and leadership in all its dimensions. The ecumenical movement bears witness of the inclusive nature of the Church as the body of Christ. In its diversity lies its full strength and richness. The ecumenical movement of the 21 st century needs to be owned by all churches and ecumenical organisations. Embracing diversity is essential for the sustainability of the ecumenical movement
120

as a movement of the people where the people set the agenda. My bread is a material issue. My neighbours bread is deeply spiritual. How we deal with money is a spiritual matter. In the spirit of caring, love and justice, ecumenism will entail giving no less than we can give. We envision that ecumenical organisations and churches work together for justice and on the basis of their common faith rooted in the Bible and transform unjust structures. Sharing of material and non-material resources, of gifts, stories and capacities but also of burdens and duties will reflect our unity in Christ. Money should serve decisions not buy decisions. The ecumenical movement is called to offer an alternative to globalisation. Churches and ecumenical organisations need to think oikoumenically and act locally. A vision of oikoumenization, as opposed to globalisation, will strive for global community in full respect of the diversity of its members. The ecumenical movement, as a movement deeply rooted in the realities and traditions of our churches and ecumenical organisations, needs to be a movement of all people, not just a clique of ecumeniacs. This requires a mainstreaming of ecumenical formation through sharing of wisdom and knowledge, education and ongoing formation for people of all ages and ranks. The 21st century needs cohesion and transparency in the cooperation of strong ecumenical groups and bodies on local, national, regional and global levels.

Considering the complexity of many of the issues the world is facing, the ecumenical movement needs to connect the prophetic voice of the Church with the voices of peoples organisations and movements struggling for the same objectives. Our vision is that churches in the ecumenical movement of the 21st century view people of other faiths as being part of Gods household. The daily dialogue of life offers a basis for peaceful and constructive relationships and cooperation.

People from diverse backgrounds should be involved in this process taking into consideration age, gender, ethnic group, Indigenous peoples groups, sexual orientation, and different capacities. The ecumenical movement started with young people taking leadership in the last century (WSCF, YMCA, YWCA) 1. This reminds us of the important role young people can play. Therefore, we strongly encourage young people from all ecumenical youth organisations to be an integral part of this process. As young people we fully accept the responsibility that lies on us and expect to take risks and bold steps in this process opening ourselves for the work of the Holy Spirit. Above all, clothe yourselves with love, Which binds everything together in perfect harmony (Col 3:14).

Recommendations for the Reconfiguration Process

The reflection on the reconfiguration process should continue at all levels (globally, regionally, nationally and locally) with the efforts of all ecumenical bodies and organisations. It should be based on peoples reality both in church and society.

Note
1

Respectively: World Student Christian Federation, Young Mens Christian

Association, Young Womens Christian Association - EN.

121

From Antelias with loveStatement from the consultation on reconfiguration of the ecumenical movement
The report of the 2003 reconfiguration consultation recognises at the outset that the world has changed dramatically since the establishment of the World Council of Churches. It goes on to affirm that church unity and common witness and service are mutually enriching elements of the ecumenical vision whose values include vulnerability, accountability, and solidarity. The ecumenical movement has become polycentric. The term reconfiguration addresses the question about the relationships between our structures and the extent to which our actions complement one anothers. The report calls for a broad participatory reconfiguration process.

A diverse group of people theologians, church leaders, social scientists, ecumenists and others came together from 17-20 November 2003, at the invitation of the World Council of Churches, to reflect on the re-configuration of the ecumenical movement. Although participants came to the consultation in their individual capacities and not as representatives of their organisations, they were drawn from different constituencies, traditions and regions of the world. The meeting was enriched by the participation of young people who earlier in the week had met separately to discuss the same issue. Antelias, Lebanon, the centre of the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, was the venue for the consultation where participants enjoyed the warm hospitality of His Holiness Aram I, Moderator of the
122

World Council of Churches, and appreciated the opportunity to join in the communitys morning prayers and to learn more about the rich traditions of this ancient church. The realities of world politics intruded into the consultation when Lebanon changed its visa rules for citizens of some countries, which meant that some participants arrived one or two days late and some were not able to arrive at all. Participants were grateful for the tireless efforts of the Armenian Catholicosate to assist participants who were stranded in airports in Asia, the Middle East and Europe. The Antelias consultation on ecumenical reconfiguration was called to analyse the main challenges presented by the changing world situation and their implications for the configuration of the ecumenical movement, identify the key

areas of change and renewal necessary for a reconfiguration, and design a process of consultation and study leading to a report on reconfiguration of the ecumenical movement to the Central Committee in 2005 and eventually to the WCC Assembly (2006). The group was not asked nor did it have the authority to propose a new configuration of the ecumenical movement. Discussions need to take place in many different fora over an extended period of time. Rather, with the help of a skilled external facilitator, participants were encouraged to begin the process of thinking about the challenges presented by todays world and about the vision and values of the ecumenical movement.

inevitably shaped by the context in which they are carried out, it will be important to share our analyses with each other.

Our vision, our values

Since its beginning, the ecumenical movement has been dedicated to pursuing the goals of the visible unity of the church and common witness and service to the world. Participants in the Antelias meeting reflected on the relevance of this vision in the light of the new global realities and affirmed that both of these goals for the ecumenical movement are still relevant. Unity and common witness and service to the world are not mutually exclusive, but in fact are mutually enriching. There was considerable discussion about the common values that undergird the ecumenical movement: the integrity of the Christian church as the one body of Christ, the agreed faith basis of the World Council of Churches and a shared commitment to reconciliation as the basis for transformation. The meeting agreed that common values which were relevant in the past are also important in this process: participation, community, justice, diaconia, equity, vulnerability, accountability, sufficiency, mutual respect, and solidarity. It was also suggested that these are covenantal values which imply mutual commitment.

A Changing Context
The world has changed dramatically in the 50+ years since the establishment of the World Council of Churches. Participants considered some of the effects of economic globalisation, the explosive growth of communications, the increasing importance of civil society, the increasing role of religion in public life, and the profound changes in the churches over the past five decades. But they realised that they only scratched the surface in analysing these changes. Much deeper analysis will be required in order to understand the political, economic, social, and cultural changes which shape the context of the ecumenical movement in order to enable the churches to strengthen their witness and service. As analyses are

Reflections from Antelias

An ecumenical world with many actors The ecumenical movement today is
123

characterised by a rich array of ecumenical actors, including: churches, conciliar bodies (e.g. the WCC, regional ecumenical organisations, and national councils of churches), regional and sub-regional fellowships and partnerships, ecumenical agencies/specialised ministries, international ecumenical organisations, Christian world communions, ecumenical communities, mission agencies, theological colleges and associations, ecumenical academies and lay training centres, and many other ecumenical bodies. Relationships between these ecumenical actors vary tremendously. For example, churches are often members of several conciliar bodies and of their Christian world communion while participating actively in international ecumenical organisations. Ecumenical agencies/specialised ministries may have close relationships with conciliar bodies, international ecumenical organisations, and some Christian world communions while having a less direct relationship with churches. While relationships between ecumenical actors are constantly evolving, participants in the Antelias meeting agreed that further collective reflection is needed on the future configuration of the ecumenical movement. As one working group summarised: The challenge is to provide a reconfiguration within the ecumenical movement with a view towards more effective cooperation and greater coherence in our witness and service to the unity of the church and to the wholeness and fullness of life.
124

What does reconfiguration mean? In the course of the discussion, it became clear that the word reconfiguration can be interpreted in three different ways. One understanding refers to broadening the ecumenical movement by reaching out to churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, and Pentecostal and evangelical churches and seeking ways of greater engagement with them. Participants were reminded that the Global Christian Forum which was created after the 1998 Harare Assembly is an ongoing process of gathering representatives from all the main Christians traditions around the table, widening the circle especially to those who until now have not been in conversation with one another. Participants affirmed this process of widening the circle, but recognised that this goal is largely being carried out in other fora. A second understanding of reconfiguration refers to the process of deepening the fellowship between churches. This emphasis on relationships between churches and ecumenical actors is central to the ecumenical movement, but is also primarily carried forward in other ways, as in the important bilateral discussions taking place between churches. A third understanding addresses the question of how relationships can be strengthened between existing ecumenical actors to ensure greater coherence and effectiveness in our work. This refers to questions about the relationships between our structures and the extent to which our actions complement one anothers. Clearly

these

three

understandings

of

to strengthen opportunities for all churches, including those who are not active participants in conciliar bodies, to work together more effectively to ensure that ecumenical structures reflect the realities in the world and the churches, by becoming less Euro-centric and more reflective of the churches in the South. to respond to the frustration of churches who are asked to participate in many ecumenical structures at many levels to strengthen coherence in our programmes and to avoid duplication in our activities to respond to the fact that we operate in a marketplace characterised by competition for money, media, delivery of aid, and partners. to affirm the contributions of agencies/ specialised ministries as an integral part of the ecumenical family and to recognise that some agencies/specialised ministries yearn for closer cooperation with each other to respond to the pressures of a competitive environment and to be more effective in fulfilling their mandates to strengthen the base of the ecumenical movement and to reach out to the grassroots to increase the coherence of our common work, by recognising our mutual vulnerability and by increasing mutual accountability, self-constraint, and mutual nurturing of each other. A call for a broad participatory process Questions of reconfiguration of the ecumenical movement are too important
125

reconfiguration are related. Strengthening the ways in which existing ecumenical actors work together can and should be done in such a way as to invite others into the process, rather than to create further barriers between Christian organisations. Similarly, ecumenical developments between churches not only deepen relationships between churches, but also contribute to greater coherence in the common work. By focusing on the way in which ecumenical actors relate to one another, we hope to become more effective in our ministries and to be better witnesses to the God we seek to serve. The group strongly affirmed the call for further discussions on ecumenical reconfiguration, with an emphasis on the third understanding of strengthening relationships between ecumenical actors to ensure greater effectiveness in our work. These discussions have the potential to revitalise the ecumenical movement and to ensure that our structures and our actions respond to the changing global realities. Why Reconfiguration? Participants suggested many reasons why a reconfiguration of the ecumenical movement is needed now: to ensure that our structures are agile and able to respond rapidly to changes in the world to develop new methodologies and to renew the confidence of churches to confront the forces of globalisation and hegemony

to leave to a small group of people. The processes of discussion and reflection must invite all those committed to ecumenism to participate in the process, whether they are involved in conciliar bodies or in the many other dynamic expressions of ecumenical engagement. In this process, it will be important to recognise and to respect the fact that different actors have different procedures of consultation and decision making. Strong participatory processes are needed to carry this process forward. In particular, it is essential to re-centre these processes in the South if a new configuration is to respond to the realities of global Christianity. Next steps The WCC will invite churches and ecumenical partners (and potential partners) to enter into this conversation on reconfiguration. Based on their responses to the invitation to participate in the process, a meeting will be convened within a year by the WCC of representatives of churches and

partners who are interested in participating in the discussions on ecumenical reconfiguration. The WCC will also consult with other churches who are part of the ecumenical movement, such as the Roman Catholic Church, to encourage their participation in discussions of reconfiguration. Similarly, efforts will be made to inform evangelical and Pentecostal churches about this process and to invite these churches to participate in appropriate ways. The WCCs role will be that of facilitator of this first representative meeting on reconfiguration but the meeting itself will decide on how the process will be carried forward (processes, tasks, timelines, etc.). While the WCC will make interim reports to its Central Committee, the process will be carried forward by participating organisations in the light of their own constituency needs. During the period leading up to this meeting, participants in the Antelias consultation agreed to provide needed advice and support to the process.

126

Mapping the oikoumene: a study of current ecumenical structures and relationships

Jill Hawkey
How does organised ecumenism look like today at the national, regional, and world levels? How are the main ecumenical actors speaking of the institutional challenges confronted by organised ecumenism today? In preparation for the 2004 consultation on reconfiguration, Jill Hawkey interviewed some 65 people from different ecumenical areas in order to draw a map of the ecumenical world. This is a summary of her five-month study1. It was originally prepared for an oral presentation. A Methodist, Hawkey served from 1993 to 2004 as the national coordinator of Christian World Service, an agency of the Conference of Churches in Aotearoa New Zealand.

For the past five months, I have been working as a consultant for the World Council of Churches on various projects regarding reconfiguration. Now in Aotearoa New Zealand where I come from, we know about consultants. People tell the story of the old high country farmer, sitting up in the hills with his sheep all around him, when suddenly a helicopter lands close by. A very expensively dressed man jumps out, clutching a state of the art laptop computer. Good-day, says the young man to the farmer. Im here to help. If you like, I can tell you exactly how many sheep you have. I will use the latest satellite technology to calculate this and in return, all you have to do is give me one sheep. Alright then, says the bemused farmer. So the man sets up his computer, types in furiously looking around the hills at the

thousands of sheep. After a few minutes, he says, Okay. Ill just put my payment in the helicopter and then Ill tell you the findings. He comes back and says, Okay then youve got 12,892 sheep. Thats amazing, says the farmer. Absolutely right. Now, if I tell you what your job is, can I have my sheep back? Okay then, says the man smugly Whats my job? Youre a consultant, says the farmer. The man looks amazed. How do you know that? Easy, says the farmer. I didnt ask you to come here, youve told me something I already know and thats my dog not a sheep youve just put in your helicopter! I am very conscious in making this presentation today, that I am one of those
127

consultants who will be telling many of you what you already know! I will be talking about your organisations and you know them so much better than I do. So at the outset, I will ask your forgiveness if my presentation seems somewhat simplistic. However, one of the things I have learnt in this study is that while we know our corner of the ecumenical movement well, we dont necessarily have an understanding of the whole complex picture with all its different players. I am also aware that while some have years of experience in the ecumenical movement, others of us are relatively new to it so it is important that we take time to lay out a basic ecumenical map. What I aim to do is build up a picture of some of the major organisations in the ecumenical movement. While it will cover a significant number of ecumenical organisations, it wont be inclusive of all those existing today that claim an ecumenical identity and agenda. I will then look at the relationships between the different organisations and highlight some of the issues that arise out of this complex picture. That will take about 45 minutes, which will then leave plenty of time for plenary discussion. Let me say something briefly about the Study. It is based on 65 interviews, mostly by telephone, with people from around the world in which I asked questions about their own organisation, who they relate to, what they consider some of the difficulties in the current configuration of the ecumenical movement and what they see as their own
128

role within the movement. I am extremely grateful to those people, many of whom are here today, for sharing their knowledge and experience with me.

So, who are the various ecumenical actors?

At the base of the ecumenical movement is the estimated two billion Christian people in the world today. It is estimated that half of the Christian population is Roman Catholic. The World Council of Churches or the WCC as it is known is considered the most comprehensive and representative church body bringing together another 550 million people who belong to the 342 member churches or denominations in 120 countries. While the Roman Catholic Church is not a member of the WCC, it is a member of the Councils Faith and Order Commission. The remaining quarter is made up of a diverse group of churches. Many may belong to a confessional family such as the Lutheran World Federation or Baptist World Alliance, but not to the WCC because they may be too small or for other reasons such as perceiving the WCC as being too liberal theologically. Others will be churches which we refer to as Evangelical or Pentecostal. Some may have links to a global body such as the World Evangelical Alliance whereas others will be independent, individual churches with no formal ties to any other body. Irrespective of the type of church, Christianity is growing faster in the South

than the North as we heard yesterday. The Christian family is a long way from finding unity, however. If we look at the national level, almost every country in the world has a myriad of churches of various denominations. The World Christian Database states that the USA has 635 different denominations and even the small Pacific island of Niue with a population of 1,300 has seven different denominations.

on women, youth and capacity building are also common. It is also worth noting that in some countries, especially in Latin America, there is more than one national ecumenical body; there is often one for historical churches and one for Evangelical or Pentecostal churches. In the Middle East, there arent any NCCs. In many countries there are a range of other specialist ecumenical organisations besides the NCC. Many churches have created agencies or organisations that focus on a particular area and these may range from broadcasting to refugees. Each of you can probably list the 5, 10 or 20 organisations like this that have developed in your country over the last 50 years all undertaking work on behalf of the churches and in most cases, being governed by representatives from the churches. There are organisations like the YMCA/YWCA or Bible Society that predate the formation of the NCC and in some cases these bodies are associate members or related bodies of the NCC. In many countries, both North and South, relief and development agencies have been established, many at the end of World War 2. In the North, some are ecumenical such as Bread for the World in Germany or Norwegian Church Aid while others are departments of a single national church, for example, Presbyterian World Service and Development in Canada. Some refer to themselves as specialised ministries while others call themselves agencies. For the sake of brevity but in fear of offending
129

National Councils of Churches

Despite this, churches have come together in over 100 countries to form a national council of churches or national Christian council what we commonly call NCCs. These councils were formed mostly in the 1940s and 1950s with encouragement from the WCC. While the founding members were usually churches of the Anglican or Reformed tradition, Orthodox churches joined in later. Following the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, the Roman Catholic Church also joined a number of NCCs. In some countries, Roman Catholic membership has been accompanied by a radical restructuring of the ecumenical body usually with a greater emphasis on it being a council of churches that only speaks if there is consensus amongst all churches rather than it being a separate ecumenical organisation with a life of its own. While the programmatic work of the NCC differs from country to country, most have a Unity programme (some call it Faith and Order) and a programme that focuses on Church and Society. Programmes focusing

my ex-colleagues I simply refer to them here as agencies. While there are differences between them, each has a mandate to respond to human suffering around the world, including through development programmes, emergency relief and advocacy work. These agencies are particularly significant in that together they fund a large proportion of the diaconal work undertaken in the ecumenical movement and many of the ecumenical organisations. Alongside the WCC, they probably have the strongest network of relationships with other actors in the ecumenical movement. Seventeen of the agencies which responded to a recent survey had, in 2002, a combined budget of US$747 million which is larger than the annual budget of the International Committee of the Red Cross (US$600 million) and World Vision (US$527 million). While these agencies work with partners in many countries of the world, they are national organisations with most of their support coming from either private donations or their national government, their governance structures usually comprising representatives from member churches, and part of their role being to enable churches in their country to respond to global poverty and injustice. In the South, ecumenical development and relief agencies have been established, many by national councils of churches. For example, CASA1 in India, CCD2 in Honduras, Christian Care Zimbabwe. They all differ in the structural and legal relationship they
130

have with their member churches but all see themselves as working closely with and through local churches.

Regional Ecumenical Organisations

So thats the national level. If we move onto the regional level, we find the regional ecumenical organisations (REOs). Today there are seven REOs: All Africa Conference of Churches (AACC), Caribbean Conference of Churches (CCC), Christian Conference of Asia (CCA), Conference of European Churches (CEC), Latin American Council of Churches (CLAI), Middle East Council of Churches (MECC), Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC). The first REO was established at the end of the 1950s and the others were founded over the next 25 years. Membership differs between REOs; some have both churches and NCCs as members, others have just churches. The Roman Catholic Church is a member of three of the REOs. Membership of the Middle East Council of Churches is quite different from other REOs membership comes through the four main church families (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Evangelical). REOs greatly differ in size from the Pacific Conference of Churches, which has seven staff to the Middle East Council of Churches, which has 83 (excluding the Department of Service to Palestinian refugees). Again their programmatic work

tends to be divided into three main areas: Faith and Order (or Unity) which often includes relating to people of other faiths as well as encouraging theological articulation from the context of Asia, Africa, the Pacific and so on; Church and Society covering issues such as conflict, HIV/AIDS, globalisation, poverty, climate change; gender, youth and culture. In recent years, a number of the REOs have undergone significant changes in the way they deliver their programmes. For example, the REO for Latin America, CLAI, has decentralised its programme and is now working through member churches. The Pacific Conference of Churches has recently abolished its programme desks and now implements programmes at the national level through NCCs. They have found this much more effective for engaging people ecumenically at the grassroots level. Alongside these REOs sit other ecumenical bodies some established by the REOs, others pre-dating them. These include Associations of Theological Institutes or other theological bodies as well as groups focusing on human rights, women, the environment and so on.

Africa: FOCCISA3, FECCLAHA4, COFCEAC5, and FECCIWA6. Two were interviewed as part of the study FECCLAHA and FECCIWA. Both started in the 1990s as a response to conflict in their region and their membership comprises mostly national councils of churches. They work primarily in the areas of peace making and peace building, good governance and capacity building.

Global Bodies
Moving onto the global level, Christian world communions were included in this mapping study. While not strictly ecumenical bodies, they none-the-less play an important role in the ecumenical movement. Christian world communions are global bodies of a certain denomination, such as the Lutheran World Federation or the Disciples Ecumenical Consultative Council, which generally have the task of strengthening the unity of that tradition and relating to other Christian communions. There is a huge difference between the Christian world communions. The three largest, the LWF, Anglican Communion and WARC each represent about 65-75 million Christians whereas the Church of the Brethren and the Friends World Committee for Consultation have less than 500,000 members. While most Christian world communions have less than 15 staff, the LWF has a staff of 70 in Geneva and its Department for World Service employs more than 5,000 workers in 31 countries around the world. Not all Christian world
131

Sub-Regional Bodies
There is another group of ecumenical actors that fits between the national and the regional ecumenical organisations called the sub-regional fellowships. They are one of the newest actors on the ecumenical scene. There are four within

communions undertake programmatic work, but there are some common themes amongst those that do including: theology, mission, working with people of other faiths, human relationships/relationships between men and women, human rights, economic justice, HIV/AIDS, global sharing. A major part of their work is the bilateral dialogues happening between them these are dialogues that deal with issues and matters of faith which have led to conflict and division in the past. So for example, the Pontifical Council has engaged in 18 different dialogues. World Evangelical Alliance Another global body is the World Evangelical Alliance which has its roots in the mid 19th century and is a network of 7 regional and 123 national evangelical alliances and over 100 special ministries. The WEA aims to foster unity and provide a worldwide identity and voice to evangelical churches and Christians. The relationship between national or regional alliances to the NCCs or regional ecumenical organisations differs greatly from context to context. For example, there is a close relationship between them in Latin America. The World Evangelical Alliance has a staff of five and much of its work occurs through its six Commissions: Women, International Council for Evangelical Theological Education, Mission, Religious Liberty Commission, Theological Commission, Youth Commission. International Ecumenical Organisations We then have a number of organisations loosely defined as
132

international ecumenical organisations. Some, such as the YMCA and the YWCA date back to the 19th century whereas others such as Ecumenical News International, ACT International and the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance are less than 10 years old. Youth In the report, I deal with the youth organisations separately. The four interviewed YMCA, WSCF, Syndesmos and Ecumenical Youth Council in Europe are all very different, but they do have a number of common features. They include: extensive networks of young people at the grassroots level; three of the four are working with young people on issues that are on the agenda of other ecumenical agencies e.g. HIV/AIDS, conflict resolution, interfaith relations, globalisation and sexuality; some of the organisations are struggling with diverse membership regarding issues like the war on Iraq or sexuality; and then funding is a major concern for them all. Other The other five international ecumenical agencies interviewed were Action by Churches Together (ACT), Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance, Ecumenical News International (ENI), Wo r l d A s s o c i a t i o n f o r C h r i s t i a n C o m m u n i c a t i o n ( WA C C ) , a n d t h e Ecumenical Church Loan Fund (ECLOF). While again, each of these organisations is different, all (with the exception of ACT) intentionally work with a wide network of churches and/ or church-related organisations including Roman Catholic, Evangelical

and Pentecostal churches. I also interviewed one global mission body, the Council for World Mission (CWM), which was founded in 1977 and grew out of three major mission societies. World Council of Churches Finally, I look at the WCC with its programmes relating to the five historic themes: faith and order; mission and ecumenical formation; justice, peace and creation; international affairs, peace and human security; diaconia and solidarity. The WCC has a staff of approximately 170 people with most based in Geneva. A major piece of work recently undertaken by the WCC has been the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation. This is leading to some significant changes in the way the WCC works, with the introduction of consensus decision making, changes being made to common prayer at WCC gatherings and a new criteria for membership. While it may not have felt like it for you, that was an extremely quick overview of some of the ecumenical actors on the global scene. As I said at the beginning, I am aware that we could build in many other players lay theological training institutes, base Christian communities the list is endless. But this existing map highlights quite enough issues for us to be going on with. In this next section, I want to outline some of the issues that I identified in the study although I am sure that you will want to add to this list this afternoon.

Issues emerging from the Study

Vision The first issue, vision, we have already explored together. What struck me was that there is a huge number of organisations sharing a very similar vision of a united church working together for the healing of the world. As has been the case for the last 60 years, some organisations place their emphasis on unity, and others place it on the healing of the world and while this results in some tension, many people voiced a real desire to develop a common vision for the whole of the ecumenical movement which is relevant for the 21st century. Are the Churches Committed to Working Together? However, one of the questions raised by people in every corner of the globe is whether churches at the local, national, regional and global level are really committed to working together. Some churches are very clear about their ecumenical commitment; for example, some state that they will not undertake any work on their own that could be done ecumenically. But the perception of most of the people from ecumenical organisations I interviewed was different from this. There are a number of interrelated issues that I have highlighted: First, there is a perception that churches are focusing on their confessional family rather than working ecumenically. A number of people commented that people seemed more interested in preserving and
133

enhancing the identity of their own confessional body. The part that finances play in this is something that could be explored further. For example, one person commented that because the ecumenical movement has less funds available than in the past, churches are now focusing on their own confessional families from where they can get funds. Second, closely associated with this is the question of ownership how much do the churches own the ecumenical structures. I thought one of the most telling quotes came from Botswana: When things get difficult, the staff becomes the Botswana Christian Council rather than the churches. Churches and organisations are responding differently to the question of ownership. A common response is for church leadership to have a far greater role in the governance of ecumenical organisations. One of the downsides of this is that most church leaders are male so the governance structures of the ecumenical movement then become predominantly male.

equating the ecumenical movement with the WCC. A number of people say that we cant talk about ecumenism because the Roman Catholic Church or the Pentecostal Churches arent part of the ecumenical movement. Yet the Pontifical Council will say very clearly we are part of the ecumenical movement despite not being a member of the WCC and this is evidenced by their membership in many NCCs and REOs. Overall however, there is a real desire amongst many of the people interviewed for greater participation of the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal churches in ecumenical structures including the World Council of Churches. When asked about the positive changes occurring in the ecumenical movement, one of the most common responses was the proposed Global Christian Forum which will bring together WCC member churches with the Roman Catholic Church and Pentecostal and Evangelical churches. It is also worth noting that there is some concern about the impact of greater participation and whether ecumenical organisations will become less able to take on a prophetic role if they are only able to speak out on issues where there is consensus amongst a large, diverse membership. The Drop-Off Factor Another important issue regarding participation and membership is what could be called the drop-off factor. The study highlighted that the broadest level of ecumenical participation is at the national level but

Issues around Structural Relationships

Next I want to look at some of the structural relationships between the various actors in the ecumenical movement. Participation and Membership In the study, I outline three issues regarding participation and membership: Member of an organisation or participant in a movement? There seems to be a lack of clarity over terms with a number of people
134

only approximately half of those churches were members of the REOs and the percentage who were members of the WCC was even smaller. While insufficient research was undertaken in this study to have an exact figure, I estimate that no more than 25% of churches that are members of NCCs are also members of the WCC. I think it raises some very interesting questions including: is there a way that membership in the national council of churches could lead onto membership or at least participation in regional and global ecumenical organisations? How can NCCs engage their entire membership in the regional and global issues being addressed by REOs, the WCC and other organizations? Are global ecumenical bodies such as the WCC (but also others such as ACT and EAA) relating to NCCs in such a way as to promote participation by all the members and not just members of the WCC? A very similar issue exists in relation to Christian world communions. In general, less than half the members of Christian world communions are members of the WCC. How can ecumenical organisations at the regional and global level work with Christian world communions so that their concerns reach a far greater audience? And what more can Christian world communions be doing to promote ecumenism amongst their membership? The Numerous Levels of Belonging Most ecumenical organisations have national churches as their members and this is placing some real pressure on some of these

churches. Let me give an example of a church I know reasonably well the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand. They belong to the national ecumenical body, CCANZ, are members of the ecumenical development agency, Christian World Service as well as being part of other national ecumenical initiatives. They then belong to both the Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC) and the Christian Conference of Asia (CCA) at the regional level and at the global level are members of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, the World Council of Churches, Council for World Mission and the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance. Needless to say, as a church with a membership of 4550,000, they are finding it difficult on a number of levels: first, to absorb the programmes of these various organisations into the life of their church; second, to participate in the life of these organisations and third, to fund them. For the larger churches I interviewed, this did not seem to be such a problem, but smaller churches are finding it a real struggle. Relationships between Organisations Now I want to turn and look at some of the structural relationships organisations. between

Conciliar Bodies First, the relationship between conciliar bodies. NCCs, REOs and the WCC all have their own members, governance structures, policies and work programmes and while there are various liaison meetings, there are few formal
135

structural relationships between these various levels. This leads to a number of problems: lack of consistent reflection and analysis from national to regional to global levels; people on governing bodies of the WCC may not be closely involved in national or regional ecumenical bodies so there is a lack of consistency; there is potential for conflict and competition between REOs and the WCC, particularly around the role of area desks. The example of the Pacific desk is highlighted in the study. The result is that these bodies end up competing for funding. In the report I note some of the work that is being undertaken by both the All Africa Conference of Churches and Churches Together in Britain and Ireland to address similar kinds of problems. I am not going to repeat it here, but I think these two examples highlight some of the creative thinking that is taking place to address some of the structural issues, to clarify roles and to ensure greater cooperation and effectiveness while reducing pressure on member churches. Christian World Communions The study also highlights some of the difficulties in the relationship between Christian world communions and the WCC. Some of these difficulties or tensions actually go back to the formation of the WCC when it was decided that national churches rather than confessional bodies would be members. A number of people talked about the perception Christian world communions and the WCC have of each other. A quote that
136

perhaps sums it up came from one of the Christian world communion General Secretaries: From the WCC side, there is the feeling that Christian world communions arent promoting unity and are only promoting their own identity. On the Christian world communion side, there is the feeling that the WCC doesnt understand their realities When participants were asked if they saw any duplication within the ecumenical movement, a number mentioned duplication between the WCC and the larger Christian world communions, in particular the Lutheran World Federation. Now there is some debate as to whether two organisations working on the same issue is duplication or specificity with Christian world communions producing material that is particularly tailored for their constituency. Whatever your response to that debate, there remains the question of how much cooperation and coordination there is between these different programmes. It is also worth exploring at what stage cooperation takes place. Often, an organisation sees a need, sets it as a priority, develops a programme, allocates funding, employs staff and then if they are collaboratively minded, the new staff person thinks lets see who else is working on this same issue. But this type of cooperation is too late. It would be far more effective if the organisation explores who else is working in this area before any new programme is developed, and considers

from the beginning the possibility of undertaking joint work. Other Areas of Duplication Duplication is not only an issue between the WCC, REOs and Christian world communions. Many organisations throughout the ecumenical movement are working on similar themes, often without any reference to each other and therefore duplicating effort. Priorities that were mentioned time and time again include HIV/AIDS, globalisation, interfaith issues, violence against women. The question is how can we work together more effectively on these issues. Overcoming the Barriers that Divide Us In the interviews, I was struck by the number of people who felt that their organisations contribution to the ecumenical movement wasnt being recognised or affirmed. One person commented: I see it as very territorial. There is not a lot of recognising different roles and not a lot of mutual respect. There is more a spirit of competition than cooperation. Konrad Raiser noted this in his report to the Central Committee in 2002. He stated: The ethos of competition and logic of the corporate world are beginning to make inroads into the field of ecumenical organisations. So how do we move beyond competition? How can we come to have a greater understanding and appreciation of each others work? Are we prepared to be accountable to one another? One possibility that was mentioned is to place greater emphasis on ecumenical formation so that people are able to see

beyond the mandate and programmes of their own organisation to the wider vision and work of the ecumenical movement. Bringing together staff from the various organisations throughout the movement for ecumenical formation allows for personal relationships to be developed it is far more difficult to be competitive if the person in the other organisation is your friend. Who Can Fund the Ecumenical Movement? A major question to be addressed is funding. While many NCCs are funded from sources within their own country, a large proportion of the ecumenical movement receives a significant amount of its funding from a relatively small number of ecumenical development and relief agencies from Europe and North America. Regional ecumenical organisations, subregional fellowships, the World Council of Churches, many of the international ecumenical organisations such as ACT, ECLOF, the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance, World Student Christian Federation are all reliant on these agencies. This leads to a number of issues: Influencing Priorities Many of these agencies have mandates that are limited to the work of diaconia or the healing of the world and they are therefore not able to fund areas such as Faith and Order and theological education. This is even more so for those agencies that receive a significant amount of funding from their national government. Because certain parts of the ecumenical movement get funding while others dont, all kinds of accusations have
137

arisen about the agencies trying to set the agenda of ecumenical organisations such as the WCC. The agencies I interviewed said they have no desire to be doing this. However, a quote from one of the church participants in the study who is a member of the World Council of Churches Central Committee sums up this problem well: Every time we have tried to adjust priorities, it fails to make any difference because the bulk of the funding comes from the agencies. This has more influence than all of the Consultations because agencies can only fund certain things. We look at areas that are important for the Council such as the Global Christian Forum, interfaith work and the understanding of mission work in faith and order, but if you look at the money they are constantly marginalized. Mistrust of Agencies This has led to what I call a mistrust or a suspicion of agencies. A number of people commented that the agencies arent really part of the church and yet at the national level, church participants told me they were proud of the work agencies are undertaking on their behalf and the agencies themselves identify themselves as being a church-based organisation with representatives of churches sitting on their Board. It seems that this is another area where we need to break down some of the stereotypes we have of each other, formalise our structural relationships and work to promote a greater understanding of the role of agencies. The Role of the WCC The final question I asked participants was what they
138

saw as the role of the WCC. While it was not the purpose of the Mapping Study to focus on the WCC, it seemed important to gain an understanding of what people see as the Councils role in this vast array of ecumenical organisations. While there was a huge range of responses given to the question, there were some common themes. What was particularly interesting is that everybody felt the WCC still has a vital role to play in the ecumenical movement no one was suggesting that the WCC should close its doors and cease to function. I attempted to group the responses under a number of themes: 1.People see the WCC as giving expression to the reality that the body of Christ cannot be divided. Participants talked about the importance of its symbolic role; 2. Many people talked about the WCC as a fellowship of churches; 3. Others saw it as the place that holds together the work of diaconia, mission, ecclesiology and unity; 4. Agencies in particular considered the WCC to have an important role in enabling a common value system; 5. Others appreciated its role in global analysis and action and wanted the WCC to be the voice of the Christian world; 6. The WCCs facilitation role was seen as very important. A number of people talked about the WCC focusing too much on their own programmes rather than facilitating the various players within the ecumenical family.

There is little doubt that the expectations on the WCC are unrealistic for an organisation that has only half the number of staff that it had 10 years ago. People within the ecumenical movement do recognise this and ask that the WCC clarify its own role, focusing particularly on those things which only it can do and in particular, taking a greater facilitation role.

so that duplication is avoided; coherence between ecumenical organisations at the national, regional and global level; churches are not overwhelmed by their involvement in, and financial commitment to, many different organisations; 5.How can funds available to the ecumenical movement be used most effectively? How can the funding base be broadened? And the final point, which could have come further up the list but seems relevant for all the points above: 6. What will be the values and principles that underpin the way in which we work together? These are just some of the questions we can begin to consider. This Mapping Study has not made specific recommendations as to how to deal with each of these issues. That is our task together over the next two days. There is little doubt however, that our current division, lack of coordination and competition impede our witness as the body of Christ and undermine our effectiveness in working towards the healing of the human community and the earth. If the ecumenical movement is going to be relevant and effective in this century, some changes are essential.

Conclusion
I want to finish by outlining the six most important questions which arise for me out of this Mapping Study. I am sure you will have others to add: 1.Can we develop an ecumenical vision which is owned and acted upon by all the actors in the ecumenical movement including the churches? 2. What tasks need to be undertaken to achieve this vision: are they best undertaken at the national, regional or global level? Which tasks are best undertaken ecumenically and where can confessional bodies add extra value? 3.What type of organisations do we need and how should the tasks be divided between them? 4.What mechanisms can be put in place to ensure coordinated planning and work

Notes
1

For the full report see J. Hawkey, Mapping the Oikoumene A Study of Current Ecumenical Structures and Relationships, Geneva, World Council of Churches, 2004, 73 pp. - EN 2 Church Auxiliary Social Action EN. 3 Christian Commission for Development EN. 4 Fellowship of Christian Councils in Southern Africa EN.

Fellowship of Christian Councils of Churches in the Great Lake Region and the Horn of Africa EN. 6 Fellowship of Christian Councils and Churchrelated Associations in Central Africa EN. 7 Fellowship of Christian Councils and Churches in West Africa EN.
5

139

Changing global context and the challenge to 21st century ecumenism

Samuel Kobia

The world context, writes the Kenyan Methodist theologian Samuel Kobia, is marked by insecurity, identity concerns, the shifting to the South of Christianity and large sectors of the global economy, human mobility, the confrontation between the West and the Arab world, and resistance to globalisation. In such a context, the discussion on the future ecumenical configuration should focus on institutional coherence and effectiveness without losing sight of the need to broaden the ecumenical movement and deepen the ecumenical fellowship. It is ultimately a discussion about the future of ecumenism, its vision and future agenda. Kobia has been the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches since January 2004.

Karibu! Bienvenue! Welcome to this consultation on ecumenism in the 21st century. This is an important meeting which brings together a wide range of representatives of the ecumenical movement to discuss an issue of vital concern to us all. I would like to begin by briefly reviewing the origins of these discussions, with an emphasis on last years meeting on reconfiguration in Antelias. I will then mention some of the changes in the global context which give an urgency to these discussions and then suggest some of the challenges for this meeting.

partners, such as the regional ecumenical organisations (REOs), national councils of churches (NCCs), Christian world communions (CWCs), ecumenical agencies/ specialized ministries, and partners such as the Roman Catholic Church and Evangelical and Pentecostal communities. At its meetings in 2002 and 2003, the WCC Central Committee encouraged continuing discussions and suggested a timeframe. In November 2003, a consultation on reconfiguration of the ecumenical movement was organized by the World Council of Churches. A diverse group of 36 people participated in the consultation in their individual capacities. The meeting, held in Antelias, hosted by our Moderator Catholicos Aram I, was preceded by a consultation of young people on the same issue. The report of that meeting, which

The Road to Antelias

Discussions about a possible new configuration of the ecumenical movement have taken place for the past seven years in meetings of various groupings of ecumenical
140

many of you have read (and which is available for those who have not received it), underscored the importance of the issue of reconfiguration, identified a number of questions which need to be considered, and asked the WCC to convene a meeting of a representative group of ecumenical actors to carry the process forward. This is what we have done in convening this meeting. The statement from Antelias notes that the term reconfiguration is interpreted in different ways. I mention at least three ways. One understanding refers to broadening the ecumenical movement by reaching out to churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, and Pentecostal and Evangelical churches and seeking ways of greater engagement with them. The Global Christian Forum, which was created after the 1998 Harare Assembly, is an ongoing process of gathering representatives from all the main Christian traditions. At the national level, Roman Catholic and Evangelical churches have joined a number of national and regional councils of churches. A second understanding of reconfiguration refers to the process of deepening the fellowship between churches. This emphasis on relationships between churches is central to the ecumenical movement, but is also taking place through bilateral dialogues between churches. A third understanding addresses the question of how relationships can be strengthened between existing ecumenical actors to ensure greater coherence and

effectiveness in our work. This refers to questions about the relationships between our structures and the extent to which our actions complement one anothers. The Antelias consultation recommended that further discussions are particularly needed on this third dimension, as there are already processes underway to address the first two dimensions. Clearly these three understandings of reconfiguration are related. We are suggesting here that we focus on this third dimension on strengthening relationships and improved means of cooperation within the ecumenical family but within the context of efforts to both broaden and deepen the fellowship. Clearly too, it is impossible to talk about any of these three dimensions without considering the values and visions which lie at the core of the ecumenical movement. For this reason, we are now calling this process the future of ecumenism in the 21st century. We must begin by looking at our common vision for ecumenical work in this century.

What is at stake?
Ecumenical organizations and structures have proliferated in the past decade. I think for example, of the creation of ACT1, the establishment of the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance, and Ecumenical News International at the global level. I think on the regional level of the emergence of subregional fellowships in Africa and on the national level of the movement to create Christian Churches Together in the USA.
141

And of course, there are many examples of other new ecumenical bodies. This proliferation puts a burden on churches which are the main constituency of all of these new institutions. For example, the Church of Kiribati in the Pacific, which has 40,000 members, is a member of 10 ecumenical/confessional bodies, pays subscription fees to eight of these bodies and is asked to send representatives to meetings of all 10 organizations. Moreover, much of the work of the ecumenical movement, whether carried out by the WCC or the World Alliance of YMCAs or the regional ecumenical organizations is financed by the same funding partners, giving rise to questions about how much longer this can be sustained. We believe, as do many of you, that these questions are urgent. If ecumenical organizations are going to be relevant and effective, we need to address issues of proliferation, duplication and overlap of work, and our relationships with each other. In preparation for this consultation and in following up one of the recommendations from Antelias, a mapping study was carried out by a consultant, Jill Hawkey. You have received the report of this study and will hear more from Jill tomorrow about its results. I also wrote to all WCC member churches, inviting their reflections on the issue of ecumenism in the 21st century; you have received copies of the reflections which we received. Finally, we also asked a number of individuals from different regions and different parts of the ecumenical family to
142

reflect on two questions: what are your visions for the ecumenical movement in the 21st century and what structures are needed to carry those visions forward. You have received a compilation of the reflections received. These are all intended as inputs into the discussion.

A word about context

In the past year, I have travelled extensively, talking with churches in almost all regions (and I will visit the remaining two regions, the Caribbean and the Middle East, early in 2005). Let me share with you some of the insights I have learned through these travels. 1. People in all regions are insecure, fearful, and anxious. Todays world is a frightening and unsettled one. It is a broken and fractured world. People are increasingly afraid of the United States, the sole superpower today. For their part, the majority of the US citizens are afraid of the rest of the world; they are afraid of terrorism and think the rest of the world hates them. Rather than respecting US leadership in the world, people are afraid of US arrogance and domination. Many people shudder at the thought of a nuclear race and the possibility of access to nuclear weapons by non-state actors. At the same time, generalized violence is a source of growing concern. 2. Questions of identity are becoming more important in a globalising world. As people seek to understand their identity, they are increasingly seeing their identity

in terms of religion. This leads to the question of how faiths relate to one another. A dialogue of identities is necessary and interfaith dialogue, at the grassroots level, is sorely needed. 3. Christianity is shifting its centre of gravity from the North to the South and by the middle of this century, the global South and particularly Africa, will be the centre of Christianity. But there are questions about what kind of Christianity this will be. The informal sector of Christianity is becoming more important as evidenced by the proliferation of megachurches and nondenominational congregations. Moreover, in northern countries, there seems to be an increased interest in spirituality which is often sought outside of religious structures. 4. A large proportion of the global economy is shifting to the South. China and India together have more than one third of the worlds population and the world cannot ignore this huge market. With Japan as the second largest economy in the world and other emerging economies in that region, over half of the global market is in Asia. Added to their economic power is the reality that China and India are both nuclear powers. The political and military implications of these shifts toward the South are also important and raise many questions. Is the North prepared to live as equals with the South? Will there be a 21st century equivalent of the cold war? 5. The mobility of human beings is assuming new dimensions. While more people are moving freely for business or

pleasure, increasingly people are forced to move because of conflicts and poverty. This group of people faces increasing restrictions by governments through tighter border controls and visa requirements. They also face hostility, xenophobia, and racism. Out of desperation, many migrants are turning to traffickers. These new migration trends lead us to put a priority on protecting the most vulnerable in society. 6. The confrontation between the West and the Arab world is another global trend which is expressed in different ways, including the long-standing IsraeliPalestinian conflict and the war in Iraq. What we are seeing in Israel-Palestine is the sustained humiliation of a people which cannot continue. We are all also aware that military solutions for Iraq are not the answer. 7. There are also signs of hope. Many people in many regions are increasingly embracing the view that another world is possible (A new heaven and a new earth!). And not just a world where to be is to consume, but one undergirded by a deep sense of spiritual discernment. A world where life with dignity in participatory and sustainable communities is the guiding vision. And what is more, the traditionally marginalized and excluded are actively struggling to transform our communities and institutions to make such a world indeed possible. In all the regions a spirituality of resistance and hope is growing among many Christians and in some churches. Dr Oscar Corvaln will talk to us later this morning about changes in the
143

demographics of Christianity and the growth of Pentecostalism and the rise of the South. The decrease in membership of mainline Protestant churches, which have been the pillars of the ecumenical movement is a source of concern, as is evidence of increasing denominationalism. I believe that these changes compel us to look creatively at how to strengthen the ways we work and I hope that this Consultation will make concrete suggestions which will move us forward.

to take common stands on difficult issues with our desire to broaden the fellowship by including churches from different traditions and backgrounds? 3. I want to stress that the question of the future of ecumenism in the 21st century is a much broader issue than how the WCC should be reorganized. This is not a consultation about re-structuring the WCC. That being said, I believe that in order for the ecumenical movement to better respond to future challenges, we must all be willing to change. I believe that the WCC is willing to change, but I want to put the question to all of you as well. To what extent are you willing to change the way you work for the good of the greater ecumenical movement? 4. Who sets the agenda for ecumenism in the 21st century? In particular, are we prepared for the South to set the agenda? Youth? Marginalized groups? How can ecumenism in the 21st century reflect the rise of Pentecostalism and Evangelicals, the growth of megachurches and nondenominational churches? To what extent are we willing to change the ways we work for a more inclusive fellowship? 5. How can the ecumenical movement ensure that spirituality is at the centre of our life together? For many of us, the ecumenical movement has always been about spirituality, but for many, particularly young people, the search for spiritual growth is being sought outside the institutional church. 6. Finally, how can the ecumenical

The questions
Let me spell out some of the questions and issues which need to be addressed. 1. What is the vision of the ecumenical movement? Can the vision that has guided the ecumenical movement through its history be re-affirmed, or do we need to re-articulate it in the new context? What are the marks of a common understanding of the ecumenical movement for the 21st century? Which are the fundamental core values that should shape the common witness of the churches through the ecumenical movement? 2. Do we share a similar commitment to being accountable to one another? How can we balance broadening the fellowship which implies bringing together a broader range of actors into a forum type model with the need for mutual accountability to each other? How do we balance the need to be prophetic
144

movement ensure constant renewal? How can young people be brought in? How can ecumenical formation ensure the next generation of ecumenical leaders? These are some of the questions that come to my mind as I think about ecumenism in the 21st century. Im sure that each of you has additional questions and issues to be raised. I want to close by affirming that the WCCs role in this consultation is that of facilitating this first representative meeting on ecumenism in the 21st century. As you know, one of the WCCs roles, as outlined in our constitution, is ensuring the coherence of the ecumenical

movement. But it is this consultation itself which will decide on how the process will be carried forward (processes, tasks, timelines, etc.). Each of us has our own constituencies, mandates, and governing structures which need to be consulted. These are important issues which need serious reflection, creative thinking and commitment. As His Holiness Aram I said at the Antelias consultation, The ecumenical movement is in the hands of God; we are called, in obedient response to Gods call, to protect and enrich it. We have much to do in these four days. We pray that the Holy Spirit will guide our work.

Note
1

Action by Churches Together EN.

145

On dreams and visions living the deepening contradictions of ecumenism in the 21st century
Musimbi Kanyoro

The vast majority of Gods poor throughout the world, writes the Kenyan Lutheran theologian Musimbi Kanyoro, symbolise their struggle for liberation in the idiom of non-Christian religions and cultures. This means that an ecumenism that does not speak to or speak through this non-Christian people is a luxury of a Christian minority. Addressing the 2004 consultation on the future ecumenical configuration, Kanyoro raises several critical questions concerning the methodology and the historical relevance of the reconfiguration discussion. She is the general secretary of the World Young Womens Christian Association.

Digging into our dreams

I have been invited by the WCC to contribute to the topic Visions and Dreams of Ecumenism in the 21 s t Century. Some of you will be aware that I love to use stories from the Bible as a stepping-stone to understanding how ordinary people react to extraordinary events in life. This time I looked for stories of dreams and visions and my model character on this subject is Joseph, the favourite son of Jacob and Rachel. Josephs interesting story takes many chapters of the book of Genesis in the Old Testament. You are familiar with it. As a young man, Joseph was a dreamer. Do you know what happened to Joseph when he shared his dreams with his brothers? The Bible says Joseph had a
146

dream and when he told it to his brothers, they hated him and then they conspired and sold him into slavery (Gen 37:5). There is a lesson here, which says, caution! Be careful of sharing your dreams with your brothers and sisters! So I will be cautious, but courageous, and share my dreams. I was in Antelias1 and I have read the background materials provided by the WCC and listened to those who have spoken this morning. I now believe that my dreams and visions are our dreams and visions. I resonated with so many things said by others and I am thankful for that because dreaming in unison may be a sign of security. What if Josephs brothers had dreams similar to those which he had? They would perhaps have decided to reflect on those dreams together. I want to use my time then to begin to

dig deeper into our dreams by asking some questions, maybe in a different way. On the way, I may also ask some new questions in the hope that looking at our dreams from many different angles will give a better reality to the shape of the proverbial elephant fable and thus deepen our reflections for ecumenism in the 21 st century. I have planned my remarks in three parts. First I will review what I see as the unfinished dimensions of the ecumenical movement. Here the questions relate to the ways we experience the current ecumenical space. Secondly, I want to look at the deepening contradictions that we face now as we have moved into the 21st century. Here the questions are primarily about the shift in society and changing views of religious dialogue. Finally, I want to share some of my own dreams and visions as partial suggestions of how we could move forward into the future with a reconfiguration process. The questions for this last section have to do with how we celebrate our past and use the lessons learned to shape our future.

general secretary of the WCC, Rev. Dr Kobia, has responded to some concerns by giving the context from which to interpret where we have come from and the reasons why we are all discussing reconfiguration or ecumenism in the 21st century. His Holiness Aram I, Moderator of the WCC, has forced us to dive into deep waters by asking not only theological but also philosophical questions that touch our very being. But I ask, have these inputs really clarified things or made them more complicated? What do we want to do? What are the real issues said in simple language so that everyone in this room understands the same thing about the issues and process? I think this is still an unfinished dimension of our discussions. The more we talk, the more we entangle into a maze of words and there is a lack of clarity as to the actions and strategies needed to achieve what we want. From this whole morning, the question posed by His Holiness, when he asked us to think of an ecumenical movement without us, remains deeply embedded in my mind. Ladies and gentlemen, we are here today as those lead churches and organizations. How would this room look without us? Who would be here? That is a very troubling question. But it requires attention if we have to think of the future. We cannot reconfigure the ecumenical movement for ourselves. It has to be for those who are not in this room and even not yet born. If I was not here, then I would like to picture my son and daughter and their friends in this room, at least for a start. I
147

The Unfinished Dimensions

I have very much appreciated the depth and breadth of the input in the background research and this mornings speeches. Together, we have more input than we can deal with. The input so far has been theological, sociological and has also raised issues of governance and funding. The

assure you they would attend one meeting and never come back again if they had a choice. The language we use is not only hard, but almost unintelligible to the people I represent. Women, lay persons, young people and non professional ecumenists have no exposure to fixed terminologies acquired in theological schools or developed in frequent ecumenical gatherings. So if we were not here, what kind of language would be spoken here? We have not even started this discussion yet. Three decades of exposure have opened doors for me to peep into different rooms in the ecumenical house. I began my life in the Christian unions, World Christian Fellowship, as a young person. My professional career with the United Bible Societies, Lutheran World Federation and now the World YWCA keeps me a perpetual student of ecumenism. Years of involvement in the WCC committees and working groups have added lots of vocabulary to my theological studies. This long-term involvement in ecumenical circles makes me agree that we have a movement, but I cannot find words to capture the reality of the ecumenical movement. Because we speak a jargon of our own, we assume that there is such a movement. However, questions still linger in the minds and hearts of many: is there one ecumenical movement or are there many? How do we define it? Is it by membership or by practice or by living out ecumenism? There is much controversy over the
148

question of movements/institutions. There is wariness about institutionalism. We should be clear that there is no way of being a movement without some institutional elements. Then there are other questions once we affirm some form of institutionalisation. Who belongs and who does not to the ecumenical movement? I fear that this question does not build but divides the movement. Much is said about the Roman Catholic Church being outside the ecumenical movement because it does not have membership in the WCC. I serve on the Global Christian Forum together with members from the Catholic Church, Pentecostal churches, Evangelical churches and churches of the Reformation. I have heard again and again Monsignor John Radano refute the statement that the ecumenical movement is not complete without the Catholic Church joining the WCC. Is the WCC the hallmark of ecumenism? Is membership in the WCC the definition for participation in ecumenism? If we get trapped in difficulties of defining the ecumenical movement, we will be forced to ask whether it can then be configured? There are other unresolved matters. Some feel that an essential part for reconfiguration or reviewing ecumenism in the 21st century has to do with funding needs. If this is the case, why not concentrate all the efforts on addressing questions of funding? Perhaps the issue before us is not how we reform the ecumenical movement but how we open our eyes to see the new ecumenism

that is growing out of todays needs. These needs take place where diversity cries to be recognized. They take place when laypersons claim a place at the table together with ordained persons. They take place when young people look for new ways of telling the story of faith so that its gist is not archived in tradition but rather applied in meaningful ways to meet the realities of people longing for security, peace and meaning in life. We generously use statistics to illustrate the shift of the church from the North to the South. If we had disaggregated data, I believe this would prove that a majority of those Christians in the South do not have emotionally and historically fixed church traditions, which mean so much to western and eastern Christianity. How does this information influence the nature and content of ecumenical dialogues? If they are women, would we ask different questions about leadership? Would we allow those questions to determine who is present here in this room of invited participants to the forum? How do we use the information we learn to shape the future? This is still an untouched dimension of our ecumenical discussion.

experience our social reality and the way to act in taking steps with others to change those inconsistencies. But this involves a continuing struggle, not only to open up our church structures for more participation, but also to face the contradictions between what we say and what we feel. When we talk about participation as a justice issue but then feel that representation by gender and age denies space to legitimate church leadership, then we are contradicting ourselves. Living out justice requires generosity in sharing the space and the story. If we can indeed imagine an ecumenical movement without us, then let us imagine it with people who do not look and act like us. Where is one to find such people who do not look like us? The contradictions we face in discussing ecumenism seem minor compared to the contradictions of affluence, poverty, death from AIDS and lack of peace and security in our world, the privilege of the few and the vulnerabilities of the majority of the worlds people. These issues are very real and they may be the ones that can become the bell that gathers new people into the newly configured ecumenical movement. We know that people are not interested in dialogue unless you are interested in their needs and their pain. Spirituality and interreligious dialogue go together with an imperative for justice and food. Social issues urgently call for breaking down barriers of difference, and acting together in coalitions for solutions. What would it mean to begin our theological and ecumenical questions from a social
149

Deepening Contradictions
Let me briefly point out some of the burning contradictions, which are more like nightmares to me than dreams. Contradictions have to do with learning to perceive the inconsistencies and uncertainties between the way we

point of view where realities bring together people searching for God? What kind of ecumenism happens at the tables of ECLOF 2 , Oikocredit and other such instruments of the churches witness? Disasters seem to immediately call for ecumenical and interfaith worship. We saw this after September 11. What can we learn from natural or unplanned ecumenical forums? What have we learned from churchrelated humanitarian instruments? Richard Howell is our Indian colleague on the Global Christian Forum and in our last meeting in Rome, Rev. Howell told us that in India, there are good ecumenical relationships and work is going on towards a United National Christian Forum. In Delhi (Richard lives in Delhi), the United Forum is already established and it includes various denominations. The Bishops and other senior people of each denomination are copresidents. Encountering Christ has become a bridge among the different groups, providing the common factor that draws people beyond their particular institutions. Rev. Howell told us that India has increasing numbers of people who have encountered Christ but have no experience with traditional church structures and so do not relate to the 2,000-year Christian heritage. This is referred to as the emerging church. It is emerging especially in the urban areas of Northern India. Rev. Howell spoke of the emerging church where people often meet in homes and pray together and share testimonies. They know their scriptures and have a variety of
150

interpretations. The Church in India is not in a great rush to institutionalise this emerging church since this might slow down growth and so forth institutionalisation tends to do). (which

I could tell similar stories of Africa. But one experience close to my heart is that of the Circle of Concerned African Women Theologians. This is a group of academic women from all Christian denominations including Protestant, Pentecostal, Catholic and Orthodox who have created a space to do theology together and who invited Muslim, Jewish and Hindu Africans to share the same space. Since 1989, this group has held local, national, regional, and PanAfrican meetings to reflect on how religion and culture impact the lives of women and girls in Africa. Forty published books record the ecumenism of the women who call themselves the Circle of Concerned African Women Theologians. Is this Ecumenism in the 21st century? The discrete nature of ecumenism and interfaith dialogue are not always reflected in church unity discussions. Throughout the world, the vast majority of Gods poor symbolize their struggle for liberation in the idiom of non-Christian religions and cultures. Therefore, an ecumenism that does not speak to or speak through this non-Christian people is a luxury of a Christian minority. Another big area that has many grey areas around it is about funding the church and ecumenical work. I think there are some issues here, which require dialogue. Although world resources may not have

diminished, the money for work done in churches and the ecumenical movement seems to be diminishing and in some cases disappearing. The most painful words for anyone to hear are that they are no longer a priority area or issue for the funding agency. Agencies have been changing their policies, going for fewer partners, or stronger partners or credible partners. Some churches are not ready to be weaned and they change their vision purely by using funding as criteria. A stronger future will require asking questions about the implications now rather than later. I feel vibrations in the thinking of specifically Protestant ecumenical funding agencies. I cannot say whether the discomfort is that of youth becoming of age and wanting some freedom from their parent to develop or whether the agencies are the parent pushing their children (churches and church organizations) to grow and move out of the house. Something is going on and my curiosity would be asking what is happening in the churches that are not members of the WCC as regards funding? My vision is that church-related funding agencies would not forget their history and would identify closely with the churches. They should listen to churches and seek to see the added value of advocacy and development as done through ecumenism. For example, while I fully support the human rights framework for doing and funding development work in churches, I do not think churches can stop at human rights.

Churches must go to the next step of reconciliation and forgiveness and rebuilding the bridges. Therefore funding for the churches should have more than human rights criteria. In order to develop this, ecumenical-funding agencies must take time to hear the cries of churches and to notice that sometimes the so-called inefficiency and bureaucracy in churches and churchrelated bodies may be overloaded systems. Abandoning the funding of churches in preference for secular organizations because they are fast and do not have the bureaucracy of church leadership seems to me a contradiction. Some of the great achievements of the ecumenical movement include representation and participation of diverse people including by gender, generation, geography, race, etc. These landmarks should not be seen as burdens to the ecumenical movement but rather as models of good practice. The feeling that the wrong people are in the right places or the right people in the wrong places needs to be addressed rather than shelved. Some feel that ecumenical leadership is weak because it does not reflect decision-making structures of the membership and it leaves the elected leadership unhappy. Again, we may need to be looking at why the ecumenical tables look the way they do and maybe we can do some constructive things to stop this dilemma. What about issues of heavy structures and slow decision making? We seem to be having nightmares over large consultative
151

structures, which are slow and bogged down by formalities and rules. A lot of our dreams are wrapped around the unhappiness of ecumenical decision-making processes. There is fear that so-called democratic decision making does not allow for minority voices to be heard. There are complaints about considerations made over participatory representation. Bigger members want a bigger share of the cake rather than spreading it around so that more people each have a small piece.

CARITAS can share their strategies, their outreach, and even their resources so that the Christian witness may be seen to be one. Churches may come together motivated by burning issues of the day such as we are doing in the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance (EAA). I have been serving on the Executive Committee of the EAA for three years and I have seen how far our voices and outreach can go when we work together on issues such HIV and AIDS and trade. In unprecedented common ecumenical witness, faith-based groups went a step further to present a common voice during the World International Aids Conference that gathered 20,000 people in Bangkok, Thailand in July 2004. Through the EAA, churches spoke together, investing in our common witness instead of capitalizing on our differences. The call for the unity of the church should not be tied only to dogmatic and faith articles but also to those human qualities, which define us as Gods creations. I dream of an ecumenical space where voices, opinions and contradictions can hear one another without fear and censorship. This space need not be one decision-making space. Rather decisions can be made at different tables within the space, but what keeps the unity should be our faith and hope in what God can do through us and is able to do with us. Some tables in that space may spend much time discussing how we hear and celebrate God, but others can have the permission to just believe and get on with some tasks.

Forward with Vision

My dream is for an ecumenical space where people come to encounter each other and there, God meets each one in their journey of faith. It should be a space where different people might sit at different round tables, some for a longer time, and others for as short as their objective defines. Round tables give the impression of equal distance so that every voice is heard. They do not prevent people from bringing their hierarchical title to the table, but they allow those without rank and title to shine in their humanness and the result is dignity for all. Round tables allow new people to join and are cosy even when they are crowded. An ecumenical space can have many round tables. This means that people need not fight over space but rather they should seek to discover which table God is inviting them to join. In such a space the questions might not be whether the Catholic Church joins the WCC but whether ACT 3 and
152

I dream of an ecumenical space with many round tables where people can dialogue over issues, but they do not have to be permanently constrained to only those issues or those tables. The theme of the round table should be hospitality to one another and to honour God. We must communicate what goes on around these tables. Therefore, looking after communications instruments such as WACC, ENI, etc. is our mandate. I dream of an ecumenical space which is conscious of the changing times in communication and embraces communication as a method to tell its story to those who can join the space and those who will not or need not join. What keeps the ecumenical space going is the faithfulness and credibility of its story. Structures to support it must remain simple and small so that its story can grow and multiply. I dream of an ecumenical space where variety and diversity are assets rather than liabilities. They may come in the form of Christian world communions; national, regional and global ecumenical bodies; interfaith networks; specialized agencies; one-issue groups, etc. The function and need have to determine what kind of ecumenical table is prepared. Guests are a blessing to the table. The ecumenical table must live in todays pluralistic world. I dream of an ecumenical table where

faith and scriptures are taught. At such a space God speaks to the people of today: the young, the old, families, teenaged mothers, battered women, people living with HIV and AIDS, the poor and so on. In my dreams, I see the WCC as one of the round tables in the ecumenical space and it is a big table. At the moment it is a crowded table and may indeed require subdividing into smaller tables for ease of communication, funding and hospitality. Like the Pharaoh in Josephs time, I am deeply troubled by my dreams. My dreams need an interpretation. What kind of leadership for these tables? Will they be like one orchestra where different instruments can practise at their tables and then come together to make good music? Who will be the conductor? Or all tables are independent and they meet at the music festival where tables bring different kinds of music, each in its own class and with its own leadership? I really dont know. The WCC has called all of us to share our dreams. But, who will interpret our dreams? And Pharaoh woke and behold it was a dream. And so in the morning he was troubled and sent for the magicians of Egypt and all the wise men and Pharaoh told them his dream and there was no one who could interpret it (Gen 41:7-8) I have shared my dreams with you, my sisters and brothers. Is there among you a Joseph to give them an interpretation? Who will interpret our dreams?

Notes
The venue of the 2003 consultation on the future ecumenical configuration EN.
1 2 3

Ecumenical Loan Fund EN. Action by Churches Together EN.

153

Reformed voices on the ecumenical movement, its future and configuration

K.C. Abraham, Catherine Mudime Akale, Eunice Santana, John H. Thomas, Richard L. van Houten
In preparation for the 2004 consultation on ecumenism in the 21st century, people with a longstanding and diverse commitment to the ecumenical movement were asked to offer their own views on the challenges it faces today. Five of those voices are reproduced here. They are from women and men, from Africa, Asia, North America, and the Caribbean. They all belong to churches (United, Disciples of Christ, Reformed, Presbyterian) of the Reformed family.

K.C. Abraham
Presently the editor of Voices from the Third World (the theological journal of the Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians), K.C. Abraham was the director of the South Asia Theological Research Institute and professor of theology and ethics at the United Theological College, Bangalore, India. The author of several books and essays on Asian theology, he is a presbyter of the Church of South India. I am happy that the World Council of Churches (WCC) has initiated this process of self-evaluation about its structure and programme. In the spirit of self-criticism, I would like to offer the following comments. First, the irrelevance of the WCC for the life of faith communities in Asia. In the past the ecumenical movement, especially the WCC, made a significant impact on the life of the church in general. But today there are numerous faith communities that are ignorant of the WCC and its manifold activities. After teaching theology and directing a programme of theological
154

research for thirty years, I now associate myself with three different communities. I live in a complex of apartments where a majority of the residents are young professionals of the I.T. companies. A community of Christians, it is orientated to a charismatic form of worship and piety. They meet every week for worship in a chapel built in the complex. I am appalled at how ignorant they are about ecumenical concerns; they seldom read the literature that comes out of the WCC. Many feel, thanks to effective propaganda, that the WCC distorts the fundamental message

of the Bible and they want to keep away from it. The second community that I am involved in is a slum. Poverty, malnutrition, and lack of hygiene are the miserable conditions of the people here. The majority belong to the Hindu tradition, but there are some Muslims and Christians. Women go through particular hardships, especially since they are abused and deserted by their alcoholic husbands. Liberation from these offensive conditions is what they long for. They have no awareness of the WCC and its programmes of combating violence. Then, the third community is that of a group of mentally challenged. I have often felt that they mock at you and your theology and preaching. They do not understand the rhetoric we use although they experience moments of togetherness and love in their brokenness. Which are the faith communities that have the use of the WCC? Perhaps some of the leaders who commute between Geneva and India know about the WCC but seldom have they influenced the communities of the vulnerable and the marginal. This serious situation of growing irrelevance should be a matter of concern for us. Second, Eurocentric thinking and discourse. It is true that the WCC has provided space for many Asian leaders to articulate their concerns. Some of its thinking is shaped by Asian theologians. Nevertheless, there is a feeling that the discourse of the WCC is Eurocentric. The categories of thought and the framework of

theology are all rooted in the liberal tradition of the West. Those Asian elites who had imbibed this tradition felt at home in this theological climate. But today, when we are committed to evolving a theological discourse fully rooted in the contextual realities of the marginal communities like Dalits, tribals and others, we do not find the mainstream discourse of the WCC very helpful. Third, a centralised, bureaucratic structure. Over the years the WCC has built a top-heavy, bureaucratic structure for its programmes. It baffles us to think how a centralised structure situated in one corner of the world, however important that corner may be, can permeate its influence across the globe. To maintain its structure and its programmes, gigantic resources, from the standpoint of poor people, are spent one may have to think about the effectiveness of it. Can we think about a different model of operation? Can we have its offices and coordinators placed in their own geographical contexts maintaining a structure that is conducive to the local cultures and through interaction and mutual consultation undertake a common programme? In other words, the general secretary will be in Africa and other coordinators in Asia or Europe. They will constantly be in touch through electronic media, which have made possible, effective and faster communication. A bottom-up structure, versus a top-heavy one, will, in my judgement, be viable and more effective. It will acquire a flavour that is truly local and
155

indigenous. This may sound a bit outrageous since we are so accustomed to a particular

style of function, but a change of direction is urgently called for.

Catherine Mudime Akale

A Presbyterian from Cameroon, Dr Catherine Mudime Akale is a missionary with the General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church, USA. She is assigned to the Womens Division Committee on International Ministries with Women, Children and Youth, in Yaound, Cameroon. Akale is a gender analyst. Her ministry includes leadership development through education and training, and womens participation in church and society. Having read the report of the Antelias, Lebanon, November 2003 Consultation on the subject, on the one hand, and Dr. Tom Odens article on The New Ecumenism and Christian Witness to Society, among others, on the other, I start by saying that reconfiguration is something we must do now in the face of all the challenges enumerated by Beth Ferris and more, that we face, so that we may more perfectly reflect Gods image in all we do ecumenically. There is always newness in reconfiguring, even within its pattern of structural and cultural elements. Behold, said Jesus, I make all things new. The new thing that emerges is never a simple return to the old thing that was there before, a mere replica of something once previously accomplished. It is always more than that, and different from it. It is always better. The salvation wrought by Christ, the new life given by Him, is much better than the life we might have had if there had been no sin and He had never come among us.
156

When Jesus says He makes things new, it means He makes them better. So, reconfiguration does not mean, let us go back to some supposed golden age in the past. It does not mean turning the clock back to the idealised traditions of old that no longer make sense to us, and were not always favourable to women anyway. It does not mean going back to some perfect ecumenical movement of our own imaginings that never actually existed we have only to read the New Testament and listen to the troubles afflicting the Corinthians and Galatians and others to know that the church always had tensions and difficulties and problems. No, it means facing all the issues and many more, identified and articulated by Beth Ferris, Sam Kobia and Konrad Raiser and others in the Antelias consultation, not escaping from them so that, by His grace, the new thing which Christ wants to see happen may emerge. Reconfiguration means making the ecumenical movement new as

we continue the constant wrestling with the world situational problems.

own research on gender justice/injustice within church institutions, rather than relying on and quoting United Nations (UN) figures and analysis on gender-disaggregated data. It needs to generate its own. An ecumenism that will move from rhetoric to action, action that facilitates the flourishing of a good and just life the world over by relating Christianity to society like Jesus does in the scriptures. Reintroduce terms like righteousness and justification and faith into our ecumenical vocabulary. Remind ourselves of the importance of the Hebrew notion of liqqunha-olam, restoration of the world. Refocus on the writings of St. Pauls salvation most frequently linked with justification of the individual who comes to faith in JESUS. Emphasis on responsible stewardship over creation and of duties of ecology, environment and other creatures from the perspective of scripture. An ecumenism whereby the rich are obliged, not only to share resources, but to promote development for the self-reliance and sufficiency of National Christian Councils (NCCs) and various denominations to enable us to move away from the dependency syndrome.

Hopes and Dreams for Ecumenism in the 21st Century

An ecumenism that will rekindle Christian spiritual life through its gospel witness to society. An ecumenism revived through the Holy Spirit and Christian truth is an indispensable condition for the reconfiguration of what Konrad Raiser aptly refers to as the constellation of global and regional ecumenical organisations, ecclesial communities. An ecumenism that will be able to accommodate historical developments without compromising the message of scripture and the Holy Spirits role in Christian experience. An ecumenism that will refocus on Christian truth in the form of clear, expositional preaching from our pulpits, instead of the self-expression that goes for sermons these days. Invest in publishing model sermons based on the scriptures and the divine truth as revealed by the work of the Holy Spirit. An ecumenism which will not just be what church leaders do in ecclesial meetings talk and publish high sounding documents that never reach nor make any impact on local churches. It should be as diffuse as is the uniting work of the Holy Spirit through the awakening of grassroots Christianity in all communions. An ecumenism that will carry out its

The change process

To keep the purpose, goals and approach alive, relevant and meaningful, and to build commitment among the ecclesial communities involved, the Ecumenical
157

Movement could try discussing the following suggestions: To remove the imagined obstacle and concern that the WCC is claiming a position of central control in the process of the reconfiguration of the Ecumenical Movement, I suggest shared leadership, with responsibilities to convene and set agendas rotating between the WCC, the Roman Catholic Church, the major Pentecostal and Evangelical bodies. In order to deepen theological research and discover different forms of spiritual and pastoral life, the ecclesial communities should jointly engage, at a very high level, in the formation of clergy to be enlightened witnesses to our common faith as well as have a definite influence on their spiritual life and respective ecclesial communities. Ecumenism must be made spiritual through prayer and fasting. In this regard, organise joint spiritual retreats for church leaders and other clergy at global, regional and local ecclesial gatherings. The provision of technical advisers by each participating ecumenical body is important here as they will work closely with their respective leaders to determine responsibility, coordination of activities, handling additional administrative details and preparing reports. Find out shared Christian values and improve on joint operability between WCC member churches, the Roman Catholic Church, major Pentecostal and Evangelical bodies during key Christian celebrations Easter, Pentecost, Ascension, and
158

Christmas, as a way of creating awareness of the churchs universality as well as proclaiming and witnessing the gospel. Jointly develop innovative action processes on issues like HIV/AIDS, gender justice/injustice, peace missions, the victims of society and those who are suffering, the re-definition and the control of morality. Identify priority areas for strengthening partnership and cooperation and analysing and anticipating relevant areas of joint action, globally. Partnership and cooperation to be a firmly embedded feature of the ecumenical movement, providing it with new options for managing financial and political crises of National Christian Councils and denominations. Exchange of personnel between Protestant, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, Evangelical and Orthodox ecumenical bodies, seminaries and theological institutions and denominational hierarchies in areas of recognised expertise, with the aim of deepening theological research, forming clergy to be enlightened witnesses to our common faith and discovering different forms of spiritual pastoral life. Build the whole process on open and ongoing communication in order to come to a shared understanding. Have a comprehensive strategy implementation plan, timeframe, goals and how to implement them collaboratively. Acknowledge the importance of and invest in the spiritual formation of lay

faithful, these people with varying levels of ability, maturity and dedication, who carry out Christian spiritual, moral and civic

responsibilities as volunteers at great sacrifice.

Eunice Santana
One of the presidents of the World Council of Churches from 1991 to 1998, Santana is a minister of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Puerto Rico and the director of the Instituto Caribeo de Accin y Formacin Ecumnica (The Caribbean Institute for Ecumenical Action and Formation). She is also a member of the Puerto Rican Alliance for Peace and of the Ecumenical and Interreligious Coalition. Among the changes and the challenges of this century, we cannot overlook the increased violence and militarism in many parts of the world, accompanied by an increase in the production, proliferation and sale of arms; the growth of drug addiction; the concept and implementation of preemptive war; unilateral actions along with the weakening of international agreements and institutions; the attempts of re-colonisation of entire regions; the socalled free-trade agreements and their impact; the overarching fundamentalism, individualism, racism and sexism permeating most societies; the resurgence of imperialism; the war against terrorism; the increased fears, suspicions and divisions; the unheeded cries of the dispossessed; the increased poverty and reappearance of malnutrition and hunger where food used to be in abundance (Argentina), and the move backwards in terms of previously acquired rights. If there ever was a time when the world in general needed the prophetic and committed actions and accompaniment of the ecumenical movement, it is now! In the midst of abundance, we have hunger, sickness, destruction, wars and death; in the era of information we have noise and dispersed opinions, but most things remain hidden; in a globalised world we have more divisions, fragmentation and less understanding of events; in the century of technological advances, technology is used to wipe out entire villages and towns In the midst of all this, we are called to witness, to serve and to transmit hope through words and deeds. Our vision for more just, human, equitable societies and world means turning things upside down. Affirming Life and the Source of all life is a huge challenge today. 1.In the late 1980s we evaluated the peoples movement. One of the conclusions that emerged was that compared to the preceding decades the movement was
159

fragmented and the groups had become specialised. Each initiative concentrated its efforts in only one area, such as: women, the environment, human rights and peace. This enabled a lot of people who were not previously engaged to become active since the agenda was not geared towards achieving major changes in society or the world. Unfortunately, because they were disconnected from one another, the sense of pursuing a common goal was absent and the strength that had existed was divided. In some places connections and overlapping occurred, but in general terms, the groups were becoming more ingrown, their areas of action more limited, and their capacity to influence large sectors of society diminished. Without common reflection and analysis, coordination of efforts, and clarity of overall purpose and root causes each group was becoming self-contained and functioned on its own, often competing against one another for funds and activists, each one becoming more fragile and vulnerable. Effective coordination, shared analysis and vision and a common purpose were needed in order to strengthen the movement. In the ecumenical scene the situation is very similar. There are various ecumenical organisations, but not necessarily pushing in the same direction. The question should not be if the WCC could be the coordinating instance, but how to make this possible. How can the WCC be strengthened (with material and human resources) in order to continue to serve in
160

a meaningful manner, providing space for dialogue, analysis, concrete proposals, programmes and inspiration for actions, among other contributions? For the sake of the Kingdom, coming together (ecumenical initiatives) must lead to convergence. 2. Once again the purpose of the quest for unity of the churches must be raised. What is the contribution that the unity of the churches makes in the world today? How do the ecumenical bodies make a difference? Do we come together to initiate programmes and to assume courageous positions in response to the needs of the people or do we come together in order to widen our own institutional sphere of influence? Do we challenge ourselves, allow the Spirit to move us and gain courage for decisive involvement at home (service and solidarity) or do we just practise fellowship? How is the local and regional work impacted by our participation at the global level? Are there processes for sharing, evaluation, analysis, and for formulating and developing concerted actions? 3 .To what extent is ecumenism fostered at home? Are there initiatives at the local level to implement programmes and/or concerted actions or are we ecumenical only at the global level? The global expressions are rekindled to the extent that ecumenism is real at the local, national and regional levels. 4. Although division of labour appears to make sense, in our understanding,

establishing the rational, biblical reflection and overall analysis must not be separated from implementation and funding on the ground. The agencies and the WCC together must not only establish guidelines, etc., but must also be involved in the whole process. Otherwise, fairly soon the agencies will be functioning on their own all over again. 5. At the various levels, the ecumenical ought to provide room for efforts that are not necessarily linked to the churches, but that seek to contribute to the transformation of this world, or engage in similar agendas. The ecumenical movement must be open and transparent, ready to serve all and not just church people. 6. Increased presence is necessary at the local and regional levels. Whether this

should be in the shape of an office, a committee or a person to interpret the work, to translate the programmes into actions and to convey the needs for solidarity depend on the region. What must be insured is that it represents and constitutes an additional resource, vision and mission for enrichment of the area and not the mere expansion of already existing councils. This does not necessarily mean reductions at the global level but the sharpening of areas of work and involvement. It is our hope and expectation that bringing together representatives of the various manifestations of the ecumenical movement at the global level will lead to future coordination and agreements so as to move together in the same direction for the benefit of all.

John H. Thomas
John H. Thomas served successively as a local pastor and the ecumenical officer of the United Church of Christ (UCC), in the US. He is presently the UCC General Minister and President. Written late in 2004, this reflection on the ecumenical movement and its future configuration includes several critical remarks about the last general council of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. Reflections on the future of the ecumenical movement, including the Consultation on Reconfiguration held in Antelias, Lebanon, in November of 2003, frequently are characterised by seductive juxtapositions of terms like people centred or life centred movements with phrases like church centred, institution centred, or even clique of ecumeniacs. Such contrasting terms suggest an understandable yearning for a more dynamic, fluid, creative and vital experience and expression of the ecumenical movement, as well as a growing frustration with the current structures of ecumenism which are often burdened by severe financial
161

challenges, by vexing and persistent ecclesial and theological issues that render progress towards visible unity painfully slow, and by the emergence of new church dividing issues that may even call into question the viability of the very goal of visible unity itself. Added to this is a certain nostalgia for a presumed golden age of the ecumenical movement that may, in fact, never have been that golden at all. Such nostalgia can often make appropriate discontent with the current state of affairs paralysing. I use the word seductive because while, on the one hand, one does not wish to argue with an ecumenism that is people or world or life centred, on the other hand the juxtaposed phrases often betray a distrust, a demeaning, even a dismissal of the importance of the church. To be sure, churches and their leaders often give ample justification for distrust. But forms of ancient or contemporary gnosticism, whether championed against the physical body or the Body of Christ, are ultimately romantic. At best the church, rather than being both the sign and instrument of Gods design, becomes merely instrumental. At worst, such an approach betrays a dangerously low ecclesiology, calling into question the confessional character of the church itself. Thus, my hopes and dreams for ecumenism in the 21st century begin with the belief that, for all the challenge, it must remain church centred even while it seeks to be oriented to people, to world, to life. And it must remain a church centred
162

movement whose vocation is at its heart the calling of the churches to visible unity to the end that the church itself may be a more authentic sign and instrument of Gods design for the whole of creation. As a renewal movement it must have as its object the renewal not merely of persons, but of the church itself and therefore a persistent call not merely to world engagement for the sake of the creation, but to ecclesial repentance for the sake of the integrity of the church. This is not just an abstract ecclesiological debate. In the US context, the National Council of the Churches of Christ is currently facing its own form of identity crisis around this very question. While admirably engaging the world with new vigour around issues of peace and poverty, the Council increasingly looks to partnerships beyond the churches for its funding and its activity. Are the churches themselves which constitute the Council becoming, or allowing themselves to become, essentially peripheral or even insignificant to the Councils life? The church is often a ponderous and plodding instrument and an inauthentic sign of Gods design. But this should lead us to see the need for renewal through the ecumenical vocation, not for the rejection or marginalisation of the churchs role in the ecumenical movement. There is just cause for lamenting the arid institutionalism of many of our ecumenical bodies and their constituent churches, not to mention many of their leaders (including perhaps this church leader himself!). But again, this is a

call to renewal, not justification for a naive and romantic celebration of the people as if the people of faith can be disassociated from the communal structures we call congregation, communion, or church. It is possible to envision an ecumenical movement that is essentially churchly in its character while life centred and people centred in its vocation, a movement that sees its enduring vocation to be that of calling the churches to the oneness, the holiness, the catholicity, and the apostolicity that it confesses but does not often live, a confessional body that is not preoccupied with itself but with the wounded world that yearns for the vision and the reality of Gods design. Further, it is possible to conceive of a churchly movement that the churches understand not so much as something to control, but as a prophetic call for their own metanoia. That is, a movement engendering prophetic imagination that, to use Walter Brueggemanns phrase, helps the church conjure and propose futures alternative both for itself and for the world. Having said this, the movement itself, and its structures need to be subject to that same prophetic imagination which I take to be the ultimate goal of these conversations. For we have to do with more than institutional configurations, or even architecture, but with structures that seek to inspire imagination. To be sure, the changes needed in the configuration or the structures of the ecumenical movement must attend to the capacity of

the churches and, therefore, to matters of overlap, redundancy, and funding. But the critical question is not what can the churches support? but what kinds of structures can mediate the prophetic imagination which inspire and help the churches conjure and propose a future alternative to the realities of division, isolation, self-centredness, localism, fear and failure of nerve in the face of todays imperial project that so often characterise contemporary ecclesial life. My own sense is that these structures will need to be oriented to evocative relationships rather than projects and programmes, to efforts that engage persons and traditions, memories and hopes across the formidable boundaries of our histories, our self-interest, and our frequently impoverished and idolatrous identities. Yes, these encounters need to include more centrally the experience of youth. But they must also find ways to engage the leaders of the churches for whom the agendas of the ecumenical movement have frequently become deadening. The structures of the ecumenical movement must foster encounter for the sake of churchly renewal, and therefore will need to attend to the spiritual disciplines, to worship, to Bible study, to the arts, to pilgrimage, for it is this that will fire the prophetic imagination that must be at the heart of the ecumenical vocation. To put it as plainly as possible, we need ecumenical bodies that contribute to an ecumenical movement that is not simply a
163

means of cooperatively transforming the world, but that effects the renewal of the church itself. It may well be that our anxiety over becoming church centred has undercut the real gift of the ecumenical movement itself, which is to renew the church in order that it might be a more effective sign and instrument of Gods design. The recent general council meeting of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches is a case in point. What felt, at least to me, to be a profoundly ideological preoccupation with the world, a preoccupation that controlled worship and Bible study not to mention nearly every plenary, so dominated the gathering that all biblical, theological, and sacramental imagination was threatened, indeed numbed. We left weary rather than renewed, agitated if not angry, let off the hook about our own enduring divisions, and completely unenlightened about how the distinctive articulation of the gospel in the Reformed tradition might become an imaginative gift to the renewal of the whole church for the sake of the renewal of the world. This is a larger problem than redundant structures or of overtaxed capacity. It is a failure to claim the crucial ecumenical vocation itself. Finally, and perhaps responding in somewhat more concrete ways to the question about changes in configuration of structures, it is clear to me that the principle of complementarity needs to inform future conversations. At a time when at least some ecumenical structures feel parallel to one another, we need to explore how
164

reconfigured structures might more effectively complement each other. The recent WARC general council may again be instructive. While admirable hospitality and space was given to the World Council of Churches (WCC), to regional ecumenical organisations (REOs), and to world confessional bodies, there seemed to be little direct evidence of an integration of their work. As mentioned above, considerable energy was devoted to the issues of globalisation and economic justice. These are themes also being explored in the WCC, the LWF1, and other arenas. What was lacking was a sense of collaboration, of coordination of initiatives, of shared strategic planning. Even more difficult was the fact that WARCs discussion will not make a distinctively Reformed contribution to the larger ecumenical reflection. Our debates and discernment could have been replicated in any number of other ecumenical arenas. Perhaps this is good news, suggesting that on some critical issues facing the world we are able to find common ground beyond our confessional or regional differences. On the other hand, it also raises the question of why we need WARC and WCC and LWF and various REOs all taking up the same topic with common questions, common methodologies, and even common participants. Unless we can demonstrate how the work of a particular structure is either critical because that structure alone is equipped to do it, or how the work of a particular structure meaningfully

complements the whole ecumenical movement theologically, geographically, etc. then I think we need to raise serious

questions as to why such a structure ought to continue.

Richard L. van Houten

Richard L. van Houten has been the General Secretary of the Reformed Ecumenical Council (REC) since 1989. He holds a PhD in Chinese Philosophy and Religion from the University of British Columbia. He taught for three years, and served as a research missionary in Hong Kong for five years in the 1980s. He was appointed to the REC staff in 1987. This short personal reflection started in response to a request from Larry Miller, Executive Secretary of the Mennonite World Conference and also the current chair of the Conference of Secretaries of Christian World Communions. He was seeking input to respond to a request from the World Council of Churches to summarise opinion within the Christian World Communions concerning the reconfiguration of the ecumenical movement. After a few others read that response, I have reworked it slightly as follows below. What I offered in the original response and here is, of course, only my own opinion. I work for the Reformed Ecumenical Council, but it has offered no opinion about these questions, so I do not speak for it. In general, thinking clearly about reorganisation is difficult. A real reorganisation of the ecumenical movement requires the full-time attention of a team of highly influential people. Imagine what Wim Vissert Hooft and his colleagues had to do between 1946 and 1948 to get the WCC on the way. If we think we need something radical in reorganisation, then we collectively need a huge commitment of time and energy. We need both to act swiftly and with due caution. Who might this team of highly influential people be? Such a group would have to have a spontaneous or ad hoc character. It would lead by persuasion, conviction and probably lobbying. Such a group would almost be self-appointed. Although the WCC clearly has some pivotal role to play, a radical reconfiguration has to step outside of WCC boundaries in some way. The people who attended the recent consultation at Antelias organised by the WCC felt they did not have the authority to propose a reconfiguration, but who would have the authority? Either no one or everyone, because no one person and no organisation owns the ecumenical movement.

165

Background Reading
In the last few weeks I have read several documents or essays related to this subject. I received a copy of a letter from a group of Dutch Ecumenists that they had sent to WCC Executive Secretary Sam Kobia in response to Antelias. The letter is about 5,000 words. Second, in connection with studying that letter, I read the Antelias report 2. Third, The Ecumenical Review came, and I read Ion Brias article3. Fourth, I read the report of Cardinal Walter Kasper given to the biannual plenary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity4. The last two do not speak directly to the issue of reconfiguration, but the views in them certainly bear on the question. I share my impressions of these four documents. I think each demands more study than I have given them, but I think these remarks reflect the core of each. Antelias The Antelias consultation did manage to cover a range of questions about what reconfiguration would involve. Then participants agreed with Konrad Raisers analysis of the three main senses of the word: broadening, deepening and strengthening. The group affirmed a call for further discussions, with an emphasis on strengthening relationships between ecumenical actors. And it called for another meeting to be convened by the WCC. Ion Bria I do not understand everything he says on my first reading, but he charges that the WCC works on an ecclesiology that is Reformed. He suggested that the WCC tries to maintain an ecclesiological
166

neutrality no official ecclesiology, but incorporating a variety of traditions, and he said it is not truly neutral 5. Orthodox ecclesiology, on the other hand, requires catholicity of the local community, common intercession, and common witness. Bria sees a way forward by focusing on communion and baptism as the essential issues to be debated. The rest of our ecumenical work is secondary or derivative, as I understand Bria. Cardinal Kasper Cardinal Kaspers address to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity reminds us of the basic priorities of Catholic ecumenicity. The Catholic Church aims for visible unity in the faith, the sacraments and in ministry. As with the Orthodox community, they seek unity in the local community, but clearly seek agreement on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. Included in Baptism is some agreement on a baptismal faith. The Catholic Church considers itself close to the Orthodox, its sister churches, while the Protestants are more distant, as ecclesial communities. In the short term, the Catholic Church values the good relations it has. Kasper even notes that friendships and relationships cross confessional barriers, and that these friendships go beyond simply human empathy and create above all a climate of trust and mutual acceptance enabling theological dialogue to make substantial progress6. He also placed a high value on the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity as part of spiritual ecumenism. The Dutch letter Although the Dutch

letter came for information, it is now to be published as part of the commentary around reconfiguration. Below are points that seemed most important to me. A. The Dutch begin with the premise that they cannot avoid touching on the very existence of the WCC. They agree with Antelias here. B. They noted that in spite of the urgency that the Antelias group felt, the only real proposal was that Antelias called for more study. They concluded it was impossible to do what Antelias asked for in the next two years. At most, some principal decisions might be made in that period. C. They noted that reorganisation is common to all churches, that the times demand it. Globalisation should lead us to sharper analyses than we usually permit ourselves. D. They strongly affirm the WCC. They will never give up what it has done, but it could be renewed. They suggest the form of unity in the ecumenical movement has never been clearly defined, in spite of the WCC commitment to the visible unity of the church. They question, Is it not so that most churches confess the need for institutional, even organisational unity, but that in reality they live with a model of conciliarity, in which they have found each other? E. They remind us that Geneva is a secretariat, not a headquarters. It has to be a working servant of the movement. We can reorganise it, but not dissolve it, because it is a special secretariat. They note that most

of the funding for this secretariat comes not from the churches but from special (diaconal) agencies. We are all beholden to the ones who pay our bills. So the Dutch conclude the WCC must create a working model so that its core business is paid for by the membership fees of its constituent members. F. The most radical proposal is that a universal secretariat be created. First it must be decentralised. Put secretariats in every region. Second, those secretariats must serve the whole movement, probably even replace the various CWCs, along with national and regional conferences and councils. G. Spell out the values that are common! They felt Antelias failed to name them. H. Many of the good products of the ecumenical movement are its byproducts. Why not make that new model? Create a formal ecumenicity at the centre, but one which leaves space for a rather free development of such byproducts. The Agora of Harare 7 in 1998 is such an example.

I. Conclusions:

Let the WCC define its core business

so that it can be financed by the members. Let all international ecumenical and confessional organisations form one secretariat, greatly reduced in size and function; Encourage alliances of churches willing to cooperate;
167

 Churches should differentiate their ecumenical budgets according to this model, but not reduce them; More exchange among theological students and faculty; Carefully rethink the place of specialised agencies, allowing both freedom of operation and delineation of their rights and duties to the ecumenical movement; WCC Central Committee should solicit plans on how to downsize the number of organisations.

imagine my council working with a universal secretariat, I cannot see what it would be. So I think that the ecumenical organisations that could combine secretariats would be the national and regional councils of churches. I find most of their proposals interesting for multilateral ecumenical bodies, but not for me or the council I represent. I do find merit in their proposals for core business that is memberfinanced, perhaps because we in the Reformed Ecumenical Council have been trying to define ourselves that way for a couple of years. With all that as background, let me react to the questions posed by the WCC. What are our hopes and dreams for ecumenism in the 21st century? The Church of Christ is the church of the whole world. Ecumenical organisations of our REC-type pull together leaders from across the world and make the space where relationships can develop. Mutual ministry flows from there. Breaking down barriers flows from there. Redistribution and/or development of resources flows from that point. For us, ecumenicity is the glue that sticks people together, it is an extension cord that passes power to every place, it is the electrical wiring in the household of God. That purpose is probably valid for most of the other Christian World Communions, except Orthodox and Catholic. For those two groups, the offices that relate to us are more focused on intercommunion relations rather than intracommunion relations.

My Own Views
Before I come to the two questions posed by the WCC to the Christian World Communions, I will summarise my reactions to the documents above. The Dutch document is the most provocative. However, it is also quite Protestant. I do not know how much hearing it would get from Catholics, Orthodox, or Pentecostals. On the other hand, if the core business of the council (that the Dutch argue for but do not define) could be defined as communion, ecclesiology and witness, maybe the Orthodox and the Catholics could find themselves in it. I am lukewarm towards the Antelias report. It does not make me think about anything in particular, except that its process proposals do not seem workable and thus do not excite me nor do they include me, as far as I can see. Do the Dutch proposals include me? Yes, in many ways. Much of what they assert as values are also ones I share, but if I try to
168

I hold out little hope for formal unifications to create a visible church. Even the Orthodox and Catholic churches, whose claim, as I understand it, is to stand organisationally as the true core of the Church of Christ, are plagued by splits and conflicts. A conciliar unity rather than reunification of organisational entities is my own vision of what will happen. The values that a conciliar unity should embody are a spirit of acceptance, a commitment to truth in the person of Jesus Christ and in the Word of God, a focus on building relationships and a dedication to mission. Churches and organisations are going to proliferate and decentralise. None of us can successfully oppose that trend. Ecumenical organisations, who seem by their nature and structure to go against this trend, will need instead to deal with the reality of such movements, offering help and guidance from their own experience, values and history. What changes are needed in the configuration or structures of the ecumenical movement? A) I do not know exactly why, but I find that all the Geneva-based organisations also have a European-culture in their work style. When I attend WCC Assemblies, it usually seems to me to be a meeting of Europeans, in spite of the fact that the faces are from all over the world. They try, as do we all, to change and be intentional in adoption of other practices, but it has not worked that well

yet. So, we need to develop a culture of working that includes a variety of working styles. At the same time, I expect that meetings that I have organised appear quite American to others. Still, I have some sympathy for the distance that Ion Bria feels from the WCCs concerns. I do not know how one might change the meeting or organisational culture, but that is an area that needs changing. B) I agree with the Dutch that the WCC, and the CWCs, need to identify their core activity and finance that activity through their memberships. Flexible spaces or umbrellas or markets should function alongside. Although I have found the work of the various departments in the WCC often valuable, they also seem to have a life of their own and be run by knowledgeable technocrats. Perhaps the Dutch letter is on to something, if all the multilateral ecumenical organisations could cooperate in one networked secretariat. I could conceive of one world secretariat assisted by ten to twenty regional secretariats. I do not think a similar plan will work for the CWCs because of their nature. C) If conciliar unity is the model, then the structure of the WCC based on national churches is too confining. The WCC should open full membership to all the CWCs. While it is redefining membership, it could also loosen its membership enough so that the
169

Catholic Church would join. This has been achieved in national councils. It could be done at the world level, even if it means a process of dissolution and reconstruction of the WCC.

detail, I do believe reconfiguration will require some bold steps by leaders, by persons with a vision. Such persons will probably not be authorised, but will have sufficient stature in the world church so that their opinion will carry great weight. If pursued with energy, and if blessed by God, perhaps a radical change could be effected.

Conclusion
Although I cannot see forward in any

Notes
Lutheran World Federation EN. See the article From Antelias with love, in this issue of Reformed World. 3 Ion Bria, Widening the Ecclesiological Basis of the Ecumenical Fellowship, The Ecumenical Review, 56(2), April 2004, pp. 199210 EN. 4 Walter Kasper, Introductory Report of the President, Information Service (Pontifical
1 2

Council for Promoting Christian Unity), 115, 2004/I-II, pp. 24-30 EN. 5 Ion Bria, p. 204. 6 Walter Kasper, p. 30. 7 A reference to one of the special events related to the 1998 Assembly of the World Council of Churches, held in Harare, Zimbabwe EN.

170

Final Statement from the Consultation on Ecumenism in the 21st Century

The 2004 consultation on the future of the ecumenical movement, held near Geneva, Switzerland, late in 2004, launches the discussion on the need for renewed arrangements and relations within organised ecumenism. Christians face new challenges in the world. This requires new and effective ways of working together in order to respond to the demands of the world from the perspective of the Gospel. The consultation report affirms ecumenism in terms of unity, mission, and service. It lists historical developments calling for a new ecumenical configuration, draws the contours of an ecumenical vision for the new century, and proposes to the churches a few concrete steps to be taken in the near future.

For the peace of the whole world, the stability of the Holy Churches of God, and for the union of all, let us pray to the Lord. (St. John Chrysostom) 1. In the spirit of this prayer, the World Council of Churches invited a group of 106 representatives from churches, agencies/ specialised ministries, regional and national councils of churches, Christian world communions and international ecumenical organisations to a consultation on Ecumenism in the 21st Century, held at Chavannes-de-Bogis, Switzerland from 30 November to 3 December 2004. 2. The need for such a consultation comes from the fact that Christians face new challenges in the world and that new and effective ways of working together are required in order to respond to the demands of the world from the perspective of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Ecumenical Movement

3. There is a rich history of ecumenical traditions and achievements which served as the starting point for these discussions. The term ecumenical embraces the quest for visible Christian unity, which is undertaken in theological study, in common witness in the worldwide task of mission and evangelism as well as in diaconia and the promotion of justice and peace.1 4. Participation in the ecumenical movement follows from and leads towards shared faith in the Triune God and common Christian values. Before his crucifixion Jesus Christ prayed for his disciples and all Christians: that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me (Jn 17:21). Thus Christian unity is related to the unity of the Triune God. We are therefore urgently called to transform our self-centred
171

mentality into selfless love for the other and the society of which we are a part. As Christ is one with his father we too as Christians have the vocation to be one. We have the duty to make evident that Christianity is a unity in which the many form a unique whole. Their belonging together is based on the unity of the work of God the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit. Accordingly the renewal of the ecumenical movement is an invitation to all involved to go beyond the present boundaries, to interact with each other and with society. It is a call to bear witness to unity by making an optimum use of the abilities, history, experience, commitment and spiritual tradition of everyone involved. This includes submission to one another and the search to understand the will of the Lord in a spirit of repentance and reconciliation.2 5. The ecumenical movement today is carried out at different levels by churches acting through conciliar bodies (e.g. the WCC, regional ecumenical organisations, subregional fellowships and national councils of churches), Christian world communions, ecumenical communities, mission agencies, theological colleges and associations, ecumenical academies and lay training centres as well as agencies/specialised ministries, international ecumenical organisations and many other ecumenical bodies. It is obvious that the ecumenical movement is far wider than any one institution and includes all those who yearn for unity and all those who dream of a
172

common Christian voice on the burning issues of the day.

A Time of Change
6. The ecumenical movement is living and operating in a world which is constantly changing. The political constellation is very different from what it was during the 20th century. The world today is dominated by a concentration of extreme power and wealth. As people seek to affirm their identities in the light of globalising forces, increasingly many are identifying themselves in terms of their religion. 7. It is a world of brilliant new technologies and a world in which millions of people suffer from hunger and die from rampant violence. The environment is threatened with destruction because of disrespect for creation. 8. People in many regions are increasingly embracing the view that another world is possible. They are seeking a world undergirded by a deep sense of spiritual discernment. The growth of civil society is transforming communities and nations. Those who have traditionally been marginalized and excluded are struggling to make a more just and peaceful world possible. 9. These changes are also affecting the churches. Declining membership in some European and North American churches will have consequences for the material resourcing of ecumenical bodies in the future, while at the same time prompting new relationships of genuine partnership

between churches of the North and those of the South. The proliferation of nongovernmental organisations has created a more competitive environment in which churches and their related organisations sometimes struggle for survival, but also opens up new possibilities of partnerships and coalitions in the cause of peace, justice and the care of creation. 10. This has changed the ecumenical life of the churches. There are important new ecumenical actors who are not formally included in the existing structures and there are some in the ecumenical family who do not feel valued by others. Many new ecumenical organisations have been created, giving rise to fears that all of these ecumenical bodies cannot be sustained. Churches complain that there are too many levels of belonging. Insufficient programme co-ordination by confessional and ecumenical bodies may represent duplication of efforts. There are questions around membership and around funding of the ecumenical movement. 11. The primary structures of the ecumenical movement were established decades ago, when both the world and the churches were in a very different place. Today the world challenges us in ways that we have not known before.

consultation on Reconfiguration of the Ecumenical Movement in Antelias/ Lebanon affirmed the urgency of the issues and called for further discussions to re-vitalise the ecumenical movement and to ensure that our structures and our actions respond to the changing global realities. In this line, the meeting in Chavannes-de-Bogis continued the work and looked into the question of how to find a new configuration or re-shaping which strengthens ecumenical relationships and structures in face of the new challenges mentioned above. The new study of current ecumenical structures and relationships (Mapping the Oikoumene ), the Reflections on Ecumenism in the 21 st century, both published by the WCC (2004) and the reactions from the churches to the report of the Antelias Consultation (2003) provided insightful resources in the deliberations of this consultation. Recognising that any discussion of structures must be guided by the values and vision of the ecumenical movement, the following vision was identified: 13. We hope that the ecumenical movement in the 21 st century will be a special space: where more and more Christians are involved in the work of Christian unity, and the fellowship among the churches is strengthened where open and ecumenicallyminded culture is fostered in the everyday lives of people in their own contexts and
173

Ecumenism in the 21 Century

st

12. In recent years, discussions about the effects of the changing world on the ecumenical movement have taken place in different fora. In November 2003, a

where ecumenical formation is a central focus at all levels of church life, from the local to the global where spirituality is the basis of the life of Christians together and where, as individuals, churches and organisations, Christians can pray together and can encourage each other to discern Gods will for their lives where all, including the marginalized and excluded, are welcomed into inclusive and loving communities where relationships, built on mutual trust, are strengthened between all parts of the ecumenical family where each Christian can be supported in practising responsible stewardship and where churches and Christian organisations can be mutually accountable to each other where diversity of cultures and traditions is recognised as a source of creativity where hospitality is manifest towards those of different faiths and where dialogue is encouraged where young people are encouraged to join in and to lead where womens visions of being church are shared where the ministry of healing is carried out in shared actions where the healing of memories leads to reconciliation where, together, we are enabled to be prophetic in confronting the injustices and violence of the world and to take risks
174

in our commitment to justice and peace when Christ calls us to do so. 14. We recognise that there are still many issues that divide us which need to be overcome. But we still hope that the Holy Spirit leads us to the end that one day we can celebrate the Eucharist together as the sign of our unity. 15. The process of moving towards a new configuration of the ecumenical movement is urgent. Financial difficulties in many churches put pressure on the ecumenical movement to reconsider how it works. But the needs coming from a changing world also ask for a common agenda which harnesses collective energies to work together for the healing of the world. Moreover, a need is felt for more effective instruments in the quest for Christian unity given the changing landscape of Christianity. 16. A new configuration of the ecumenical movement will require change from our churches and our organisations. Structures are needed which are less rigid, more flexible, and which lead us to develop more collaborative initiatives with each other. Beyond structures, we seek to change the way we work and to find more creative and innovative opportunities for working together. 17. Participants expressed their hopes that the Global Christian Forum would provide an opportunity for broadening the ecumenical movement. Cooperation in the area of diaconia and mission was considered as a way to strengthen relationships between Pentecostal and other churches.

18. With any new configuration, the WCC has a leading role to play in facilitating, networking, coordinating and challenging churches and organisations within the ecumenical movement. 19. The following section presents specific recommendations to the churches, the WCC, the REOs and NCCs, the Christian World Communions, the international ecumenical organisations, and the agencies/specialised ministries.

many recommendations on specific issues which are incorporated into the summary report of this meeting. These provide broad and important suggestions for the work of the churches and other participants in the ecumenical movement. In particular participants recognised the essential role of ecumenical formation for the future ecumenical movement and urged all churches and organisations to make this a priority, for example in religious education and in selecting representatives to ecumenical events. Churches are encouraged to ensure that their members who have ecumenical experiences are able to share these experiences with their church. The recommendations presented below focus on only a few concrete steps which can be taken in the immediate future. At the same time, it was recognised that the process of developing a new configuration of the ecumenical movement is a long-term one, which will require discussion and reflection by the churches and indeed by confessional and ecumenical bodies. 1.A Reaffirmation of the Theological Basis of the Ecumenical Movement We affirm that theological dialogue about the nature of unity and the church is a priority for all ecumenical work and should be revitalised. The WCCs Faith and Order has a central role to play in shaping the multilateral dialogue on issues (both theological and social) uniting and dividing the churches today, and in monitoring and mapping the many bilateral dialogues on church unity. A statement on the church as
175

Recommendations
Participants celebrated the fact that this diverse group of representatives from the broader ecumenical movement had come together at Chavannes-de-Bogis to reflect together on a new configuration of the ecumenical movement. This was a special event and participants expressed their joy at being together. In fact, some felt that the WCCs role in facilitating such a gathering is a model for its future work in creating ecumenical space. While the recommendations below focus largely on issues of structures and relationships, participants affirmed the need for renewal, for re-freshing the ecumenical movement in a way which focuses less on institutional interests and more on fostering a spirit of collaboration. The need to develop more effective ways of working in order to witness to the world in areas such as justice, reconciliation, and interfaith dialogue is a strong motivation for grappling with many and diverse structural issues. Working groups during the meeting made

local/universal, living in unity/diversity is now being prepared for the 2006 WCC Assembly. We strongly recommend that the WCC and its member churches continue theological reflection on the nature of the church, particularly on the biblical understandings and different theological interpretations of the church. 2.Mapping of Programmatic Work The WCC is asked to facilitate a mapping study of existing programmatic work of ecumenical and denominational bodies, identifying who is doing what in which area of work and the financial resources which support these programmes. This is intended to serve as a tool for avoiding duplication and fostering cooperation and could build on the annual WCC Ecumenical Partner Survey. Such a mapping exercise could also provide opportunities for mutual learning. As this is a substantial task, it may be necessary to limit the scope of the study. This mapping could be supplemented by case studies by appropriate bodies, in which a small group of people analyse and learn from specific examples of programmatic collaboration or overlap. 3.Clarifying the Respective Roles of the WCC, REOs, and NCCs We see a need for the WCC, the regional ecumenical organisations (REOs), and national councils of churches (NCCs) to clarify their programmatic roles, to discuss and formulate a common agenda and to stimulate collaborative action in order to achieve greater ecumenical coherence.
176

The WCC is asked to work with REOs and NCCs to develop an appropriate process for furthering these discussions, by building on work carried out through the Common Understanding and Vision process. The principle of subsidiarity ensuring that decisions are made closest to the people affected may be helpful in delineating roles. Greater coherence could also be fostered by: Linking governing bodies (for example, the REOs could organise joint meetings in each region) Clearer accountability of representatives participating in ecumenical bodies to the churches they represent Clearly formulated agendas for regular meetings between the WCC, REOs and NCCs Organising meetings between REOs and Christian World Communions REOs and NCCs also have a

responsibility to encourage ecumenical formation among their constituencies and they are asked to work with theological institutions in their regions to organise seminars on ecumenical formation. 4.Clarifying the Role and Space of Agencies/Specialised ministries within the Ecumenical Movement As diaconia is an essential part of being church, and as agencies/specialised ministries are recognised as an integral and indispensable part of the ecumenical movement, the consultation agreed to ask: The WCC to invite the agencies/

specialised ministries to discuss together the shape and form of their institutional space The WCC to include agencies/ specialised ministries in its strategic planning and ongoing work in the field of diaconia and development, relief and advocacy Similarly, agencies/specialised

together additional and new ways of funding ecumenical work. Collaboration between churches, NCCs, REOs and the WCC is needed in the regions to increase possibilities of raising funds for the common ecumenical movement. The Consultation stressed that building relationships is essential to efforts to increase financial support for ecumenical work. 7.The Role of the WCC Participants affirmed that the WCC is a privileged instrument, entrusted with ensuring the coherence of the ecumenical movement. As a fellowship of churches it has an important prophetic role. All organisations within the

ministries to share their plans with the WCC which in turn will seek to share them more broadly with ecumenical partners. 5.Towards Enhanced Collaboration with Christian World Communions The WCC is asked to facilitate a consultative process to explore the nature and form of a common Assembly or process that will draw the Christian World Communions, international ecumenical organisations, REOs and the WCC into a common ecumenical agenda. The possibility can also be explored of working with the WCCs Faith and Order Plenary Commission and the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism in planning future meetings. Further work is also needed to discuss w ays in which Christian World Communions can more effectively participate in the work and life of the WCC. 6.Exploring Possibilities for Greater Financial Stability In the light of the financial difficulties being faced by many ecumenical organisations, the WCC is asked to facilitate a task force in which representatives from different ecumenical bodies, including from agencies/ specialised ministries, can explore

ecumenical movement, including the WCC, need to change to address the challenges of today. The consultation recommends that in setting its priorities, the WCC includes the following: Providing space for the ecumenical movement to formulate a common ecumenical vision for the 21 st century Considering comprehensively the results and significance of bilateral theological dialogue at national, regional and international levels Facilitating a common theological understanding of diaconia among churches ministries and agencies/specialised

Providing a forum for exchange of information and common advocacy against injustice, perhaps through coordinating advocacy vis--vis the UN
177

 Facilitating constructive cooperation and accountability between different partners in the ecumenical movement Facilitating a process of bringing the specialised staff of ecumenical organisations into regular and systematic conversation and information-sharing in order to develop common work plans. In terms of structures it is recommended that the WCC consider a balance between permanent tasks and time-limited, urgent projects. 8.Establishment of a Continuation Group In order to continue this process, a continuation group will be established as soon as possible and will be composed of 15 representatives of different constituencies, as follows: five representatives of member churches (to be selected by the WCC Executive Committee); one representative of the Roman Catholic church; one representative of Pentecostal churches; two representatives from ecumenical youth organisations; one each from REOs, CWCs, NCCs, agencies/ specialised ministries, international ecumenical organisations and ecumenical renewal communities. Each of these constituencies will name their own representatives by 14 February 2005 and the names will be shared with the WCC Central Committee for

information. The WCC will convene this group and a first meeting will take place in the first half of 2005. Te r m s o f r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e Continuation Group: Review the recommendations from this meeting, establish timelines and monitor their implementation to determine which can be implemented in the short and long term Set priorities among the recommendations Decide and accompany the process of working towards a new configuration of the ecumenical movement. This may include, at some point in time, another consultation. 9.The Need for Inclusive Participation The continuing process of developing a new configuration of the ecumenical movement must include the increased participation by women and youth and priority should be given to participation from the South. 10.Going Forth As only 106 representatives participated in this consultation, Ecumenism in the 21 st Century, participants agreed to discuss the issue of a new ecumenical configuration with their churches and constituencies and to refer relevant measures to their respective governing bodies. The continuation group is asked to provide regular updates on this process to participants in this consultation as well as to the broader ecumenical constituency.
2 World Council of Churches, Report of the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the World Council of Churches, August 2002.

Notes
1

Cf. World Council of Churches, Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of Churches, 1998.

178

The gospel imperative and our service to the ecumenical movement today four biblical meditations
Wesley Ariarajah
Challenged by mission, the apostolic church reconfigured itself. Are we open to renewal in the service of the gospel? Does our calling, like Moses and Jesus have to do with solidarity with those in the world who are oppressed? Are we ready to run the race while grounded in our tradition and surrounded by a cloud of witnesses? A Methodist pastor and well-known theologian from Sri Lanka, Wesley Ariarajah was for many years the Director of the Dialogue sub-unit of the World Council of Churches. He teaches ecumenical theology at Drew University, in Madison (USA). These four meditations were delivered during the 2004 consultation on ecumenism in the 21st century.

Mission and the reconfiguration of the apostolic church (Acts 15:1-21)

Jesus and his disciples were from the Jewish community. While they met people from other traditions, by and large, their ministry was confined to their own community. But trouble began with Peter when he was called to Corneliuss house. While he was preaching, the Holy Spirit fell upon him and Peter baptised Cornelius and all of his people. When Peter returned to Jerusalem, he was criticised for baptising Gentiles without referring the matter to the church. This was however accepted as an isolated incident. Later, Paul went to Asia Minor to talk to the Jews in Diaspora and at the synagogue, he met God-fearing Greeks who were responding to the Christian message. The church was then faced with a crisis what should be done about the Gentiles? If

Christianity is part of Judaism, do they have to become Jews first and then Christians? How should they deal with diversity that has come from the mission of the Church? It was a new situation calling for a reconfiguration of the Church. Some talk of the experience in Acts 15 as the first ecumenical experience. Everyone came together Paul, Peter, Barnabas and the conservative group who thought you could not be saved without first being circumcised. The process of the meeting is important: First, there was a listening process when everyone had a chance to say what they wanted. Then there was strong debate and disagreement between positions that seemed almost irreconcilable. This was followed by an attempt to discern together before the final decision-making process. The challenge was threefold: 1) Is it legitimate to change the boundaries of the
179

Church? Each of them had thoughts about where the boundaries of the Church are. 2) Some of the things that appeared so central had to be given up e.g. circumcision and the keeping of the law. 3) What does it mean to be Church? The Church of Pauls time didnt suddenly decide to reconfigure. The challenge was laid upon them from outside. What does it mean to be Church in our time? What was the outcome? 1.On the one hand, they recognised that it was the very mission of the church that was calling for a fundamental reconfiguration of its constituency. On the other, they saw the importance of preserving the communion of the Church. So a decision was made that the Jews did not have to change; they did not have to give up circumcision and the keeping of the law to become Christians and they should not be burdened by such expectations to be like others. 2.In order to have table fellowship, the Gentiles were also expected to make sacrifices (not eating meat with blood or food that is ritually unclean because it has been offered to idols, keeping themselves from sexual immorality etc. vs.20). At the heart of this passage is an attempt to reconfigure the nature and life of the church which involved sacrifices on the part of all concerned, the determination to maintain the unity and communion of the church, and an attempt to discern together where God is leading the church at a given time.
180

What does this attempt on the part of the early church to reconfigure its life and ministry tells us about our own attempt to respond to the realities of our day?

What is the nature of our calling today? (Exodus 3)

The focus of the Exodus reading is the call of Moses. In the Bible anyone who is a servant of God is called; there is no place for volunteers. As churches, we shouldnt do anything unless we believe that we are being called to do so. What is the nature of our calling today? In Genesis 12 we hear of Gods call to Abraham to leave the place where he was. There was no real reason why he should move at that time as they were living on very fertile land beside the river. But the biblical writers say that God was calling him to move. The question for us is are we too settled? We are known as a movement so we dont want to settle down too much. We are a pilgrim people. Exodus 3 tells of the calling of Moses when he is asked to go and deliver Gods people from the misery they are suffering under the Egyptians. But Moses replies Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt? But God calls Moses because he has seen the suffering and misery of Gods people not because of Moses himself. So Moses has to reconfigure his life because God was concerned for the suffering of others. Jesus call is the most troubling kind of call, which can be characterised as an

incarnation call. He was not called to go and deliver anyone, but rather he became part of the community and in doing so, challenged the religious status quo of the time. He didnt go out and do a ministry but rather was called to be part of the community, standing in solidarity with those who were suffering. Jesus prayer was let this cup pass from me, because he did not want to take on this role, but he was prepared to walk his talk in obedience to God wherever it would take him even to the cross. Does our calling today have to do with standing in solidarity with those in the world who are oppressed? Jesus had to reconfigure his ministry every day so he could walk the talk of love, and it finally took him to the cross.

of our own tradition; it grounds us and gives us identity. Our tradition is where we have been called from. But Paul is prepared to even set aside the constraints of the tradition in order to explore the fellowship of his suffering and the glory of his resurrection, two phrases that summarise, for Paul, the meaning and ministry of his Christian vocation. He says not that I have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own (vs.12). Grounded in our tradition, we are called to press on identifying what is the imperative of the gospel today and what it means to participate in todays world.

Surrounded by a cloud of witnesses, let us run the race (Hebrews 11:112:2)

In this chapter the writer of the Book of Hebrews outlines the faith of Israels ancestors including Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Joseph. Behind the description of events is the authors understanding of God as the God of history. In biblical understanding God is God of both space and time. God is thus not only the God of the cosmos but also of its history. The Bible understands history as the story of God with humankind. In this view we do not create history, but participate with God in it. It is significant that from the beginning the ecumenical movement is understood as the Movement of the Spirit. Nobody owns the ecumenical movement; all of us are participants in a movement in which we are not the final arbiters. In history, Israel,
181

Our tradition and the imperative of the gospel today (Philippians 3:3-16)
In this passage Paul explores the issue of tradition. He does not reject tradition; he outlines that he was circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless (vs.5-6). While tradition is important to him, he states that far more important is his desire to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his suffering by becoming like him in his death (vs.10). The challenge for us is that we are part

Abraham and Sarah are seen as people of great faith because when they felt God was calling them to do something, they were prepared to move on. Great tribute is given to Abraham and Sarah for the courage they had to begin a people who were on a pilgrimage: God was not ashamed to be called their God. Abraham was not trying to build a city of his own, but rather was looking for and was moving towards a city with firm foundations, whose architect and builder is God. In the latter part of the chapter we have a list of enormous sacrifices made by people whose names are not mentioned. The author recognises the countless number of people who had participated in history whose ministry is the foundation of what we do today and whose ministry would not be fruitful without our own faithfulness in our day. In other words, we are part of a long process, represented by the author as a relay race, where one generation hands over its faithfulness to the next. The ecumenical

movement is a movement of so many people all over the world, both inside and outside the churches, whose names are not always known. It is not a movement that we begin, but rather is something we join. The author says that since we are surrounded by such a cloud of witnesses, we should also run the race that is set before us with patience, laying aside all the weight that holds us back and sin that clings so closely, looking unto Jesus the pioneer and perfector of our faith. He identifies three disciplines for those who wish to join this race: 1. recognising that this is Gods movement; a movement with a cloud of witnesses who have gone before us; 2. identifying and setting aside the sin that holds us back from participating in this movement; 3. focusing on Jesus, the founder and pioneer of our faith. In this passage there is no demand that those who participate in history with God be successful, but rather that they be faithful.

182

Subscription Rates-2005
US dollars Swiss francs sterling

Reformed World 1 year 2 years 3 years Update 1 year 2 years 3 years

13.50 25.50 36.50 11.00 21.00 30.00

18.00 34.00 49.00 15.00 28.00 40.00

8.00 15.00 21.50 7.00 12.50 17.50

Combined subscription to Reformed World and Update 1 year 23.00 31.00 14.00 2 years 43.50 58.00 26.00 3 years 62.00 83.00 37.00
Update is the quartely newsletter of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. Published in English and French, it keeps its readers informed of developments in the life of WARC and its churches. Please say which language you wish to receive.

Payment may be made by cheque directly to the WARC office or through our postal cheque account: 12-2890-9, Switzerland. Please mention Reformed World and/or Update, as appropriate. Payment may also be made through our authorized agents in the following countries: Japan: New Zealand: Committee of Ecumenical Relations 2-2 Yoshida, Kawagoe City 350-0807 Church Stores NZ Ltd., PO Box 11-1061 Ellerslie, Auckland 1131

Back issues, books and other publications are available from: Word Alliance of Reformed Churches, 150 route de Ferney, PO Box 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland. Tel 0041 22 791 62 40 Fax 0041 22 791 65 05 e-mail: warc@warc.ch web: www.warc.ch Prices include mailing.
Editor: Odair Pedroso Mateus Assistant: Sally Redondo Layout and cover: emblema idias visuais - So Paulo, Brazil - emblemaideias@aol.com
Published by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches 150 route de Ferney, PO Box 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland

183