COUNCILS OF CHURCHES AND THE ECUMENICAL VISION

DIANE KESSLER
MICHAEL KINNAMON

Risk Book Series no. 90, 2000, WCC Publications, Geneva
 

SHOULD COUNCILS BECOME INTERFAITH?

     These days, hardly a meeting of a council of churches goes by without someone raising the question, “Should ecumenical councils of churches become interfaith bodies?” Often, this is not simply a theoretical issue. Rather, board members may be locked in a vigorous debate about whether or not they will change their own mandate and membership.
     In many cases, the final vote is for a change. We have some serious concerns about the trend.
     Although the Greek work oikoumene, from which the term “ecumenical” springs, means “the world inhabited earth”, early in this century “ecumenical” began to be used to apply to various forms of the Christian unity movement. These expressions of the ecumenical movement – councils of churches, interchurch dialogues, covenantal agreements, and so on – are committed to healing the divisions among the Christian churches for the sake of the world. Many continue to use the term in this manner, and to reserve “interfaith” or “inter-religious for efforts to promote understanding and cooperating among different religious traditions (Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.). This difference is terminology reflects a fundamental difference of purpose between the ecumenical and interfaith agendas.
     Often, however, when an ecumenical organization becomes interfaith, a basic change in its purpose occurs, and all efforts to heal the still considerable divisions among the Christian churches are lost. What this redefined purpose is depends on the stated intentions of its members. It may include interfaith dialogue to reduce stereotypes and promote understanding. It may involve cooperation on projects of concern in the community, for example, organizing and staffing a shelter for the homeless or feeding programme for the poor. It may cover planning for an interfaith worship service at Thanksgiving, or other special occasions. It may not even entail membership by interfaith bodies, but rather signal an intention to be open to such participation.
     The configuration will depend on the context. A small, relatively homogeneous community with ten Christian churches and one or two Jewish synagogues whose council of churches “goes interfaith” will develop an agenda which may look considerably different from an organization in any urban area with rich religious diversity.
     The underlying assumptions, however, are distinct from those of the Christian unity movement, whose official documents have said: (1) that the final aim of dialogue among churches should be to heal their divisions; (2) that cooperation is insufficient, and that cohesion is the goal; (3) that the Lord’s table should be open to all Christians; and (4) that the celebrants at the supper should be recognized by all.
     When discussed in a local context, the ecumenical/interfaith debate often gets aired from a pragmatic perspective. It focuses on what religious bodies can do together. This, in itself, is not an improper question, but it can be answered in other ways which do not undermine the ecumenical agenda.
     Because other issues are involved, however, some prior questions may help sharpen the discussion. On what basis will we frame the ecumenical/interfaith organizational debate? What are the foundational issues on which we will rest our reasons?
     Three reasons which often surface focus on the particular situation, a desire for inclusiveness, and good will. Perhaps concerns have arisen about problems among youth in the community. Because the difficulties affect everyone their resolution should involve everyone, and discussions about changing the organizational make-up of the council of churches emerge from the specific need. Or perhaps the town clergy association includes area rabbis – maybe also a local imam. The sense of cooperation and collegiality is strong, and some clergy begin to ask why this sense should not be extended to their congregations through the council. Or maybe council members begin to have a vague sense of discomfort about what appears to them to be an exclusive organization. These often seem to be the rationales which prompt the ecumenical/interfaith debate.
     In contrast, three other concerns rarely are raised. These are key points that often are overlooked in making decisions about ecumenical/interfaith structures, and we believe that strong weight in this debate should be given to them.

1. The current state of ecumenical theology

     Proposals to change organizational structures from an ecumenical to an interfaith intention prejudge answers to theological questions that have not been decided yet by the ecumenical church, and are in fact the topic of vigorous debate. Thus, such moves at this time are premature. They effectively decide issues before they have in fact been decided.
     Some of the questions that surfaced at recent World Council of Churches’ assemblies speak directly to theses concerns. How inclusive can Christianity be of various cultural assumptions and practices before it violates its fundamental theological basis? What are the proper grounds for and what is the appropriate purpose of evangelization? Who is within the saving realm of God, and on what grounds do Christians base these claims? What is the purpose of the unity we seek for the churches, and why are we seeking it? How does that unity relate to the unity of all humankind, indeed of the cosmos?
     A struggle is now going on within the ecumenical movement and within many of its member churches about the very meaning of the gospel. Is it truth, or is it simply a utilitarian tool – a useful vehicle for functioning in the world, without any ultimate claim to validity? On what grounds do we base our faith claims? How do we know these are valid?
     A separate but related question is, if the gospel is culturally conditioned, as indeed all efforts to describe the divine must be in some ways, what are the limits to the intertwining of the two? At what point does the gospel become captive to culture? When do national identity and Christianity become so interconnected that Christians no longer are free to critique culture?
     These questions are as old as the gospel itself. Some of the early struggles that resulted in the development of Christian creeds were a result of these wrestlings. Our contemporaries saw these questions surface earlier in the 20th century with chilling force. The churches in Nazi Germany were confronted with stark challenges about their responsibilities in the face of a conflicting ideology. Out of this choice, the Confessing Church in Germany was born, the Barmen Declaration was crafted, and some said “no” to the dominant ethos.
     Many of these questions take on a new sense of urgency today because we now are more aware than ever before that we live in a global village. How one community in that global village behaves often affects others. Our self-interest at stake.
     Thus, we feel a sense of urgency about these questions and an eagerness to answer them. We see our ecological interdependence. A nuclear disaster in Chernobyl affects the crops and livestock, for example, in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom. We are aware of ways that corporate mobility around the globe affects employment patterns and conditions for all. We are aware of the many potential reasons for conflict. Religion has been one of them, as it has been in Northern Ireland, the Balkans and many other places. We want to reduce religious differences, both among Christians and among people of many faiths, as a motive for destructive behavior. And we are confused and in a quandary about how to do this.
     It is tempting, in the face of these realities, to be too casual about the content of religious and ideological differences – to look for similarities and ignore differences, to gloss over distinctives and forget that they may result in concrete, practical problems. Christians should recognize, in addressing such differences, that we are dealing both with values and with truth. We may share some basic values with other world religions, but disagree about how we have come to hold the validity of these values. Those disagreements may, in fact, reflect some fundamental differences about the nature of divinity and humanity that result in problems as we implement our values. It is tempting, in our longing for justice, peace and the integrity of creation, to bypass the hard theoretical and practical working which we and future generations must engage in help move closer to these goals. It is ironic that this temptation in interfaith dialogue is, in some ways, the exact opposite of what is happening in the ecumenical movement now, where churches seem to be championing their differences and forgetting that they theoretically are one in Christ.
     We still must air fully these issues among our churches, and take seriously the concerns being raised. Until then, for historically ecumenical bodies with the stated intention of promoting Christian unity for the sake of the world (or, in the case of ecumenical professional organizations, with the intention of training and supporting those called to this vocation), to make such an organizational shift assumes answers to which we have not yet agreed within or among our churches. To make such a shift before we have greater clarity than now seems to be the case, in fact, functionally cuts off the debate.

2. Shared tradition

     We must go back to the texts as the basis on which we frame this discussion. We need to explore the ecumenical consensus that has been developed thus far by the world churches involved in the ecumenical movement. The fundamental purpose of the ecumenical movement, according to documents honed by the gathered churches, is found in statements on the nature of the unity we seek developed by a series of World Council assemblies and Faith and Order gatherings.
     A whirlwind tour of these texts reveals that the third world conference on Faith and Order in Lund, Sweden (1952) recognized that the practice of comparative ecclesiology which had been used in past ecumenical conversations was inadequate. In other words, discussions about different understandings of the nature of the church and its mission, with a contentment to leave the conversation in this state of “getting to know each other”, was deemed insufficient. New attempts were made to move beyond comparisons to explorations of convergences and consensus when possible, and clarity about divergences when they exist. Lund recognized that one potential area of convergence is in common mission, and it focused on seeking unity in common mission. A key phrase in the Lund document says that “churches should do all things together which conscience does not compel them to do separately”.
     Picking up on the theme “Christ Is the Hope of the World”, the World Council of Churches assembly in Evanston (1954) grounded our unity in Christ. This christological focus is the foundation, beginning, measure, from which we cannot stray. Using the phrase “all in each place”, New Delhi (1961) concretized the vision. It suggested that every Christian in each locality (however defined) should be a visible part of the whole body of Christ, and that this unity should be shown in concrete ways.
     Uppsala (1968) picked up on earlier theme, that unity does not imply uniformity, and developed the concept of catholicity as diverse, inclusive, and prefiguring the unity of humankind. We do not have to worship in exactly the same ways, or pray in the same ways, or be ordered in precisely the same ways, in order to live out the unity we have been given in Christ. Nairobi (1975) labeled the vision of New Delhi “conciliar fellowship”, and built on its implications for local churches, envisioning “councils of representatives of all the local churches at various geographical levels to express their unity visibly in a common meeting”. It also tried to respond to concerns and misperceptions emanating from earlier documents. Vancouver (1983) capitalized on the then recently completed text, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, and highlighted the eucharistic nature of the “fellowship” we seek. At the very least, our unity is rooted in our shared life through baptism in the name of the triune God; in our longed-for-capacity to share the Lord’s supper at the same table, and in a recognition that those called to ordination are ministers in the whole church of God in Christ. Canberra (1991) turned to the more encompassing concept of koinonia – community, communion – an idea mentioned in earlier documents, but used more fully in this latest effort. It also explicitly listed the four classical marks of the church – one, holy, catholic and apostolic – to describe the “church in its fullness”.
     This represents forty-one-plus years of shared labour in the ecumenical vineyard. We, as members of churches who have participated in this process, have a responsibility to pay attention to this fruit.
     The quest for Christian unity for the sake of the world is not the only purpose of the church, nor is it the only purpose of individual Christians. It is, however, the primary purpose of the churches gathered together in the ecumenical movement, as they, and by implication, we, have thus far stated. And in a reciprocal way, though councils of churches are not churches, unless they bear some marks of the church they are not doing their job properly, because councils are of the churches. They are shaped by them. They get their nature from them. Since structure proclaims intention (“the medium is the message”), to change the structure of ecumenical organizations to interfaith bodies blurs and confuses our intention as churches in the quest for Christian unity.

3. The need for organizational collegiality

     Ecumenical organizations at every level of church life have a responsibility to function collegially and accountable to each other as organizations. To abandon the ecumenical intention means that an organization formally (and almost always functionally) drops out of the ecumenical fold, and thus operates in isolation from the ecumenical church at all other levels.
     Ecumenical organizations should mirror the sense of interconnectedness and inter-relationship among themselves which their members are seeking to embody. They are bound by their common purposes. A chief aim of a council of churches should be to cultivate an ecumenical attitude among all Christians and Christian churches within its boundaries. Councils should help people and churches understand the ecumenical vision, recognize it when they see it, long for it, appreciate it, celebrate it, cultivate it, identify resistance to it, want to overcome them, and work mightily to do so. In this way, councils of churches at every level share a common purpose. They should differ from each other because of the context in which they are functioning – international, national, regional, state or local. To the degree that they have a distinctive mission, it is derived from their distinctive context. Some means to achieve our common ends may be carried out better at different levels of church life. If we violate the shared ground-rules as they have been established thus far, we fail to “keep faith” with each other in essential ways.

How we can address interfaith concerns

     For these reasons, we should resist moving from ecumenical to interfaith structures. Sometimes, the desire to “go interfaith” comes from an understandable interest in being fully inclusive of all religious expressions in a local community or among colleagues. We viscerally resist what feels to us like being an “exclusive club”. Such feelings, though understandable, are not appropriate grounds on which to decide this issue.
     And we do have alternative means at our disposal to address interfaith concerns, and respond to the reluctance to appear exclusive. We can be responsible to our mandate to exist “for the sake of the world”, without making distorting organizational adjustments.
     A variety of models for this alternative are now in practice. We can have an “interfaith desk”, as now is the case both within denominations and in some ecumenical bodies. Whether responsibility is lodged in the hands of an individual or a committee, this approach can be one means to promote steady communication and facilitate regular cooperation among religious bodies, whenever opportunities make sense. Specific concerns, programmes and projects can be interfaith under the auspices of a conciliar organization. If a concern involves the whole community, the council can be a means for facilitating a community-wide response, without changing its structure of intention. Councils of churches can include interfaith dialogue as part of their programme. They can provide a means whereby representatives of all religious bodies come together over a sustained period to discuss practical and theoretical issues that divide and those that unite. When special tensions arise, the existence of an ongoing dialogue enables people to move more quickly and honestly to air core concerns.
     Ecumenical professional organizations could include an “interfaith caucus”, expressly for those persons whose organizations are inter-religious, but still try to maintain their ecumenical mandate alongside their interfaith membership. Such a caucus could help everyone address problems which are common to all similar organizations; it could explore ways in which bodies that are interfaith might help Christian members pursue the ecumenical agenda if no other vehicle in the community exists; and it could maintain its primary purpose of serving as a training ground for ecumenical leadership. This latter aim is especially important, since few means currently exist to help professional leaders of ecumenical organizations understand and interpret the theory and practice of the ecumenical movement.
     In these ways, the ecumenical and interfaith agendas can be pursued without diminishing the aims of either. This is especially important for the Christian unity movement which is receiving criticism – some justified, some not – from many places these days, and which has a strong need to sharpen its self-understanding of purpose and goals.
     If we take an honest look at church history, we must acknowledge that progress in the ecumenical movement is erratic and unpredictable. It comes in stops and starts, rather than a readily discernable, smooth, steady forward motion. So we may be tempted to give up on this rugged quest for Christian unity, and move to enticingly fresh interfaith terrain. That may be one of the underlying factors contributing to heightened local interest in interfaith relations. We feel that we’ve already “done” ecumenism, and now it is time to move on to new territory, which seems exciting because it is novel for many.
     If we yield to this temptation, we will be abandoning the fundamental prayer to Christ “that they may all be one”. This prayer, and the vision of unity reflected in the New Testament, is rooted in the very being of God. Christians confess the paradox of unity within the Trinity. They proclaim a God who so loved the world that God’s only begotten Son was given in a redeeming, reconciling act. If we neglect the ecumenical mandate, we fail to be faithful to the full intention of God in Christ. If we neglect the ecumenical mandate, how can we with credibility and hope pursue our interfaith aims, however defined?
     For these reasons, we hope ecumenical organizations will “keep the faith” –even when signs of success seem more like shadows than substance. We must trust that in God’s own good time, the path will be made clear and the way plain.