Ethical/moral differences within an ecumenical covenant

Editor's note: The following is the text of a protocol for mediating ethical/moral differences, approved by the general assembly of the New Mexico (US) Conference of Churches in October 1987 and submitted to its member judicatories for reception. A note to the text indicates that it uses the terms "ethical" and "moral"

to imply a useful distinction not developed within the body of the protocol.

"Morality" is

used to describe the current norms of human behaviour sufficiently embedded

within the

culture so as not to require rationalization; "morality" is the commonsense

distinction

between right and wrong. "Ethics" describes the deliberately analytical

examination of

behaviour which may either affirm the current morality or may deconstruct

certain moral

patterns for the sake of creating new standards for behaviour.

Ethical/moral decisions daily confront us as individuals, as faith communities and as a society. Within the constant tension between freedom and responsibility, we determine what we perceive to be the right and proper choices for our behaviour. Because perceptions vary about what is right, there are inevitable differences between individuals. And certainly these differences also exist within churches and among churches, even those who are a part of the ecumenical covenant. These differences can cause pain, not only because they may emphasize the divided nature of the church, but also because they may be the cause of further misunderstanding and alienation among the churches. Unless we intentionally and prayerfully seek to mediate these differences there will remain an unresolved source of disunity and division.

A beginning point

We have found among the churches a desire to provide guidance to their members for living a righteous life. We have also found among the churches a desire to influence the moral standards of the larger society. That the churches share these common imperatives is important to recognize, for it identifies the seriousness and integrity by which the churches develop their ethical positions. And this recognition also identifies a unity of purpose already existing.

We affirm the right and responsibility of the churches to provide ethical/moral guidance for their members and for the larger society. We also affirm that this right and responsibility must be tempered with a sense of humility, knowing that the churches are subject to mistakes and therefore need God's forgiveness.

Elements for mediation

There are a number of ethical/moral issues for which no consensus among the churches exists. Indeed, even after careful analysis and conversation a consensus may not be immediately possible. Yet mediation of differences will occur if the member churches are willing to exercise the following elements of mediation:

-- Recognizing the conflictive differences to represent the seriousness and complexity of the issue. -- Discovering what points within the issue may yield agreements. -- Adopting a covenantal style which includes among its characteristics the following values:

1) Exercising discernment that focuses on clarification and interpretation of the issues at hand, not on the churches representing differing perspectives, so that the Body of Christ will not be diminished. 2) Exercising vulnerability to recognize the integrity of others with whom the disagreements exist. 3) Exercising a posture of confession which acknowledges what we believe in common to be true and faithful. 4) Exercising an awareness that both the content of the issues and the context of our situation must be understood by all concerned.

The ecumenical witness

We recognize a growing desire among the churches to speak together with a clear voice on ethical/moral issues. Especially is this true as the churches make witness in society. Yet we also recognize that the witness of the churches within society is one of persuasion, which takes into account the active tension between freedom and responsibility. In being persuasive, the churches use scripture, tradition, reason, preserving the social order and seeking the common good as elements in their ethical teachings. We also recognize that a significant witness is made by the churches when they are willing to mediate their differences within an ecumenical covenant, thus demonstrating to a pluralistic society a more inclusive style of conflict mediation.

A biblical model

Elements for resolving ethical/moral differences among the churches can be found in the lived experience of the New Testament churches, perhaps typified by the Jerusalem council recorded in Acts 15. This council is especially pertinent to mediation since the tension between the Hellenistic Christians and Palestinian Christians was over the function of Mosaic law -- symbolized by circumcision -- as the standard for Christians' behaviour. Benchmarks of that council are significant for our situation:

a) There is a common agreement that all Christians live in God's saving grace (Acts 15:8,9). This agreement is a focal point of the council; it affirmed the integrity of all those in the fellowship of the church. b) There is evidence that the council maintained its intention to both resolve the differences and preserve the unity of the churches. c) The council participants intended ethical requirements to be a guide for believers and not a burden. d) The council identified four key issues (15:20,21) to be the "essential" matters commended to the churches.