Common understanding and vision: an analysis of the responses to the process - Common Understanding and Vision: Continuing the Discussion

The central committee of the World Council of Churches adopted at its meeting in September 1997 a policy statement entitled Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of Churches (CUV).

The text as adopted represents the fruits of more than eight years of study and consultation within the constituency of the WCC. The initiative for the CUV process was taken in 1989 at the WCC central committee meeting in Moscow in relation to a necessary programmatic reorganization of the WCC. Right from the beginning, the vision and structure of the WCC were very much interrelated, even though a wish to separate them was often expressed by some members of the central committee and the WCC staff.

In November 1996 a working draft for the CUV document was distributed to WCC member churches and ecumenical partners, with the request that they react to it by the end of June 1997. In all, some 153 written responses were received; and a new draft was presented to the central committee for discussion and adoption at its meeting in September 1997. A comparison between the 1996 working draft and the text as adopted in 1997 will show that certain important changes in the articulation of the understanding and vision of the WCC took place in the final drafting.

The most fascinating thing about ecumenical texts is not the actual end-product, but the process leading up to the final result. The ecumenical text-process has its own dynamic, which shows how difficult and important it is to formulate statements and texts that can penetrate little by little into the language of churches, theological discussions and secular discourse.

In the following I shall seek to analyze the responses in order to describe what basic theological and ethical dimensions are formulated by churches, ecumenical partners and committed individuals when they feel challenged to deal with the very core of ecumenical identity today as far as this identity is related to the vision and understanding of the WCC.

The responses in general

As indicated, the WCC received 153 responses from its constituency. Of these, 71 came from member churches, 8 from national and regional councils, 31 from ecumenical agencies, 3 from local ecumenical groups, 9 from WCC committees and commissions, 25 from ecumenical friends of the WCC, 4 from Christian World Communions and 2 from non-member churches. Of the member churches' responses, 38 came from Europe, 5 from Africa, 14 from North America, 4 from Latin America, 7 from Asia and 3 from the Pacific.

All four of the major traditions of the Christian church identified by Ted A. Campbell -- Orthodoxy; Roman Catholicism; Reformation and Union Churches; Evangelical and Free Churches -- are represented in the responses.(1) Among the responses are contributions from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia, the Evangelical Church in Germany, the Moravian Church in Jamaica, the Evangelical Methodist Church in Argentina and the Religious Society of Friends/General Conference, USA. Among the united churches we find responses from, for example, the Uniting Church of Australia.

This gives a very broad spread of the main tendencies and concerns expressed in the Christian church of today when it comes to ecumenical identity and commitment. However, we must ask whether the responses in fact give a clear and balanced picture of what all the member churches of the WCC think in relation to a common understanding and vision of the WCC. The problem is that we cannot generalize from the responses of individual member churches to all churches, because an imbalance in the constituency of the WCC becomes visible in the responses. There are churches with a well-organized bureaucratic structure, which know how to deal with WCC-related issues and texts; there are also churches which for one reason or another have not been able to take part in the official process.

What I can do in this essay is to give a balanced picture of the theological content of the responses, but not try to evaluate the importance of 5 responses from Orthodoxy over against 1 Roman Catholic response; or 35 responses from Reformation and Union Churches compared to 31 responses from Evangelical and Free Churches. As part of its political responsibility the central committee in September 1997 took decisions for the whole of the WCC on the basis of the responses and the strength behind some of the formulations and proposals, which went into the final document and thereby changed it at some points.

What is the WCC?

All responses confirm the importance of the WCC's Basis: "The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the Scriptures and therefore seek to fulfil together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

Churches and ecumenical organizations accept the Basis as a vital part of their theological self-understanding. To be church today is to be part of the ecumenical movement as it has developed in this century in general and as it is structurally expressed through the life and work of the WCC in particular. However, most responses also welcome the possibility to discuss the future structure, role and self-understanding of the WCC. Especially, some responses stress the fact that "as the WCC prepares to celebrate its fiftieth anniversary it is right and good that the Council should be seeking a renewed vision for itself and for the churches" (Church of Ireland). As an institution the WCC has been a very successful midwife in creating ecumenical contacts among churches in a multilateral way and has inspired the establishment of ecumenical organizations and agencies.