Christian World Communions: identity and ecumenical calling - The World Council and the Christian World Communions

The ecumenical role of the Christian World Communions

The ecumenical movement of our century has never been an homogeneous phenomenon. Since its inception, the one ecumenical movement has consisted of various "ecumenical movements" which have indeed been oriented towards the same goal but have had different starting points and have therefore been different in character. There can be an "integration" of such different ecumenical movements as happened both in the formation and history of the World Council of Churches (WCC). Such integration, however, does not necessarily result in the disappearance of the particular character and concerns of these movements. They may and even should therefore preserve an adequate structural independence. Furthermore, new ecumenical movements can arise. What is important and decisive for the continuation of the one ecumenical movement is that its different manifestations endeavour to support each other and do not question each other's legitimacy. And this in turn is possible only if the common ecumenical "vision" is in itself sufficiently comprehensive and consistent, doing justice to the various dimensions of church unity which since the famous New Delhi statement of 1961 have been repeatedly affirmed.

The "intra-confessional" movements, aiming at closer fellowship within the individual confessional families, started towards the end of the nineteenth century and were such a manifestation of the ecumenical movement. They resulted in the formation of "World Confessional Federations" or "Alliances". Harold E. Fey is right in saying that "in their beginnings they were in fact the principal existing forms of the ecumenical movement".(1) Similarly, Visser 't Hooft affirmed in 1947 that "the World Council is deeply aware of the fact that the ecumenical task can only be performed if the main confessional federations and alliances perform their task of bringing the churches of their confessional families together in close fellowship and so prepare the way for the even greater and more difficult task of establishing the wider ecumenical Christian brotherhood".(2)

Visser 't Hooft's affirmation shows that all intra-confessional fellowships, no matter how important they may be ecumenically, have to stretch out beyond themselves towards the wider more embracing Christian fellowship. The World Confessional Bodies or Christian World Communions (CWCs), as they have called themselves since 1980 -- using already at that time the important concept of "koinonia/communio" -- are aware of that. They do not limit their goals and purposes only to the fellowship of their member churches, but have always understood themselves as part of the wider ecumenical movement. There is probably not one single CWC whose constitution does not unambiguously affirm this ecumenical responsibility and commitment.

The general ecumenical situation in the 1960s challenged the CWCs more than ever before to give evidence of the seriousness of their ecumenical commitment. This challenge was twofold in character. It was a harsh critique and, at the same time, an unprecedented opportunity. The CWCs responded to this double challenge in such a manner that, since the end of the 1970s (at the latest), their positive role and function within the ecumenical movement has become fully apparent and is generally acknowledged.

The particular opportunity at that time was for the CWCs to engage in worldwide bilateral dialogues, by and large a new kind of ecumenical endeavour, which spawned similar bilateral dialogues on the national level. A comprehensive network of such bilateral dialogues soon developed between the CWCs or their member churches, without which the overall ecumenical scene of today is unimaginable.

By assuming this direct and active ecumenical role, the CWCs at the same time responded to the critique launched against them in the 1960s which culminated in the denial that they could ever fulfil any positive ecumenical function.(3) The heart of the debate was the question of compatibility or incompatibility of confessional identity and ecumenical commitment. This is indeed a lasting problem, which confessional alliances and their member churches cannot simply avoid or declare to be non-existent, but which in different ways continues to confront them.

The problems of identity

1. The old confrontation with the problem of identity. The critical voices raised in the early 1960s against the World Confessional Families converged in the charge that these organizations were by their very nature and structure obstacles to ecumenical advance. Unity of the church and confessional identity, ecumenical commitment and confessional loyalty, were said to be radically incompatible and mutually exclusive. Confessional organizations, therefore, appeared to be dangerous perpetuations of church division and nothing less than their self-surrender was asked for.

It is not necessary to describe the process which resulted in a revision of this radical alternative between ecumenical commitment and confessional loyalty. For those who experienced and participated in this debate, it became evident that the old and venerable ecumenical maxim that "unity does not mean uniformity" had withstood the test. The crucial question was whether the unity we seek could embrace not only contextual diversities and identities but also confessional ones. What finally prevailed was the insight that confessional diversities or different theological traditions can very well find a meaningful place in the unity we seek, provided that they have lost their divisive character.(4)