Editorial: the quarterly of the World Council of Churches.

Raiser, Konrad

In the late summer of 2002, the central committee of the World Council of Churches met in Geneva to address a number of pressing concerns. Perhaps none of these was more potentially significant in the life of the ecumenical movement than discussion and action regarding the final report of the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the World Council of Churches. Early in the life of that commission, The Ecumenical Review featured a series of articles on "Orthodox Participation in the Ecumenical Movement" (vol. 51, no. 4, October 1999). In the current issue, we focus on the final report of the Special Commission and several initial reactions to it.

In his brief history The Genesis and Formation of the World Council of Churches, W.A. Visser 't Hooft gave Orthodoxy, in the form of the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople (the Ecumenical Patriarchate), full credit for the earliest public initiative towards creating a worldwide "league of churches" equivalent to the nascent League of Nations. Not only did action of the Holy Synod in January 1919 authorize an encyclical inviting "all churches" to discuss the creation of a league of churches, Metropolitan Dorotheos of Brussa, the locum tenens of the ecumenical see, called for serious consideration of "the matter of union of the various Christian churches, especially that with the Anglican, the Old Catholic and the Armenian churches". (1) From the first suggestions of such an organization, the Orthodox have been central to the development of the World Council of Churches and its quest for Christian unity.

This is not to say that the ecumenical journey has been smooth sailing for any of the confessional traditions of the Church. Differing perspectives on the nature of the Church and the role of the World Council led to delicate yet frank dialogues between Orthodox and Protestants, and to ecumenical milestones like the 1950 Toronto statement (2) on the ecclesiological significance of the World Council of Churches and, more recently, to the 1997 document "Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of Churches".

Political dynamics during the cold-war years frequently hindered relations between the WCC and Orthodox churches in communist countries. The earliest invitations to membership were declined by the Russian Orthodox Church and others, and by the WCC's second assembly (Evanston 1954) at the height of tensions between East and West, only 30 out of a total of 502 delegates were Orthodox. (3) Even after the influx of Eastern Orthodox, including the Russian Church, at New Delhi in 1961 and in the years leading to an even more striking Orthodox presence at Uppsala in 1968, relations across geopolitical borders required cautious diplomacy. (4) Even so, the decades following 1961 represented a period of intensive interchange between Orthodox and Protestants. On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Council's founding, in 1973, congratulatory messages from Moscow and Constantinople pressed the WCC to examine anew its basis and the underlying concept of ecumenism. An intensification of dialogue followed culminating in the consultations at New Valamo in 1977 and Sofia in 1981. (5) Historians of Orthodox participation in the WCC will no doubt categorize Sofia as a precursor to the Special Commission, but it will be essential to distinguish between the historical contexts in which these two groups deliberated. It may also be said that the desiderata formulated in Sofia were qualitatively more modest in scope, seeking administrative solutions to organizational problems, as compared to the call for thoroughgoing change that led delegates in Harare to establish the Special Commission.

Following the collapse of communism, and evolutionary changes of leadership in all member churches, there had arisen renewed debate on the role of Orthodox churches within the World Council of Churches as an institution. A pan-Orthodox meeting at Thessaloniki in May 1998 raised essential questions in such a pointed way (6) that the WCC's eighth assembly meeting that December in Harare acted to appoint a special commission, with parity of membership between Protestants and Orthodox, to address these issues.

While the form of questions came from a pan-Orthodox gathering, and the title of the commission refers to "Orthodox participation" in the ecumenical movement, it is important to recognize that the issues addressed in this context are not those of Orthodoxy alone, much less the "fault" of any one confessional family in the Church of Jesus Christ. It has long been clear that the Catholic church and many evangelical, free and pentecostal communions are unlikely to come into membership of the World Council of Churches as it is currently constituted; some of the fundamental questions dealt with by the Special Commission may mark the beginning of new dialogues with Christian fellowships not yet closely associated with the WCC.

The pages that follow will tell the story of the Special Commission and its conclusions, with particular attention to detail in the appendices to the final report. As will become clear, the Special Commission focused its report and recommendations on five principal areas: (1) fundamental ecclesiological differences; (2) ways and means of dealing with ecumenical statements on social and ethical issues; (3) matters relating to worship at ecumenical conferences; (4) questions concerning decision-making procedures in the WCC and its governing bodies; and (5) criteria for membership and representation of the churches in the WCC.

In order to record the report as it was adopted unanimously by the Special Commission and submitted to the WCC central committee, as well as the actions, including amendments, adopted following lengthy discussion by the central committee, the resolution voted by the central committee is presented in this issue of The Ecumenical Review separately from the text of the report as approved by the Special Commission. An informational resource providing answers to "Frequently Asked Questions" was prepared by the staff of the WCC following the meeting of the central committee.

The articles in this volume approach the final report of the Special Commission from the perspectives of four dedicated ecumenists. Peter Bouteneff, an Orthodox scholar, accompanied the Special Commission throughout its work and made himself available to the media and other interested observers at the central committee meeting of 2002 as an interpreter of the text and the issues it raises; his article serves as an introduction, or reader's guide, to the final report. Two bishops of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) provide widely divergent viewpoints on the effect of the Special Commission's recommendations to the World Council of Churches. Heinz Joachim Held, writing before the central committee's action on the report, expresses profound appreciation that the Special Commission had listened so carefully to Orthodox voices, taken them seriously and sought creative solutions to long-standing problems. Margot Kassmann, writing after the final report had been received by the WCC, explains why she felt it necessary to resign in protest from the WCC central committee; her misgivings at recommendations in the final report have been echoed by other concerned participants in the life of the ecumenical movement, and the questions she raises are fundamental to the next phase of dialogue within the fellowship of the WCC. Finally, Janice Love exercises her wisdom as a political scientist in a review of the final report's proposal for a new approach to decision-making by consensus; an abbreviated version of this article has appeared in the Christian Century of November 2002. These authors offer a hint of the robust yet thoughtful discussion that the Special Commission's proposals will continue to generate between now and the meeting of the ninth assembly of the WCC scheduled for 2006 in Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Contrary to the implications of some criticisms of the World Council following the reception of the Special Commission's report, the action adopted by the central committee is by no means a matter of either Orthodox or Protestant churches gaining an upper hand. On the contrary, never before have the WCC and its member churches faced up to the fundamental issues of membership so seriously or honestly. We look forward to continuing dialogue in that spirit. The Special Commission has initiated a process that could lead to a change in our institutional culture, to extension of the ecumenical table, to improvement in the way Christian churches relate with one another and, finally, to renewal in their witness and ministry to a world torn by division, suspicion and violence.

(1) W.A. Visser 't Hooft, Genesis and Formation of the WCC, Geneva, WCC, 1982, p. 1.

(2) Morris West, "Toronto Statement", Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, 2nd ed., N. Lossky et al. eds, Geneva, WCC, 2002, pp. 1137-39.

(3) Vasil T. Istavridis, "The Orthodox Churches in the Ecumenical Movement 1948-1968", A History of the Ecumenical Movement, vol. 2, Harold E. Fey, ed., Geneva, WCC, 1970, p.306.

(4) Eugene Carson Blake, "The World Council of Churches: East-West Relations 1966-1972", Voices of Unity, Ans J. van der Bent, ed., Geneva, WCC, 1981, pp.l-10.

(5) Tobor Sabev, The Sofia Consultation: Orthodox Involvement in the World Council of Churches, Geneva, WCC, 1982.

(6) Metropolitan Kirill, "A Possible Structure for the World Council of Churches: Proposals for Discussion", ER, 51, 4, 1999, pp.351-54.