Towards a common understanding and vision: a faith and order perspective.

Tanner, Mary

Every organization needs periodically to review its purposes and function in the light of both its past experience and its expectations for the future. The "end of the ecumenical century", the eve of a new millennium, and the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the World Council of Churches make this an appropriate time for churches together to restate a common understanding and vision of the World Council of Churches. The central committee, its executive committee, the officers and staff of the World Council should be congratulated on their attempt to draw many individuals, member churches, ecumenical partners and commissions and committees of the Council into the eight-year reflective process which lies behind the policy statement Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of Churches (CUV) which was adopted by the central committee in September 1997.(1)

The Faith and Order commission, as one of the founding movements of the WCC, has understandably been keen to respond to the invitation to be involved in the process and to comment upon successive drafts of the maturing text. Any attempt to restate an understanding and vision of the World Council necessarily touches closely upon the specific mandate of the Faith and Order commission:

to proclaim the oneness of the church of Jesus Christ and to call

the churches to the goal of visible unity in one faith, and one

eucharistic fellowship expressed in worship and in common life in

Christ in order that the world may believe.

The Faith and Order commission understands itself as entrusted with the task of keeping alive the vision of visible unity at the centre of the work and life of the WCC. Much time, both in a small group set up for the purpose and also within annual board meetings, has been devoted to offering comments upon drafts of the CUV document. Some in the commission would say that this, together with a constant struggle since Canberra to understand the cumbersome structures of the Council in order to work effectively and cooperatively within them, has diverted too much of Faith and Order's attention from its major studies. Many of the commission's concerns are now reflected in the policy statement. If all this effort results in a clearer expression of the Council's motivating vision and an understanding of the constitutive parts of its agenda, and if more workable and effective structures for the Council emerge, then the time will have been well spent by all.

The title of the policy statement, Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the WCC, suggests that readers should expect to find in it at least two things: a statement of the vision that motivates the World Council in its work and relationships; and aescription of the agenda and structure which will most effectively enable the churches to work together and to be together on the way towards realizing that vision.

Clarifying the vision

What then does the policy statement offer by way of restating and clarifying the vision or goal or calling of the World Council? This is, arguably, the most crucial matter, for without some articulation of the raison d'etre of an organization neither its agenda, nor its structure, nor its relationships are likely to be clear. The restatement of a common vision by the churches -- or at least as much as can be claimed together -- is needed urgently today if the ecumenical movement is to withstand new challenges, not least the challenge of fragmentation. Disappointingly, for all the many good things contained in it, the policy statement does not offer a sufficiently clear statement of vision which would provide the rationale for the diverse agenda of the Council and the reason for a particular WCC structure.

An earlier version of the text, A Working Draft for a Policy Statement, issued in 1996, contained a promising preamble entitled "Vision Statement of the Member Churches of the WCC". This was a concise two-page statement which set out an emerging portrait of the unity of the church. This vision provided a rationale for the existence of the WCC and a basis for the detail which followed about agenda, structure and ecumenical relationships. The separation of the vision statement from the policy statement has weakened the policy statement's claim to be a text "Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the WCC". The reason for this separation can be explained. In 1995 the executive committee agreed that "a process of consultation should aim at preparing a document for the eighth assembly which might serve as an `ecumenical charter' for the 21st century". In 1996 the draft Towards a Common Understanding and Vision was described as a document "for presentation to the 1997 central committee and subsequent submission to the eighth assembly in 1998". This at least gave the impression that the Harare assembly would be the body to approve the statement. However, the action of the central committee in "adopting" the policy statement in September 1997 had the effect of modifying the process. It was at this point that the vision statement was cut loose from the policy statement. The policy statement became the basis for immediate reforms such as the amending of the rules for the operation of the central committee and the approval of a new programme and management structure of the WCC. It is easy to understand, in light of the pressures upon the WCC, both financial and structural, that reform was urgent. A policy statement was needed to provide the basis for more immediate reform. Nevertheless, the consequent effect of divorcing vision from policy has weakened the original promise of the overall CUV process.

In spite of the lack of a clearly stated vision at the outset there are, scattered through the policy statement, references to the vision, or goal, or calling of the ecumenical movement. The calling is grounded, according to paragraph 2.5, in two biblical passages which the WCC has sought creatively to integrate: John 17:21 and Ephesians 1:10. These two perspectives bring together the vision "may they all be one so that the world may believe" with the vision of God's plan "to gather up all things in heaven and on earth". The policy statement comments that "the effort to integrate these two biblical visions has been challenged by a continuing tension and sometimes antagonism between those who advocate the primacy of the social dimension of ecumenism and those who advocate the primacy of spiritual or ecclesial ecumenism". Sadly, there is no confident rebuttal of this perceived but false dichotomy which has bedevilled the overall work of the Council.

In another place the goal that the WCC is called to serve is stated as:

the goal of visible, unity in one faith and in one eucharistic fellowship

expressed in worship and in common life in Christ, [seeking] to

advance towards that unity in order that the world may believe (3.3 cf.

also 3.10).

Later on the churches are said to be working "towards koinonia in faith, life and witness" (3.5.2), quoting the theme of the fifth world conference on Faith and Order held in 1993. But this is never explored in the light of the insights of that world conference.

Although in places the policy statement does refer to the vision, or calling, or goal, of the WCC there is no sustained attempt to express the "motivating vision" which the title might lead the reader to expect to find in this document. This will be disappointing to some churches for, at the invitation of central committees, Faith and Order has in the past provided assemblies with reflections on the goal of visible unity which have emerged from its work and from the work of other parts of the Council. Moreover, these statements have gained support in many member churches. The New Delhi vision of the "all in each place" linked to the "all in every place" by a common faith and a common eucharist, with a corporate life reaching out in witness and service, continues to inform many churches. They still work with the Uppsala vision of conciliar fellowship, a life which would be a "sign" of the doming unity of humankind, a sign which has its model and source in the life of the triune God and in the self-giving love of the incarnate Son of God. The Nairobi vision, with its stress on the marks of conciliar fellowship -- the common faith, baptism, eucharist and ministry and conciliar gatherings -- was a breakthrough for some churches. The Vancouver assembly showed how a life of shared faith, sacraments, ministry and conciliar fellowship is inseparable from the offering of God's reconciliation to the world, action for healing the brokenness of humanity, and the shedding of the light of the gospel in a world of conflict. The eucharistic vision of Vancouver encompassed the whole reality of Christian worship, life and witness. It united the unity and renewal of the church with the vocation to work for the healing and destiny of human community. The church is called to be "a prophetic sign", a prophetic community through which, and by which, transformation of the world can take place. Here was a vision of unity which was broad enough to provide a rationale for all the necessary diverse and creative agenda of a World Council of Churches, one which challenged all attempts to advocate either "the primacy of social dimensions of ecumenism" or "the primacy of spiritual ecumenism".

The Canberra statement of 1991, the only such statement adopted by that assembly, provided the most up-to-date, concise portrait of visible unity: "The Unity of the Church as Koinonia: Gift and Calling". The unity of the church, which the World Council is called to serve, is here set within the purpose of God to gather the whole of creation under the lordship of Christ, into communion with God. The church is understood as the foretaste here and now of the communion of God's kingdom. The church's calling is to proclaim reconciliation, to work to break down divisions of human community and to uphold the integrity of God's creation. The church's unity is expressed and nurtured in its confession of the apostolic faith, a common sacramental life, a reconciled ministry, a common mission. This communion is expressed on the "local and universal levels through conciliar forms of life and action". The church's life is one where rich diversities, born out of response to cultural contexts, flourish. At the same time, for the sake of unity, limits to diversity are recognized, that is, when the common confession of Jesus Christ is threatened or the proclamation of salvation rendered invalid. One strength of the Canberra statement is the way it relates the path towards unity to the goal of unity. The degree of communion experienced by churches now, as they share in common prayer and common witness for justice, peace and the care of creation, is a foretaste of the goal of full communion -- of eschatological reality. It is this way to unity that the WCC is called to serve.

The Canberra statement was a product of its time. The first draft was the work of Faith and Order but what emerged from the Canberra assembly went beyond the work of Faith and Order, reflecting new insights and experiences from the JPIC programme as well as the Spirit-filled theme of the assembly. In spite of its weaknesses, it was a powerful statement for the early 1990s and one which could have provided a basis for holding together the diverse aspects of the agenda of the WCC in the period after Canberra.

Within the Faith and Order commission's work since Canberra new insights have been discerned about visible unity, dimensions which should contribute further to the development of the portrait of unity not least in the understanding of conciliarity and conciliar fellowship. Some of these insights were expressed at the fifth world conference in 1993, whose theme and work was directed precisely towards an exploration of where the ecumenical movement is and where it is going. These new insights owed much to the work on ecclesiology and ethics, collaborative work done with WCC Unit III.(2) The vision of the church as what was called "moral community" contributes to a more credible portrait of visible unity for the ecumenical movement as it moves into a new millennium, seeking to be turned outwards and not in upon itself. The picture could be further enriched with other insights: from Unit II on gospel and culture; from Unit IV on the servant church; and, not least, from Unit I on spirituality.

The challenge now to Faith and Order is to find a way within the Harare assembly itself, and in the period beyond within a re-structured World Council, to work together with others to deepen a common understanding of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, its life and its mission. What sort of church in and for the world is God calling us to be in the next millennium? As one young lay person recently put it:

Christian unity is not simply desirable for the sake of internal efficiency;

or to make things more pleasant; or to free our consciences from

guilt concerning the way we treat fellow Christians; or to help us to

stand firm against the world; or to make us speak with one voice

in public. It is desirable in order to stop us going round in circles and

make us look outside to the world. Church unity, through life in the

Spirit, is evidence of God at work in the world. And as such, it is one

of the most powerful works of mission we can perform.(3)

Faith and Order's current work towards a convergence statement on "The Nature and Purpose of the Church" should make an important contribution.(4) A preliminary draft is likely to be available in time for the Harare assembly.

To emphasize the need for a vision is not the same thing as calling for a precisely drawn blueprint of visible unity. A portrait can now only be suggestive of that life of unity which Christians together have already heard and seen and tasted, and which they are committed to embrace more fully as the gracious gift of God to his people. As together we get hold at a deeper level of that to which we are called, we are more likely to understand the role and place of all ecumenical structures, including the WCC as a "privileged instrument" of the ecumenical movement.

Having expressed some disappointment at the separation of vision from policy in the policy statement, it is only fair to acknowledge that the executive committee in February 1998 approved a draft statement Our Ecumenical Vision, a text waiting to be claimed by the Harare assembly. It contains within its four short stanzas a vision of the sort of church Christians are called to be. It remains to be seen how central this will be to the assembly and how the agenda of the Council in the next years will flow from this vision, how the experience within the fellowship of churches will be a foretaste here and now of that vision, and how the new agendas will work to promote that vision.

A common understanding

The second purpose of the policy statement, according to its title, is to state something about the understanding of the World Council of Churches itself. This entails a reflection upon the quality of life experienced within the "fellowship", the functions, structures and membership of the WCC.

The policy statement is particularly helpful in exploring what churches have learned together in the last five decades about what it means to be a "fellowship of churches". It recognizes that different views about the fellowship exist among the churches. The policy statement is right to insist that the use of the term "fellowship" in the Basis suggests that the Council

is more than a mere functional association of churches set up to organize

activities in areas of common interest... The WCC as a fellowship of

churches does pose to its members what the Ecumenical Patriarchate has

called the "ecclesiological challenge": to clarify the meaning and the

extent of the fellowship they experience in the Council, as well as

the eschatological significance of koinonia which is the purpose

and aim of the WCC but not yet a given reality.

The policy statement quotes the "eight positive assumptions" given in the Toronto statement for understanding the life of the churches together. These contain important Christological statements and deserve to be re-affirmed but to these might be added pneumatological and trinitarian statements which have emerged in the work of the Council in the years since 1950. Churches together are now in a much stronger position than in 1950 to find their common wellspring deep in a trinitarian source -- a source which holds the crucified life forever at its heart. The understanding of trinitarian communion (koinonia) as fundamental to the life of the church is a common affirmation today, not least because of the influence of the Orthodox churches within the fellowship of churches of the WCC. It provides a basis for an integrated ecumenical ecclesiology.

Reference to the Canberra statement at this point could have helped to take the discussion about "the fellowship" further. The Canberra statement talks of the recognition of a "certain degree of communion" already existing between the churches. This is the fruit of the active presence of the Holy Spirit in the midst of all who believe in Christ Jesus and who struggle for visible unity now.

The work that Faith and Order has done on unity in baptism in its study on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, as well as its work on the common confession of the apostolic faith, might have helped towards an understanding of the nature of the fellowship already experienced, a fellowship based upon a common faith and baptism and experienced in common witness and mission. More recent work on ecclesiology and ethics has challenged the churches to name that which they experience together as they witness to the gospel in responding to ethical and social dilemmas of today's world. Above all, in the experience of sharing in worship -- for some, though not all, in the offering and receiving of eucharistic hospitality -- fellowship is experienced and needs to be named. It was these things which led the Faith and Order board to press the question, what is the "ecclesiological significance" in all of this? This is not the same as asking that "ecclesial reality" be identified in such ecumenical experiences. It is important to recall an aspect of the Toronto statement which is not as well known today as it deserves to be, namely its insistence that "the WCC is not and never must become a superchurch". Nevertheless it is as churches together are helped to name and claim what already exists in their belonging to one another in the fellowship, that they are given the confidence to face the challenges posed by those things that continue to divide them and the courage to go on working for visible unity.

The policy statement describes nine things which belonging to the fellowship of churches means. These describe the cost entailed in belonging to the fellowship. Each WCC member church would do well to examine its commitment in light of these descriptions and to ask: Are we willing to deal with disagreement, treating contentious issues as matters for common theological discernment? Are we willing to be questioned about our fidelity to the fundamentals of the faith, to see our local or regional concerns in the context of global reality, to give serious consideration to what the fellowship as a whole determines and to take seriously the convergence reached in theological dialogue? Are we prepared to respond to the needs of other members in the fellowship, to desist from any activity that is competitive evangelism, to enter a fellowship of prayer and to play our part in resourcing the common life of the fellowship? These "costly implications" of belonging to the fellowship are vital if churches are to stay together and to be converted together into the image and likeness of the God who calls them to be one.

There is a further and more difficult question that needs to be faced by WCC member churches if the fellowship is to be deepened. It is fashionable to talk of mutual accountability. But what sort of accountability does each church owe its partners within the fellowship of the churches of the WCC? Mutual accountability means listening to others, attempting to understand their point of view, recognizing the integrity of those who hold different opinions, even practising restraint on a matter as the fellowship discerns the mind of Christ for the church today. Mutual accountability means being prepared to issue reports and statements where each member can find its view within the common statement in a way which does not lead to "minority statements" set over against the common mind. It is a sign of mature accountability when this is achieved as a mark of fellowship. This is not a cry for "anything goes" but for recognition of the integrity of those who, in an ongoing process of discernment, do sometimes hold diametrically opposed views. The fellowship of the World Council provides an "ecumenical space" for discernment regarding issues which are hard matters within churches as well as between churches. This has been from the beginning a special concern for the Orthodox churches. In the late 1950s David Tustin, a distinguished Anglican ecumenist, wrote:

I consider it to be an unfortunate development that the Eastern

Orthodox delegation should have to express itself through a minority

report. It is better that the Orthodox witness should be made this way

than not at all, but this is a sign that the Orthodox standpoint is in

constant danger of being swamped by Protestant opinion in the WCC.(5)

It is not only the Orthodox who find themselves in this position. Anglican delegates to the Canberra assembly identified with this due to the way the assembly handled the debate and statement on the Gulf war.

The implications of mutual accountability must be addressed if the churches are to stay together in fellowship and face together contemporary dilemmas of faith and moral life. Accountability is a more credible notion for those who are convinced that they share a common purpose and a common goal. The churches will need to accept the costliness of mutual accountability in the years to come. Without this, expressions of our intention to "stay together" will be empty words and some may even leave the fellowship.

Institution

This leads to what is said in the policy statement about the Council as organization. "The WCC as an institution must not be paralyzed by institutionalism." This is well said, for wrong structures inhibit creativity and restrict growth. So much of what is said about structures which call for maximum representation, participation, transparency, reflection and deliberation is welcome and reflects the unique and enriching experience churches have had within the fellowship of the WCC. What is of particular significance for Faith and Order is what is said about the need for coordination and coherence of the diverse activities of the World Council and their theological basis, rather than the advocacy of particular interests and agendas in isolation, the kind of advocacy which maintain familiar dichotomies between "church unity concerns" and "social justice concerns", between the pastoral task and the prophetic task, mission and dialogue, relationships and programme. Here again the need for an integrating vision to hold together diverse agendas and interests is vital. As the fifth world conference on Faith and Order said in its message to the churches:

There is no turning back, either from the goal of visible unity or from

the single ecumenical movement that unites concerns for the unity of

the church and concern for engagement with the struggles of the world.(6)

The policy statement refers to the need for a reformulation of the purposes and functions of the WCC as it reaches its fiftieth anniversary. The formulation offered in the "Working Draft for a Policy Statement" (1996) was particularly helpful and clearer than that in the present policy statement. The earlier draft showed how the primary purpose of the WCC is for the churches in the WCC to call one another to the goal of visible unity. The emphasis was on the vocation of the churches themselves rather than on an ecumenical structure understood as being in some sense apart from the churches. The earlier draft helpfully separated the functions to be pursued from those relationships to be nurtured by churches in fulfilment of their calling to visible unity. The list of functions went beyond the Nairobi explication, building on the insights of work and experience in the period since that assembly in 1975. It is to be hoped that the clarity of the earlier draft will be drawn upon in any restatement of the purposes and functions of the WCC.

New structures for the future must ensure that the necessary specificity of the ecumenical tasks -- shared mission, shared service, concern for the ethical dilemmas of our times, shared worship, relations with other faiths, theological engagement -- are not set over against one another. The past period has often been marked by unnecessary rivalries and falsely perceived dichotomies. But even as we safeguard the necessary specificity of tasks, we must more intentionally pursue the fundamental interrelation of agendas which all contribute to the one goal. For Faith and Order it has often been collaborative work -- for example, in the study on the community of women and men in the church and more recently the work on ecclesiology and ethics -- that has led to a richer understanding of that unity which is God's gift and our calling. New WCC structures must ensure not only that its staff work more closely together, but also that the officers entrusted with leadership in the various areas of work meet and come to understand each other's specific concerns. The suggestion that the officers of the different streams will work together within a single WCC programme committee promises a greater unity of purpose and a better understanding of the different parts of the one unity agenda. This is one way of ensuring that Faith and Order is constantly challenged by the insights of other agendas and that it, in turn, can challenge others.

The one ecumenical movement

The policy statement also reflects upon the relationship between the fellowship of churches in the World Council and other partners in the "one ecumenical movement" -- other churches and other ecumenical bodies. This is particularly important for Faith and Order. The commission has worked hard to ensure that the work of the bilateral theological conversations and the multilaterals have not been polarized, as was feared in the 1970s. The new structures must ensure that Faith and Order maintains its relations with the Christian World Communions and with the group of united and uniting churches -- indeed with all its growing number of partners whose considerable achievements on the way to visible unity testify to the "reception" of ecumenical dialogues.

One of the greatest gifts of the Faith and Order commission is the breadth of its membership which extends beyond the fellowship of churches that make up the World Council itself. The contributions of the Pentecostal churches and the Roman Catholic Church make Faith and Order the most representative Christian forum that exists. Throughout the CUV process it has been the expressed hope of many members of Faith and Order that a way would be found, as we enter a new millennium, for the Roman Catholic Church to become a full member of the fellowship of churches at the world level. Until that becomes a reality there will be a certain mismatch between Faith and Order and the structures of the Council: Faith and Order will continue to bear a responsibility to a constituency wider than the membership of the WCC, and will have a particular concern to ensure that the Roman Catholic perspective is represented and heard within the WCC. Moreover, as one distinguished ecumenical theologian has suggested, the lack of reception of Faith and Order's work within the WCC itself may be due in part to the difference in membership between the commission and the World Council.(7)

There are those in Faith and Order who believe that the radical challenge posed by the full membership of the Roman Catholic Church has not been fully faced within the CUV process. What sort of "churches together" at world level would make possible the Roman Catholic Church's participation? The policy statement never explores this. Would the present WCC member churches be prepared for a radical re-formation of the WCC in order to make that possible? Would they be prepared, as some regional councils have been, to accept that authority for decisions and statements remains within the churches and not with an ecumenical fellowship? Would the fellowship be more effective if membership were on the basis of world communions? One great gift of the present fellowship is that it has room for, and gives voice to, smaller churches which belong to no world communion. This has to be safeguarded. But at the same time not having the largest world communion within the fellowship of churches as we enter a new millennium must continue to weaken the fellowship of the churches at world level and make less effective our common Christian witness in a world crying out for healing and reconciliation.

Pope John Paul II again and again encourages the ecumenical movement by expressing the Roman Catholic Church's commitment to nothing less than full visible unity.(8) The Roman Catholic Church contributes much to the ecumenical movement in so many ways, including its involvement in many bilateral dialogues. It is a member of many national councils of churches or their equivalent. The current questioning of some Orthodox churches of the ecumenical or WCC agenda and approach to certain issues might look very different if the Roman Catholic Church were a full member of a fellowship of churches at the world level. The question will not go away.

A living process

This leads to one final reflection. Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the WCC is not so much a document as a living process. The eight years of reflection that led to the policy statement have helped many churches as well as the different streams of the Council's work, including Faith and Order, to clarify and reflect upon issues which are vital for the future of the WCC and of the whole ecumenical movement. We have been helped to position the World Council within the one ecumenical movement, to identify something of the experience we have had together and to glimpse what lies ahead. The policy statement has already provided a basis for structural reform which will strengthen the work and witness of the fellowship of churches.

Although not yet the hoped-for "ecumenical charter" for the next millennium, the policy statement has provided the Harare assembly with a significant background document. The assembly will provide the possibility to bring vision and policy back together. If the goal can be stated more clearly, and if it can be shown how the diverse agenda flows from and supports that vision, then a more coherent and less competitive spirit will characterize the fellowship. If the goal is more convincingly restated the churches may be ready to face up to the cost of mutual accountability. The policy statement is not the last word. It is towards a common understanding and vision of the WCC. It claims no more than that. Faith and Order will continue to play its part in the years ahead by contributing towards the articulation of a vision and understanding of the WCC.

NOTES

(1) Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of Churches: A Policy Statement, Geneva, WCC, 1997.

(2) Koinonia and Justice, Peace and Creation: Costly Unity, Thomas F. Best and Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, eds, 1993; Ecclesiology and Ethics: Costly Commitment, Thomas F. Best and Martin Robra, eds, 1995; Ecclesiology and Ethics: Ecumenical Ethical engagement, Moral Formation and the Nature of the Church, Thomas F. Best and Martin Robra, eds, 1997. All published by WCC, Geneva.

(3) Unpublished sermon, Graeme Richardson, preached at St Matthews, Westminster, London, May 1998.

(4) "The Nature and Purpose of the Church: A Stage on the Way to a Common Statement", Geneva, WCC/Faith and Order, 1998.

(5) David Tustin, "Eastern Orthodox Participation in Ecumenical Conferences", unpublished paper of the late 1950s.

(6) In On the Way to Fuller Koinonia: Official Report of the Fifth Worm Conference on Faith and. Order, Thomas F. Best and Gunther Gassmann, eds, Geneva, WCC, 1994, p.225.

(7) Michael Hurley S J, Christian Unity by 20007, to be published.

(8) See para. 77 of papal encyclical Ut Unum Sint, 1995.

Mary Tanner is general secretary of the Council of the Christian Unity Church of England, in London.