Attributing her comments to Paul Knitter, a student in a Christian-Muslim Relations class at Hartford Seminary said recently, “The World Council of Churches doesn’t do theology. They only do dialogue.” Variations on that statement have dogged the WCC for years, and I went to the 9th Assembly in Porto Alegre, Brazil looking for evidence that this was not true and searching out examples of the Council’s increasing theological engagement with people of other faiths. Looking at the interreligious elements present at the 9th Assembly, one can discern whether there is, indeed, substantial interreligious theology coming out of the Council at present. At the same time, it is important to consider some challenges to doing theological interfaith dialogue that are particular to the WCC.

The Office on Interreligious Relations and Dialogue (IRRD), housed within the General Secretariat of the WCC takes primary responsibility for programs relating with people of other faiths. Like other program units within the Council it has a reference group composed of representatives from WCC member churches. This group assists with the guidance and implementation of program planning and execution. The office is committed to providing resources, materials and programs that go beyond mere dialogue to represent the theological concerns at the heart of the Council.

Perhaps one of the most specifically theological endeavors to come from the IRRD office in recent years has been the “Thinking Together” series begun in 2000. This program grew out of a consultation entitled “What difference does religious plurality make?” and brings together theologians from different faith traditions to consider theological questions jointly. They look at difficult texts and issues within their traditions and consider appropriate responses to them. Members of this task force were present as “guests of other faiths” at the Assembly and applauded the work being done in this program. One guest, Deborah Weissman from the Inter-religious Coordinating Council in Israel, commented, “As we have seen in the WCC’s interfaith initiative ‘Thinking Together’ … our religious cultures may indeed contain potentially problematic texts and traditions, but they also contain tools for alternate interpretations of those texts, as well as spiritual and cultural resources for developing a more positive approach to the Other.” i

“Thinking Together” maintains a relatively small core of participants, but a number of larger conferences and consultations prior to the 9th Assembly were concerned with a theological approach to dialogue. The “Critical Moment Conference” held in Geneva the summer of 2005 brought together theologians and activists from around the world to discuss ways in which the WCC can have a greater impact in international interfaith endeavors. Additionally, the “My Neighbor’s Faith and Mine” conference held in November 2005 invited participants to consider questions of identity in light of religious plurality. Taking place less than a year prior to the 9th Assembly, these conferences revealed a deep-seated commitment to interreligious initiatives within the Council.

One important feature of IRRD work leading up to the Assembly is a marked increase in the cooperation across teams within in the Council. Recognizing that interfaith relations is an issue that touches on multiple program areas (Education and Formation, Youth and Women’s issues, Overcoming Violence, etc.), it is heartening to see the interreligious conversation expanding. This is particularly important for theological dialogue as the more theologically minded program units such as Faith and Order and Mission and Evangelism begin to see the need to include interreligious discussion in their work, as well.

Prior to the 9th Assembly all participants received tone-setting documents. Delegates discussed these during business sessions and they formed the basis of possible points for moving the work of the Council forward after the event. The document “Religious Plurality and Christian Self-Understanding” forged jointly from tapping resources in three WCC commissions and advisory bodies: Faith and Order, Mission and Evangelism, and Interreligious Relations, served as a background document at the Assembly. One remarkable element of the document’s generation is that it took place across these three working groups in the Council. The introduction to the piece makes it clear that this task was difficult, but essential. The document states, “It is significant that all three programmatic streams of the WCC converge in dealing with questions that are relevant for a theology of religions. In fact, attempts have been made in recent conferences to deal with, and formulate, positions that take the discussions forward.”ii Such common action indicates that interreligious issues are relevant across units and is particularly important in light of the historical separation between these units. iii

While “Religious Plurality and Christian Self-Understanding” set the stage for discussion in the plenary hall, issues of multi-faith encounter were present elsewhere across the Assembly. The Mutirao sessions provided an opportunity for non-delegate participants to learn about the work of the Council and engage with partners in ministry across a variety of topics. Of the hundred offerings that included art exhibits, dance performances, panel presentations and group discussions, at least fifteen involved interreligious themes. Titles included, “Building Together a Civil Society: Christian-Muslim Encounters in the Middle East”, “Sharing Tales of Exploitation and Heroism: Christians, Muslims and the Empire”, “Faith in Action: An Inter-Faith Dialogue”.iv While the Council was not directly responsible for the content of the Mutirao sessions, it did establish an application process to control the number and types of workshops offered. WCC staff working on the Mutirao schedule indicated that offering a variety of sessions with an interreligious element was a primary goal. By doing this, they sent a message that engaging with people of other faiths was a legitimate concern of world-wide Christians. The response of participants to these sessions also revealed that interreligious concerns are a top priority among the membership.v There was also a permanent space dedicated to groups from other faiths. This room was coordinated by a local interfaith group in Brazil and offered pamphlets and information about other traditions in the region as well as interreligious activities conducted there.

As they often took place during business or plenary sessions, delegates were not able to participate in many of the Mutirãos. They were invited to delve more deeply into key issues of the WCC through a series of specially designed “Ecumenical Conversations”. These sessions, intended specifically for delegates and meant to inform the Council business, offered a deeper dialogue on topics of particular importance for member churches. Rapporteurs in these sessions reported back on the issues discussed with the understanding that the feedback would help in determining the future work and focus of the Council. These conversations were divided into three sessions across three days. Among the dozen conversations offered was one entitled “Religious Plurality is Embraced and Feared”.

The first session in this conversation focused on ways in which religious plurality is embraced. During this Wesley Ariarajah offered opening remarks and brought out a number of essential themes. He outlined the current pressure Christians around the world feel to live in mutual relationship (as opposed to living in mere tolerance or in isolation) and questioned how Christians, then, define themselves in this “irreducible plurality”. This is a crucial question for the WCC to consider as it represents over 330 member churches each with its own distinct theological interpretation of what it means to be “Christian”. In articulating concerns for interfaith dialogue in the ecumenical movement, Ariarajah also asked, “Who speaks for our religions?” Reflecting on this, he highlighted the need to allow dialogue to inform the way Christians articulate their faith and bridge the gap between theological and “grassroots” dialogue. Oftentimes ecumenical groups and ecclesiological organizations focus on one or the other of these types of dialogue. Crossing this divide to “un-institutionalize” dialogue is a particular challenge ahead of the Council. Yet, if it can bring the theological conversations out of the board rooms with church bureaucrats and into the “dialogue of life” then the grassroots activists will feel that the church leaders are relevant to their lives and the theologians will understand the issues in a lived context.

One delegate’s statement following this first presentation cut to the heart of the theological issues that challenge the Council’s ability to engage in theological dialogue. An American Orthodox priest stood up and spoke to the issue of absolute truth claims saying that to yield on these “fragments the traditions engaged in dialogue” and allows participation only from those who are willing to “relativize” the absolute truth claims within their traditions. His inability to allow for common truth across traditions dynamically affects the dialogue that is possible. He thought he was speaking in the spirit of acceptance as he suggested that individuals look for “parallel truth claims” on which dialogue may be based. But, one must wonder whether there is a qualitative difference implied here. Parallel claims are not shared or joined. Rather they run alongside each other, never intersecting, and always maintaining a safe distance.

This priest’s statements make it clear that he does not see unity among traditions’ truth claims. At the same time, he seems to imply that there is truth within other traditions that is at least similar to the truth he finds in Orthodox Christianity. His argument is reminiscent of the “Push-me-Pull-me” in the Doctor Doolittle children’s books. This was a creature with heads on either end of its body so that one side is being constantly pushed or pulled by the other. This Orthodox theologian pushes for independent, unyeilding truth claims, but also pulls others into the conversation by allowing that their truth is “parallel”. I am uncomfortable with this as it keeps “the other” at a distance and gives a false sense of acceptance in dialogue.

Session two of the Ecumenical Conversation revolved around issues of fear in religious plurality. This time the primary presenter was Archbishop Josiah Idowu-Fearon a Christian from Nigeria who spoke specifically about Christian-Muslim relations in his country. He began his talk with an overview of theological problems he faces: exclusivity, conversion, and salvation in Christ alone. His Muslim colleagues recognize at least two of these as analogous theological issues in their work. Archbishop Idowu-Fearon combats inter-religious fear in his war-torn country by making a public display of his interreligious commitment and conducting earnest educational campaigns. He and his Muslim colleagues preach in each other’s houses of worship and team-teach institutes on respect, understanding and shared missions. The group’s comments and questions following this presentation led the conversation in a theological vein. A Jewish observer called for keeping theological issues in the dialogical mix of encounters, and a Buddhist guest invited participants to consider that Christ’s uniqueness does not necessarily imply His universal relevance. Her comment introduced a Christological challenge and pushed the theological envelope for some participants.

Session three was meant to focus on relating the Assembly theme to the Council’s work with people of other faiths, “God, in your grace, transform our approach to Religious Plurality”. Unfortunately, the conversation was essentially hijacked by the many participants who had comments and questions yet unheard from the previous days. During session three, the rapporteurs offered a draft of their report to the Assembly which summarized the comments and responses of the two prior sessions. It was clear from this that the conversation yielded little in terms of forging new ground of theological dialogue. Yet, it did affirm the need to keep such conversations going.

In between Ecumenical Conversations two and three, Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams addressed the Assembly in the plenary “Christian Identity and Religious Plurality”. His address positioned Christians in a “promising and deeply risky” world. He stated that by asking oneself whether s/he can also see what “the other” sees, Christians create a helpful alternative to coercive dialogue or religious debate. Referring to the standard Hickian tri-part typology, he said, “Exclusivism is impossible”. He went onto explain that Jesus is open to all people – none among us has the “map” to show the boundaries of Christ’s reach or the “key to lock others out”. While this gives the impression of a firm commitment to pluralism, his further statements tended to run more along the inclusivist camp. In asking, “Who has not see a reflection of what Christians should be in interfaith dialogue?” some saw him as promoting the concept of anonymous Christianity. Additionally, the Assembly newspaper reported on his comments in a way that deepened the inclusivist sentiment:

Speaking at a press conference after the plenary session, the Archbishop said that two approaches to interreligious dialogue were unhelpful. One was to claim an exclusive possession of the truth, while the other was to lose confidence in one’s faith and ‘slip into a world-view that assumes every religion is as good as another’. vi

Two theologians responded to Rowan William’s address. They, too, seemed to struggle with theological questions arising from personal interfaith relationships and deep-rooted Christology. One, for example, commented, “My Muslim and Buddhist neighbors may not know the name Jesus, but I believe God had found a path for himself to them.”vii From her other comments it seemed that she understood it to be the Triune God who had “found a path” to her non-Christian friends.

Guests of other faiths were introduced to the Assembly during this plenary, but few had the opportunity to speak. Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan sent a videotaped message that was played. In it he called for Christians to join with Muslims in a common language of peace to combat sectarian in-fighting and offer a “humanitarian pluralism”.viii

While the working document on religious plurality was not meant for approval, the Assembly did adopt a “Minute on mutual respect, responsibility and dialogue with people of other faiths”. This statement acknowledges the need for the “international community” to foster “respectful dialogue and cooperation” among people of different faith traditions. The minute touches on specific complicating issues around the world: the interplay of religion and politics, the publication of the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, violations of human rights, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The action points called for in the minute are worth mentioning, but are also neither weighty nor overly action-oriented. They include:

• Ask[ing] member churches … to express and demonstrate solidarity to those who are experiencing attacks on their religion and join them in defending the integrity of their faith by non-violent means.
• Recommend[ing] all member churches … contribute to the creation of platforms for dialogue … and address … social, economic and political reasons for division, including interaction with governments and secular authorities.
• Urg[ing] member churches … in contexts where religion interacts with politics in a way which causes division to deepen dialogue with leaders of other faiths, seek common approaches and develop common codes of conduct.
• Call[ing] on member churches … to continue to address racism, caste, stereotyping and xenophobia … [to] nurture a culture of respect and tolerance.x

None of these really wrestles with theological issues, and it remains to be seen how the action on the proposals will be accounted for – if at all.

The weakness of the adopted minute and presentation of the religious plurality document as a work-in-progress rather than as a new statement about relating to people of other faiths is reflective of the challenging history the Council has faced in its interreligious work. Founded in 1948 largely out of a student movement to advance the cause of church unity at the end of the Second World War, the WCC enjoys membership from the most diverse assemblage of Christian communions in the world. Bringing together at least 348 denominations, the WCC unites the voices of moderate, liberal and conservative, Orthodox, Independent and Protestant. These voices have often clashed when it comes to questions of religious plurality.

This diversity in membership brings richness to the WCC’s initiatives. Yet, at the same time, this ecclesiological diversity also creates by its very nature a challenge in formulating a theological statement that all member churches will endorse. This is true not only of interfaith initiatives, but also of other theological endeavors. This issue is made manifest most notably in the Council’s inability to hold an ecumenical Eucharistic service. Thus, the interreligious endeavors of the Council have been marked by this difficulty to find a common theological voice long before the 9th Assembly. Additionally, the WCC grew out of ecumenical missionary movements in the early twentieth century and this carried with a predilection against an openly pluralistic approach to interreligious relations. Conservative and evangelical members have made a bumpy road for the Council’s activity around interfaith relations throughout the years.

Moving a behemoth of an organization such as the WCC from a place of exclusivism to a place of dialogue takes time. Similarly, moving from a place of dialogue to a place of universal salvation as the Assembly document “Religious Plurality and Christian Self-Understanding” suggests takes more time still. In its history, the Council has met a strong backlash when interreligious issues have cropped up without the full support of member churches.xi The WCC may not yet be in a place where all of its members can embrace a compassionate interreligious theology, but at the very least it is offering a public welcome to neighbors of other faiths. The genius of the working document presented at the 9th Assembly is that it sewed seeds of interreligious theology without forcing an up or down vote on the issue. To do so would have surely resulted in its defeat.

Presenting the document for consideration and peppering the Assembly with visible signs of interreligious cooperation were effective ways of modeling interfaith relationships without forcing them on the delegates. The 9th Assembly will not go down in the annals of interfaith history as a ground breaking event for furthering the cause of religious pluralism, but the Council is on the right track to keep interreligious issues as a key topic for the work ahead.

Ms Christy Lohr, former Coordinator of the Multifaith Ministry Education Consortium, currently serves on the Board of Directors for the North American Interfaith Network. She is studying at Hartford Seminary where she also coordinates an interactive survey on interfaith education to catalogcatalogue what is taking place in international communities launched by The World Council of Churches’ Education and Ecumenical Formation program and Hartford Seminary.

Bibliography
Cracknell, Kenneth. In Good and Generous Faith. Peterborough: Epworth Publishing, 2005.

Goddard, Hugh. A History of Christian-Muslim Relations. Chicago: New Amsterdam Books, 2000.

World Council of Churches. Handbook: Ninth Assembly, Porto Alegre, February 2006. Geneva: WCC Publications, 2005.

________. Programme Book: Ninth Assembly, Porto Alegre, February 2006, Geneva: WCC Publications, 2005.

________. “Third Report of the Public issues committee”, WCC document number PIC 3. Geneva: WCC Publications, 2005

________. Transforma O Mundo, World Council of Churches 9th Assembly Newspaper. February 18, 2006.

Footnotes
i. “Messages from other faiths,” Transform O Mundo, World Council of Churches 9th Assembly Newspaper, February 18, 2006, p. 7.
ii. Programme Book (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2005),, p158.
iii. Kenneth Cracknell outlines this history particularly well in In Good and Generous Faith pp. 180-209.
iv. This list is partial as it represents only Mutirãos presented in English. There were also interfaith workshops in Portuguese not included in this count.
v. Many Mutirãos with interfaith themes were filled to overflowing.
vi. “The promise and risk of inter-religious dialogue,” Transforma O Mundo, February 18, 2006, p. 7.
vii. Ibid.
viii. “Messages from other faiths,” Transforma O Mundo, February 18, 2006, p. 7.
ix. “Third Report of the Public issues committee”, WCC document number PIC 3, p 22.
x. Ibid., 23-24.
xi. The 5th Assembly in Nairobi was the first to have guests of other faiths. Controversy arose when one was denied his request to address the delegates. Chung Hyun Kyung scandalized some delegates at the 7th Assembly in Canberra when she invoked Kwan Yin, the Buddhist goddess, in her plenary address. Staff and delegates present at these Assemblies talk about them with regret even today.

Next article
Table of contents