| This piece, contributed as part of a festschrift for Mary Tanner, elaborates specifically on the question of "ecclesiological significance" of councils. This issue was discussed heatedly in the preparation of the WCC’s policy statement "Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the WCC", and is surely a part of the ecclesiological "tensions" or "challenges" at the root of the Orthodox-Protestant encounter since the inception of the WCC. |
It is a great privilege to have been invited to contribute to this Festschrift to honour Dr Mary Tanner. Through her work, Mary has been an inspiration to many of us engaged in the ecumenical movement. She has demonstrated the integrity of concern to seek convergence on hitherto divisive questions which impede the unity of the Church with concern to address the divisive issues of the wider human community. She has inspired many of use through her ability to interrelate the results of bilateral and multilateral dialogues in ways which enable churches to enter new relationships which demonstrate a fuller manifestation of koinonia. Mary has also been one who encourages others in their ecumenical task. While on the staff of the Irish School of Ecumenics in Dublin, I invited Mary to give our annual lecture in Dublin during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity on "My Ecumenical Vision". This personal testimony inspired student, staff and visitor alike to commit themselves to engage in the search for the unity of the Church. Since becoming the Director of the Secretariat of the Commission on Faith and Order in Geneva, Mary as Moderator of the Commission has been a source of personal encouragement and quiet wisdom. Over the period of the past three years, there has been an opportunity to engage in conversation on a number of ecumenical issues. One continuing conversation has been on the issue of the nature and potential of councils of churches.
The following reflections on the ecclesiological understanding of Councils of Churches are personal and belong to this continuing conversation. I have tried to articulate an understanding of councils of Churches, drawing on literature on the subject which has surfaced largely in World Council of Churches discussions on the theme. I have attempted to explore the nature of councils, phrase their character through the development of the idea of "ecumenical space", and offer some reflections on their ecclesiological significance. In undertaking this task, I am conscious of the fact theat there is a constant struggle in councils of churches to realize their character and fully develop their potential.
Councils of Churches are among the most pervasive and significant expressions of the ecumenical movement today. They vary greatly in size, in the number of member churches and in the scope of programmes1 . From local councils of churches in small villages which focus on issues of the local community and on common prayer to the World Council of Churches with its manifold programmes and relationships, councils seek to draw churches to manifest more clearly their real but imperfect koinonia.
A recent discussion paper of the World Council of Churches Office for Church and Ecumenical Relations identified four basic ‘models’ of Councils of Churches. Firstly, some Councils exhibit the classical ‘representative’ model. In this, churches delegate certain tasks to a body to which they appoint their representatives with a mandate to carry out these tasks on behalf of the member churches. Councils therefore have a ‘servant’ role in the implementation of this common agenda, and a ‘leadership’ role insofar as they challenge the churches to break new ground. A variation of this model is that of Christian councils which exhibit the above features but include in their membership Christian organisations and agencies. A second group of councils exhibit the ‘Churches together’ model. This is based on the concept of ‘consensus’. No action is taken unless and until there is agreement. The churches no longer delegate the task to an outside body, but each Church takes responsibility in conjunction with other churches. This model very often includes as a full member the Roman Catholic Church (cf. CCBI and ACTS, CTE, etc. in the United Kingdom). The third type of council is based on the ‘family’ model. In this, Churches are represented through their participation in different Christian traditions or families (e.g. Middle East Council of Churches). The fourth type of council identified in the discussion paper is that of the ‘coalition’ model which is a coalition of groups and churches2 .
Despite this variety, however, councils of churches share common features and perspectives. At the Amsterdam Assembly of the World Council of Churches, Dr Willem Visser’t Hooft defined the World Council of Churches thus:
We are a council of churches, not the Council of the one undivided Church. Our name indicates our weakness and our shame before God, for there can be and there is finally only one Church of Christ on earth. Our plurality is a deep anomaly. But our name indicates also that we are aware of that situation, that we do not accept it passively, that we would move forward towards the manifestation of the One Holy Church. Our council represents therefore an emergency solution - a stage on the road - a body living between the time of complete isolation of the churches from each other and the time - on earth or in heaven - when it will be visibly true that there is one shepherd and one flock.3That definition applies in fact to all councils of churches. Councils exists as instruments of the churches to express their repentance to each other, to seek to overcome their divisions, to give common witness as they move towards manifesting one church which can be "the glimpsed alternative" of the world as God intends it to be.
In the letter to the Ephesians, the author asserts that "we are God’s ‘poema’". While this Greek term is often translated as "God’s handiwork", it is legitimate to hold with the original term. In his recent reflections on the nature of poetry, Seamus Heaney, the Irish Nobel Laureate, speaks of "The Redress of Poetry". The poem, he writes, "is a glimpsed alternative, a revelation of potential that is denied or constantly threatened by circumstances". The importance of the redress of poetry is that the poem is to set a person or a community upright again, to restore it, or re-establish it4 . The poem - the Christian community - is to be a countervailing instrument or event, by presenting a vision of wholeness to challenge what Leonardo Boff has characterized as our "ravaged humanity and environment"5 . The task of the council is to help the churches recognize and embody unity and wholeness thus providing a vision to the world of God’s intention for humankind.
The nature and character of Councils of Churches has been subject to much discussion since Amsterdam, and in many respects the same issues keep re-appearing at every significant point of re-evaluation6 . It is natural and appropriate that such structures and instruments should constantly be the subject of scrutiny as to their function, modes of operation and inclusiveness. In such a process, the nature, mandate and functions of councils are clarified and altered according to the needs of the churches as they grow further in fellowship. Councils of churches are therefore not static organisations but dynamic expressions of fellowship.
Councils afford their member churches a number of opportunities which do not exist apart from involvement in instruments of conciliar fellowship. In the course of my own ecumenical pilgrimage, I have been closely involved in four different councils, all of which were going through a period of radical transition - and as with many of you, I imagine, I was involved in the life of these councils simultaneously. In the late 1970s, the Dublin Council of Churches - a council of congregations of the Protestant Churches - sought to open up a process to invite the Roman Catholic church to enter membership. After protracted discussions this initiative failed since the council was prominent in social and political issues while the Roman Catholic diocese defined ecumenical activity solely in terms of theological dialogue and prayer. In the 1980s, the British Council of Churches went out of existence so that the Council of Churches of Britain and Ireland, which includes the Roman Catholic Church in its membership, might come into existence. In the 1990s, the Irish Council of Churches is undergoing a similar transition, as is the World Council of Churches through its "Common Understanding and Vision" process. The experience of working in, with and for councils of churches has been of involvement in ecclesial instruments which are in turmoil and constant transition, so that they can more adequately fulfil their promise and their purpose. To be involved in a council, therefore, is to experience constant transition so that the growing ‘koinonia’ and greater inclusiveness of the churches might be more appropriately embodied.
Councils - theatres of ecumenical space and time
Councils afford unique opportunities to the Churches to grow towards the fuller manifestation of their koinonia by providing a space in which divisive issues can be explored; by providing a space for "discernment", by providing a space for an integrated vision of unity, and a space for facing unity in the context of the mission of the Church. Councils are dramatic theatres of ecumenical space and time7 .
Councils exist because of the disunity of the Church. They are "spaces" in which issues which divide the churches can be addressed while the fellowship of the churches is maintained. The fellowship of churches does not assume the unity of the Church, but works towards the resolution of conflicts - doctrinal and ethical, e.g. patterns of oversight, human sexuality, so that communion (koinonia) can be strengthened on the way towards the manifestation of visible unity. The council is an expression of the commitment of the member churches "to stay together" while conflicts are being faced.
Councils exist as a space for change in the light of the discernment of the fellowship of churches. In their deliberations, churches are invited to be both self-reflective and self-critical as they engage in deliberation on the common agenda of the Council. In a process of learning from one another, and of receiving insights and perspectives which have not been central to their own lives, their horizons are broadened. As Jean Tillard has noted, Councils are the crucible in which the Churches receive the Gospel afresh8 . The Report of the Venice Consultation on the Significance and Contribution of Councils of Churches in the Ecumenical Movement (1982) asserted: "A Council of Churches provides an ecclesial situation in which inherited values and elements of separated churches are tested and discerned and in which there is a real though imperfect experience of the future diversity of full conciliar fellowship. ... Membership in a council of churches expresses some real measure of mutual recognition and reconciliation of every level of church life."9 The commitment to give fuller expression to the koinonia achieved involves a preparedness to be open to change - to be vulnerable so that the others can be "recognized" and can become more fully part of "our" life. Councils exist as a space for renewal and transformation10 .
Councils provide a space for an integrated vision of visible unity. The World Council of Churches came into existence as a result of the perception that visible unity cannot arise simply on the basis of the resolution of hitherto church-dividing doctrinal issues nor on the basis of common action on political, social, cultural and economic issues. Since the Church is a community of profession of faith, worship, witness and diaconal response to the Word of God, the search for visible unity entails that the churches in fellowship address all of these and recognize the interdependence of those "marks" of the Church11 . Involvement in councils therefore entails that the member churches confront in mutual commitment, solidarity and accountability all the issues of what it means to be Church in the contemporary world, and do all things together except those things that require separate action.
Councils thus also provide a space for placing all these concerns in the context of the mission of the Church. Perhaps more than other ecumenical instruments, e.g. bilateral dialogues and single issue movements, the deliberations in councils invite the fellowship of Churches to discern what it means to be Church participating in the Missio Dei Trinitatis in each place and in all places. Thus, while some bilateral dialogues seek to overcome the different historic polities of the churches involved, councils provide the opportunity to ask: what does it mean to be Church today? what is the most appropriate structure which will allow it to be more truly Church? For example, the study process on the Missionary Structure of the Congregation suggested imaginative new ways of being Church because of the multilateral nature of the enquiry which did not simply seek to reconcile existing patterns of church organization and polity12 .
If the above features of ‘ecumenical space’ help to clarify the nature and role of Councils of Churches and pertain to each of the models or types of council identified earlier, there are also perhaps some specific additional features of ‘ecumenical space’ which can be identified for the World Council of Churches and for Regional and National Councils of Churches.
While the World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches, many of whom are also members of their appropriate national and regional councils - indeed to enter membership of the World Council of Churches entails membership of local and national ecumenical initiatives - it provides a space where churches from different nationals and regions might interrogate each other on their stewardship of the Gospel in each specific situation13 . The World Council also provides a space where churches may express their solidarity with churches in a specific situation who struggle to articulate the Gospel in a time of conflict or transition. Such an ecumenical space reinforces the awareness of the interconnectedness and interdependence of churches in each place and each time. A similar opportunity exists for Regional Councils of Churches.
National Councils of Churches offer a space where after deliberation and decision, the Council acts as a representative on behalf of the churches in relation to the Government. As the World Council of Churches Central Committee at Rochester in 1963 noted:
[a National Council of Churches is] a representative body for the Churches within its own area ... In particular, a Christian council should be able to act in relation to the government of its country, and be recognized by the people as the responsible voice of the churches in that area.Of course, such a role requires the commitment of the Churches’ representatives to the Council if it is to be effective.
Another opportunity which is specific to National Councils of Churches is its responsibility to foster reflection on what it means for the churches to be the church in their particular place. While this has been identified above as belonging to the nature and potential of each council, for National Councils it is the attempt to take seriously the New Delhi and Nairobi visions of the conciliar fellowship of local churches truly united in each place. A particular task emerges for National Councils. With the background of the particular history and cultural ethos of each nation, what does it mean to be church so that the Gospel may address society, and not simply be culturally conditioned by it? What is the most appropriate way of being Church which reflects the reconciling love of God in the specific context? It is therefore important to discuss from time to time the most appropriate profile of unity in each context, particularly as many of the members of a national council are national churches and have the possibility of moving towards the embodiment of unity.
A third particular role for national councils of churches is to encourage the reception of dialogues which have been conducted at international level. It is not sufficient for each individual church to seek to receive and respond to such dialogues. Such a process of reception, while it is necessary in each church, would run the risk of inviting a monological response, arising from a comparative analysis based on confessional symbols. A council of churches provides a space for a more dialogical discussion and conversation on the implications for the growth of the fellowship through the reception of such international agreements. The Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland, for example, has built up an impressive record of helping the churches together to engage in the reception of such bilateral initiatives.
The division and continuation of the division of the Church has been the subject of the history of the action, reaction and separation of different churches within each nation and region. The search for the unity of the Church, and the ability to manifest real but imperfect communion is inhibited by the corporate memories of each community in the light of the actions of others. At times churches have developed theologies and practices-in-opposition which have defined themselves over and against each other14 . These memories need to be addressed in each context if reconciliation, recognition and communion are to be achieved. Such memories also need to be addressed so that dialogues at international level can be received and appropriated. This can and must be done in the national and regional context and provides therefore another specific role for the ‘ecumenical space’ of National and perhaps Regional Councils of Churches.
Challenges to Councils of Churches
Councils then are expressions of the fellowship of member churches which are in constant transition and turmoil. They offer an ecumenical space in which divisive doctrinal and ethical issues may be explored, in which "discernment" may occur, in which an integrated vision of unity is evident and in which the search for visible unity is placed in the context of the mission of the Church. Councils are dramatic theatres of ecumenical space and time. The challenge to Councils of Churches today seem to me to occur in the attempt to seize the opportunities of this "ecumenical space". Many such challenges relate to Councils in each place, while others are specific to local, national and world councils.
One contemporary challenge for councils is to become what they declare themselves to be, namely a fellowship of churches who have committed themselves to a relationship of solidarity and mutual accountability. Too often member churches exist in the ecumenical spaces on their own terms. They bring to the fellowship of churches their own immediate concerns and preoccupations and judge the relevance and the quality of the fellowship itself in the light of these. For many members of the fellowship, the ecumenical space becomes one of monologue rather than dialogue. Because the authority of decisions of Councils lies rightly in whether those decisions are discerned by the Churches as being of God and are enabling the fellowship of churches to manifest more fully real but imperfect koinonia, there is a danger of an "à la carte" attitude to them. One constant struggle for Councils is to encourage the member churches to receive decisions in the light of the needs of the fellowship and to be accountable to the fellowship both by giving an account of how decisions were implemented but also why and how decisions were not received by their church. For this, of course, Councils need to provide opportunities for dialogue and deliberation, rather than simply focussing on decision-making processes.
A second challenge for Councils, then, is to develop appropriate and effective deliberative mechanisms, so that dialogue can become more prominent. Juridical processes very often lead to situations of monologue whereby participants focus their attention on the acceptability and non-acceptability of the measure under discussion for their own constituency.
A third contemporary challenge for Councils is the desire of the fellowship to be more inclusive. In particular, many Councils have been wrestling with how the Roman Catholic Church on the one hand, and Pentecostal-Evangelical Churches on the other might be encouraged to become members. Despite long protracted discussions in the Joint Working Group between the World Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church on the membership issue, the most that has been possible thus far for the Roman Catholic Church has been increased collaboration with the Council. The situation is different in local, national and regional councils where the Roman Catholic Church has entered membership in many instances15 . Similarly a long process of seeking to involve Pentecostal and Evangelical Churches has been occurring in the WCC to eliminate caricatures and misconceptions and to encourage the churches - including WCC member churches - to address the issues of koinonia16 .
Many member churches, focus on particular aspects of the integrated vision of unity - particularly the doctrinal and worship issues. The experience of the British and Irish Councils of Churches also suggests that there is a continuing challenge for councils to appropriate the integrated vision. The WCC has been attempting to do this in its Ecclesiology and Ethics project. To be Church is already to make an ethical statement in society. The challenge is to constantly reflect on ethical, political, social and economic questions in the light of the memory and hope in Jesus Christ, and to participate in God’s reconciling activity.
Ecumenical space and ecclesial space
These, then, are some of the contemporary challenges for Councils as they seek to be more true to the dimensions of ‘ecumenical space’. How far, however, can ‘ecumenical space’ be described also as ‘ecclesial space’? Do Councils of Churches also inhabit ‘ecclesial space’? What is the ecclesiological significance of Councils of Churches?
While the basic understanding of Councils of Churches articulated in the Toronto Statement (1950) emphasises that the World Council of Churches is not a super-Church nor presupposes any understanding of the nature of the Church or of Councils of Churches on the part of the individual members churches (therefore membership does not imply any loss of the self-understanding of the Church by any member church), does this mean that Councils of Churches, as some have averred, are ecclesiologically neutral? The Toronto Statement affirmed that "no church is obliged to change its ecclesiology as a consequence of its membership". Lesslie Newbigin asked in 1951 whether it should not be clearer that such a neutrality is provisional and stressed:
It must be clear that the [Toronto] statement defines the starting-point, and not the way or the goal. Neutrality on the issue of the nature of the Church is necessary as a starting point. To be committed to neutrality as a permanent principle would be to reduce the Council to the position of a debating society...17He went on to propose that it would be better to have stated that "no church is obliged to change its ecclesiology as a condition of membership of the World Council of Churches". Councils are dynamic entities where the churches are challenged, and through common reflection and action grow in fellowship. While the ecclesiological significance resides in the fellowship of churches themselves, Councils have an instrumental18 or a derivative19 ecclesiological significance at the very least.
Councils, however, are not simply instruments of the churches for undertaking common reflection and action,. They are themselves expressions of the real but imperfect koinonia. They exhibit the unity of the Church in via20 , in anticipation21 . Councils have ecclesiological significance, but such an ecclesiology still needs to be developed. Jean Tillard in his paper for the Venice consultation on Councils of Churches, organized by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Faith and Order Commission noted:
Hitherto ecclesiology has not reflected seriously on the ecclesiological status of groups which are moving towards the restoration of koinonia. It knows only two states of the Church of God: the state of communion in organic unity and the state of separation or schism. It has not considered the state of those churches hic et nunc separated but in voto communionis. Of the unity realized by those councils of churches, I shall say that it is a unity in recognition, a unity in via.22He argued that the ecclesiological significance of Councils is predicated on the recognition of each other as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ and members of the Church of God which demands that each reads in the other the features of her own identity and accepts the consequences of that reading. This recognition rests on the certainty that the Church of God is present in other ecclesial groups, at least where some essential conditions are fulfilled. Principal among the essential features is an authentic baptism seeking a faith which bears on the central truths of revelation. It is surely not accidental that the primary statement of the WCC Constitution is that the World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the scriptures... - a fellowship of churches bound together through baptism. This statement from the WCC Constitution also forms the basis of many National councils of Churches. This implies, as Fr Tillard noted, not simply that churches recognize in each other vestigia Ecclesiae because where there is true baptism the Church itself is present though in a greater or lesser degree of fullness. Through incorporation in and recognition of baptism, an identical purpose in mission, indeed, participation in the one mission/ministry of Christ - involving martyria, diakonia and leitourgia - leads not simply to a transitory unity but a germinal unity which has ecclesial density, even though it does not yet constitute the goal aimed at, but remains by definition open to that goal.
On the basis of this, Fr Tillard in a later article, asserted that Councils of Churches have a sacramental basis: "They are the fruit of the Spirit, who keeps the churches in the initial dynamic of baptism which incorporates them into Christ."23 Lukas Vischer also attributes to Councils of Churches ecclesial significance. He stressed that the attributes used in describing the church in the creeds can be applied also to Councils of Churches: "As they bring about fellowship, lead to new obedience, proclaim the universal sovereignty of Christ, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church becomes visible in them."24
Of course, such is a derivative ecclesiology. As Councils enable the churches together to confess the faith together, celebrate the presence of Christ together, and engage in Christian discipleship together - the three Reformation ‘visible marks’ of the Church - so councils have ecclesial significance.
Councils of Churches act as ‘midwives’, according to Gary Peluso in his article "State Ecumenical Organisations: Who owns them?"25 . Councils help Churches to bring to birth that unity which has been given in Christ. But Churches also nourish the growth of that unity. Thus Jean Tillard asserts that Councils exhibit a ‘germinal unity’26 , while Lukas Vischer speaks of Councils ‘bringing to birth (unity) and helping it to grow"27 . Perhaps it is more appropriate to speak of the Council as ‘mother’, rather than as ‘midwife’. A mother gives birth to that which is already within her, while a ‘midwife’ facilitates a process in another. Councils bring to birth that koinonia which is given in Christ and which comes to birth as a new creation. The term ‘mother’, of course, is applied by John Calvin28 and the Fathers of the Church, to the Church itself. On the basis of God’s gracious activity, councils, through the activity of the Holy Spirit, help the churches to embody that unity which is God’s will for the Church so that the Church will truly be the "glimpsed alternative" of God’s intention for humankind. The ecclesiological significance of Councils lies in their bringing to birth and nourishing ‘unity’ - a unity given by God in Jesus Christ which through the Holy Spirit is made manifest as churches exhibit ‘visible unity’. This embodiment of the reconciliation of God in Jesus Christ is the very core of the Gospel itself.
Councils of Churches are a ‘mother’ for the unity of the Church, and as such have ecclesiological significance.
Notes: