| A meeting in 1994 gathered the general secretaries of the WCC and REO’s to discuss, among other matters, emerging models being adopted by councils of churches. Of particular relevance were the changes, e.g., in the UK, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. The paper below was conceived as a resource document for reflection and discussion. |
During the meeting of the REO-WCC General Secretaries Group in September 1994 the question of various models of councils of churches (national, regional) came up. After some exchange of views on the issue it was agreed that a day should be set aside in the programme of the next meeting of the Group (November 1995) for a fuller discussion; the WCC was asked to draft a preparatory paper and possibly to convene a small meeting as an intermediate step to prepare for the November discussion. This task was entrusted to the Office of Church and Ecumenical Relations.
The present paper is a first attempt at summarizing existing models of councils and identifying possible directions for discussion and exploration. It draws on a wealth of material that is available. However, while much has been said about the nature and function of councils of churches over the past thirty years, it would seem that less attention has been given ecumenically to the specific question of "models".
I. Models of councils
1. The "representative" model. This is the "classical" model in which the member churches delegate certain tasks to a body to which they appoint their representatives with the mandate to carry out those tasks on behalf of the churches. At the first international consultation of NCCs in 1971 in Geneva, councils were described as both servants and leaders of the churches. The "servant" function of the council was to implement the common agenda set by the churches; the "leader" function was to challenge the churches to break new ground. The 1971 consultation underlined the need to hold the two functions together and stressed the importance of the "leader" role of a council.
It is probably correct to say that this representative model with its two functions was the type of council promoted through the WCC's Secretariat for Relationships with National and Regional Christian Councils, in the period 1968 - 1972. It continues to be the basic reference for many councils of churches related to the WCC.
An alternate version of the representative model is the "Christian council" model. Christian councils include not only the churches in their membership but also Christian organisations or associations such as YMCA, YWCA, Bible Society etc. The advantage of this type of council is that it covers a wider spectre of the national ecumenical scene and offers a place to the movements to take part in ecumenical decision making.
2. The "churches together" model. In recent years a number of councils which had been formed along the representative model have given way to a new type of structure characterized as "churches being together" (e.g. UK, Australia, Canada). The main feature is that these bodies are based on the concept of consensus. They do not engage in action unless there is consensus among the member churches to do so. Consequently the leaders of the churches have a more prominent decision making role than the representatives of the churches on the governing bodies of the council.
The protagonists of this model put the emphasis on the "togetherness" of the churches which no longer delegate the ecumenical task to an outside body but take full responsibility for it in conjunction with other churches.
There is a clear link between Roman Catholic participation in a council and the move to a "churches together/consensus" model. The changes in the UK coincided with the Roman Catholic Church joining the new councils. Could it be that the Roman Catholic concept of ecumenical cooperation as reflected in the Directory might not easily be compatible with a representative structure in which certain responsibilities are entrusted to organisms outside the own church hierarchy?
3. The "family" model. Certain councils have constituted themselves according to groupings of churches belonging to similar traditions of faith and ecclesiology (e.g. the Middle East Council of Churches, the newly formed Christian Council of Sweden). This model allows for a type of representation which is not solely based on individual churches and their size.
Other types of representation exist, for example equal numbers of delegates of the member churches on the governing bodies of the council irrespective of the size of each church (e.g the Netherlands).
4. The "coalition" model. The Canadian Council of Churches has worked with ecumenical coalition groups gravitating around the council. Such groups, focussing on specific issues, have the advantage of offering a more flexible pattern for ecumenical cooperation and commitment than formal representative bodies.
II. NCC - REO - WCC Relations
1. NCC – REO. Several REOs have NCCs in their membership along with the churches (e.g. CCA, AACC). Others have the possibility of associate membership (e.g. CEC). In the Middle East there are no NCCs; the MECC is the only conciliar body bringing the churches together. Latin America has few NCCs but in several countries exist federations or associations of evangelical (i.e. protestant) churches.
Some REOs make it possible for representatives of the NCCs in their region to meet annually (e.g. CEC, CCA).
2. NCC – WCC. The WCC Rules provide for the status of associate council. Associate councils have the right to send a delegated representative to the Assembly and an adviser to the Central Committee; they receive copies of all general communications with the member churches. More than half of the over one hundred NCCs in the world are associated with the WCC (including many with Roman Catholic membership). With a number of other NCCs the WCC maintains so-called "working relationships". In addition, 35 NCCs are affiliated with the Conference on World Mission and Evangelism; there is overlap between this category and the ones previously mentioned. A set of "Guidelines for NCC -WCC Relationships and Cooperation" is under preparation.
The WCC has facilitated three global gatherings of NCCs (in 1971, 1986 and 1993) and various regional or sub-regional meetings. Through Unit IV (formerly CICARWS) the WCC is involved in the funding of NCC core budgets, the organisation of Round Tables and the support of sub- regional groupings of NCCs (e.g. FOCCESA).
3. REO – WCC. The WCC Rules stipulate the same representation and communication for REOs as for associate councils. In addition, the "Guiding Principles" are an official reference for the working relationships and cooperation between the REOs and the WCC. The REO - WCC General Secretaries Group is a forum for information sharing and mutual consultation.
III. Mandates of councils
The question of mandate is to some extent related to the structure of a council. The 1971 NCCs consultation saw the task of councils in two main areas: a) cooperation in service, and b) calling the churches to visible unity. The consultation said it was essential to hold those two together (the same concern was strongly underlined by Michael Kinnamon in an address to the consultation on state ecumenism, in February 1995 in New Orleans). The second and third NCCs consultations spoke of NCCs as instruments of unity (1986) and servants and advocates of unity (1993). At the Faith and Order meeting in Venice in 1982 on the significance of councils of churches it was said that councils were signs of unity, and therefore provisional in character: a council should be able to die in order to make space for a better and more visible expression of the unity of the churches.
In practice it has been easier for councils to deal with the service/social justice agenda than with the issue of unity. The bilaterals and processes like Leuenberg and Porvoo (in Europe) have shifted the concern for unity away from councils to other fora.
Paradoxically it would seem that participation of the Roman Catholic Church does not necessarily strengthen the ability of a council to deal with unity. Is this because for the RCC the goal of visible unity is more properly located with the church than with a council of churches?
IV. Ownership of Councils
The question of ownership is relevant to councils of churches at all levels: national, regional and global. It is generally admitted that councils should be owned by their member churches. The problem lies with the interpretation of the principle. The search for various models of councils is partly motivated by the desire to design structures that will fit one or the other concept of ownership. For instance, the "representative model" would reflect a higher degree of delegation of power than the "consensus model".
Rather than the term "ownership" it may be more helpful to seek to define the relations between a council and its member churches in terms of mutual accountability. A council must be held accountable to its constituency. Inversely, there is also an element of accountability of the churches towards the council, and of the churches towards one another.
In many countries in the South (especially in Africa) the heavy emphasis on cooperation in service with its inevitable need for foreign funding has made NCCs dependent on their ecumenical donor partners. This has had an adverse effect on the relations of these councils with the local member churches. Foreign dependency in one area of work (i.e. service, development) makes it difficult for an NCC to act with credibility in other areas such as Christian unity or local ecumenism.
According to WCC Unit IV several NCCs are "on the verge of financial collapse or in leadership crisis" (Unit IV report to Executive Committee, February 1995). At a meeting between NCCs and ecumenical partners called together by Unit IV in June 1994 major emphasis was put on the need for capacity building. While this will be directed primarily at strenthening the ability of NCCs to deal with service programmes it is also intended to have an overall beneficial effect on re-rooting the councils in the local ecumenical context.
V. Comparing the models
Much of the current debate focusses on the "consensus" model over against the "representative" one (reference is made to the Central Committee plenaries in Johannesburg, January 1994, on Roman Catholic relations and local ecumenism). The Canadian coalition model, at one time higly advocated, has not prevented a steady weakening of the council; the churches in Canada are now talking in terms of "contracting together". The "family" model might deserve more attention, especially with the promising renewal of the Swedish national ecumenical body.
John Reardon in Johannesburg said that churches being and working together on the basis of consensus, while being a slow process, would in the long run bring the ecumenical progress the old model had failed to produce because it had led churches to disown their council. He as well as David Gill expressed the opinion that unless the Roman Catholic Church was participating there was no genuine local ecumenism. The 1986 and 1993 NCCs consultations reflect this basically positive appreciation of RC participation in national councils of churches - and hence, implicitly, an inclination for the "consensus" principle. The 1993 consultation very timidly admitted a "front-runner" role of NCCs but only within guidelines agreed upon by the member churches and after as full consultation as possible among them (Report Theme 3).
Does it mean that in the long run all NCCs (and eventually the REOs and the WCC) will need to move to the "churches together – consensus" model? Given the trend toward Roman Catholic participation in NCCs and REOs that would seem to be the case. But before drawing that conclusion a prior question must be asked: is the concept of "churches together" necessarily synonimous with "consensus"? The WCC is a fellowship of churches, i.e. company of churches being together; the quality of that fellowship is not negatively affected by the fact that the WCC has not embraced the consensus principle. The Programme to Combat Racism would not have been possible had the WCC acted on the basis of consensus among its member churches. Experience has shown that criticism of lack of leadership and vision is much more damaging to the WCC than lack of consensus. The problem of the churches disowning the WCC does exist but it has to do much more with representation/participation than consensus.
Each council, at whatever level, is meant to be a fellowship of churches being together. Consensus is not a necessary condition for fellowship. Churches which are willing to accept the consensus principle in order for the Roman Catholic Church to become member on its terms do so also because they feel more comfortable themselves with it (Joan Campbell used the expression of "comfort model").
VI. Orthodox participation
While the representatitivity of NCCs in terms of church affiliation is not specifically addressed in this paper the question of Orthodox participation should be mentioned. The Orthodox churches are fully part of the WCC, the REOs and many NCCs (on the other hand, in some countries where the Orthodox church is the majority church there is as yet no national ecumenical body). It is often felt that the Orthodox contribution to the councils of which they are members is somehow limited. This has probably to do with the fact that many councils continue to operate, wittingly or unwittingly, in ways that are basically protestant. A genuine Orthodox view of models reflecting their understanding of what a council of churches ought to be would enrich the ecumenical reflection.
VII. Some underlying issues
NCCs and REOs are facing similar questions of self-understanding as the WCC. One could ask whether this points to a same need manifesting itself at various levels of ecumenical representation. In the USA there is discussion about the crisis affecting local and regional (= state level) ecumenism. In a recent study conducted by the Lily Foundation Gary Peluso comes to the conclusion that the crisis is not peculiar to ecumenism as such but a reflection of a much broader cultural upheavel in American society.
That leads to the question whether by extrapolation a similar observation could be valid in other national or international contexts. There are trends pointing to a general crisis of representative structures, for instance in trade unions and political parties and international organisations like the United Nations and the Europian Union. The legitimacy of these bodies is questioned. Alternative structures develop based on common identities, e.g. indigenous peoples. women, gays and lesbians, neighbourhood groups, whereas the "old" identities of class and ideologies loose their function.
It would not be difficult to list examples from around the world pointing to a crisis situation, or a time of transition marked by profound changes which affect the churches, councils of churches and the conciliar ecumenical movement. Yet any attempt to analyse what is going on in global terms is doomed to fail. The nature of this global transition is such that in order to understand the changes and their effects, the appropriate analytical tools must be used for each particular context.
Janice Love in the Central Committee debate in Johannesburg rightly said that some of the issues that are most dividing the churches arise from within, not from outside (e.g. abortion, family, sexuality, the role of women). Especially in North America and Europe the churches experience a strong sense of internal insecurity, which is reinforced by decline in membership and finance. Their first priority is to hold the denomination together, to steer the ship through these troubled waters. Their ecumenical commitment comes second (at best).
When churches struggling with these issues meet in council they get exposed. The question is then: how to stay together at the table and deal with different understandings of the faith? In a paper presented to the Board of the NCCC/USA in 1992, Michael Kinnamon made a pertinent remark: issues of contention between and within churches are matters for theological discussion, not for debate and voting in governing bodies.
At stake is our ability to deal with deeply dividing tensions, and this in turn has to do with the quality of our fellowship. As far back as in 1971, at the first consultation of national councils, there was already mention of a "new ecclesial reality". In the process initiated by the WCC on "common understanding and vision" this question of the ecclesial nature of the fellowship which has grown beyond what is in the Constitution (and the Toronto statement) is a central element. Could this be a key to unlocking new perspectives?
The above paragraphs are relevant to a "northern" context. In the South other factors are threatening the cohesion of some of the national and regional councils. But it may well be that the challenge is basically the same: to develop the capacity of dealing creatively with disruptive and dividing forces. The concept of "churches being together" is to be wholeheartedly affirmed. It needs to be combined, not with consensus, but with new ways of living with divergence and disagreement. On this basis the participation of the Roman Catholic Church and, on the other side of the spectrum, of evangelical and pentecostal churches, could become much more enriching and an incentive for renewal.
Councils of churches are instruments (1986 and 1993 NCCs consultations). Instruments of whom? Of the churches, certainly, but not only. Councils are also instruments of the ecumenical movement. In that sense they are, in the words of Lukas Vischer, "the thorn in the flesh of the churches - they constitute the setting, created by the churches themselves, within which the promise of renewal may be heard...."
VIII. REOs
Within the ecumenical movement, the regions constitute an "in-between" level which is not always clearly defined. The term "regional" is subject to a variety of interpretations.
The REOs derive their raison d'ętre from the recognition of the region as a cultural and geographic entity binding the churches together for ecumenical commitment and action. The specific identity of an REO will depend on the sense of regional cohesion and belonging among its member churches. This may vary, not only from region to region but also according to the nature of the issues the REO and the churches are dealing with. In all the regions there is tacit or explicit recognition of sub-regions as intermediate grouping which may provide a common basis for churches, sometimes in competition with the regional level.
With the exception of two (MECC and CLAI) the REOs call themselves conferences. The use of this terminology would seem to suggest that a certain margin is left to the churches to determine their degree of identification with the regional body.
Although REOs do not function as service agencies, most of them depend largely on funding from outside the region.
Much of what is said in this paper applies not only to NCCs but to the REOs as well. Probably the REOs have to be even more sensitive to issues of ownership and self-understanding than the NCCs and the WCC, precisely because their identity is more exposed to questioning.