| The staff group on CUV featured a subcommittee on WCC structures. Among the papers solicited by this group was the following "discussion-starter" on the "families of churches" model. |
The CUV text reaffirms the immediate relationship between the Council and the member churches. The Council is a "fellowship of churches" (3. 1). "It is constituted by the churches to serve the one ecumenical movement" (3.15). "The essence of the Council is the relationship of the churches to one another. The Council is the churches together in fellowship on the way towards visible unity. It has a structure and organization in order to serve as an instrument of the churches as they work toward koinonia in faith, life and witness..." (3.4.2)
The discussion on structures must follow upon these fundamental affirmations. The structures of the Council are meant to serve its identity and mission. Structures are instrumental. They become outdated, outmoded and irrelevant when they weaken the identity or hinder the mission. In the case of the Council, structures must ultimately deepen the relationships among the churches and not contribute to the erosion of those relationships. Those who are concerned with the identity and mission of the council need to be also concerned with establishing structures which serve its identity and mission.
Clearly, there is a serious concern in the discussions surrounding the CUV document to deepen the relationship of the member churches to themselves and to the Council so that they can restore their visible unity and give a common witness in the world. There is a serious concern that the member churches come to recognize the council more deeply as "their own" and not as some alien body unrelated to their lives. These concerns are at the basis of discussions about the programmatic priorities, the Assembly, and the various governing bodies.
The question of restructuring of the Council has led some to call for a serious examination of a structure which would better reflect the "families of churches" which now constitute the Council. Viewed in broad terms there are presently two families: those churches coming in some way out of the Protestant Reformation and the Orthodox Churches. Each family has its own memories and theological perspectives. Konrad Raiser reminds us of this fact when he says that "despite the greatly expanded circle of its member churches, the World Council still essentially embraces only the historical churches of the Orthodox and Protestant traditions" (Santiago, 1993).
The present structures of the Council, however, are essentially reflective of the "number" of member churches. Delegates to the Assembly and membership on governing bodies, for example, reflect the dominant number of Protestant member churches. The number of Protestant member churches is about 300. The number of Orthodox member churches is 21.
These facts reveal the different approach to ecclesiastical organization or polity between the two families. While the number of Protestant member churches could continue to grow, the number of Orthodox member churches will remain essentially stable. This is due primarily to different approaches to church organization and structuring. It is not necessarily an issue of the numbers of faithful. In many places, the Orthodox population is growing quite rapidly, but this does not necessarily mean that a new autocephalous or autonomous church would be automatically established. Indeed, there are some Orthodox dioceses or archdioceses (metropoloi) or provinces which contain far more faithful than some Protestant member churches of the WCC. And, while calculating church membership is difficult to achieve with precision, the Orthodox constitute between one third and one half of the total baptized membership of the churches of the WCC. It is critical, therefore, to recognize that the present disparity in numbers of churches between the Protestant and the Orthodox within the WCC reflects primarily very different approaches to ecclesiastical organization.
This difference in ecclesiastical organization, (indeed, in ecclesiology), is not reflected in the present structures of the Council. The Protestant church family is clearly dominant simply because of the number of its member churches. This is reflected in the delegates to the Assembly, in the membership of governing bodies, in consultation participants, and in the composition of the staff. It is reflected in the typical worship at WCC events and in the dominant theological perspectives found expressed in most WCC documents and activities.
The fact that the Orthodox are presently given a "quota" reflects a recognition of some ecclesiological differences between the Orthodox member churches and the Protestant member churches. The "quota" was designed to "guarantee" a certain level of Orthodox participation. But, it now seems clear that this "quota" does not truly address the fundamental problem! Indeed, it could be argued that the "quota" only further marginalizes the Orthodox by limiting their participation in WCC activities.
Konrad Raiser in his Santiago address (1993) appears to have recognized the broad outlines of the fundamental problem when he said,
If the stalemate of the ecumenical process in the quest for visible unity is to be overcome, a new approach will have to be found. Instead of separate bilateral dialogues and multilateral conversations, we will have to find a forum that makes it possible to recognize the simultaneous existence of different Christian cultures, which are Eastern Byzantine, Western Roman, Western Protestant, and predominantly Southern Evangelical or Pentecostal in character.In our discussion about WCC restructuring, serious attention must also be given to developments in many of the National Councils of Churches throughout the world. In the past twenty-five years, about 30 NCCs have gone through their own dramatic restructuring. In most cases, they have adopted some form of the "family of churches" approach as the basis for their restructuring and organizational life.
Among the more recent examples of this type of restructuring are the Council of Churches of Britain and Ireland, and the Christian Council of Sweden. The Canadian Council of Churches appears to be moving in a similar direction in its proposed restructuring.
At the regional level, the Middle East Council of Churches remains a pioneer in the "family of churches" approach to structuring and life. It has been followed more recently by the Caribbean Council of Churches and the Pacific Council of Churches.
Naturally, there are differences in the structuring of these councils which reflect the local ecclesiastical reality and the regional cultures. Yet a general organizational trend can be seen. In most of these NCCs the various local churches maintain their identity as full members. But, for purposes of internal organization, they are grouped according to families of churches. These families of churches then become the basis for membership distribution in the various governing bodies.
The NCC and REO restructurings mentioned above have generally accomplished two goals: firstly, they have enabled more churches (through "church families") to accept full membership in the particular national council. In many places this has been the case especially for the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic Church. Secondly, the restructurings have created systems of governance which prevent the dominance of any one church family or particular member church in the life of the national or regional council. Through their church family the churches participate as full and equal members of the council.
At the present time, there appears to be a widening gap between the two families as they exist within the Council today. This situation results from the lack of a genuine, equal partnership in their relationship. The two do not participate as equal partners and "on an equal footing" in the life of the WCC, in its governing bodies, in its staff composition, in its consultations, and in its witness.
The decision, therefore, to restructure the WCC along the lines of a "families of churches" approach would be a fundamental one. It would have a direct impact upon our understanding of participation in the Assembly, and membership in governing bodies such as the Central Committee and the Executive Committee.
The ultimate goals of a genuine restructuring along a "families of churches" approach would be two-fold. Firstly, this restructuring would enable the full and equal participation of the two families of churches, which presently make up the Council, in all aspects of its life. And secondly, it would make possible the entry of other churches through church families into the Council.