| During the period of preparation of the CUV document, a group of WCC staff met frequently to review issues of procedure, content, and church responses. Among this group a subcommittee was formed to review issues of WCC Governance. Below is part II of their report to the larger group. |
Part II: Issues for further examination.
Herewith are submitted, for eventual further consideration, a summary report of the staff subgroup's discussion.
1. The discussion on "the ethos of the WCC'' deserves more attention. While it is true that things theological, ecclesiological and cultural do crystallize in organizational problems, there is a need for not losing sight of questions related to identity, vocation and plurality in the Council.
Throughout its history, the WCC upheld the search for unity and did, at the same time, fully recognize the legitimacy and riches of diversity. There are moments where it has been criticized for losing sight of the primacy of the concern for unity. There were also moments where the Council needed to be more assertive as an "advocate of diversity".
These concerns are, and will continue to be, held in tension.
Another tension pertains to the "sense of utopia" that the WCC is called to nurture and the imperative of realism in promoting ecumenism.
A third tension is experienced in the urge to be creative as a movement and the responsibility of being institutionally viable.
The ethos of the WCC includes, learning how to live with or even "administer" those tensions. While no one can pretend to "resolve" them, they need not be allowed to exaggerate hesitation, reservation and caution.
2. In this context it is necessary to examine the impact of "tacit vetoes" on the ability of the Council to offer a space for a frank dialogue, for the shaping of a "common mind" and making 11provisional covenants". The question of ecclesial significance of the WCC, since Toronto, was mentioned as a case in point. The commitment of the churches to stay together need not necessarily entail searching at any cost for compromise and avoiding divisive issues. Nor is it served by a precipitated attempt to over-use the process of decision-making in identifying priorities that could be seen as the result of moral pressure that churches cannot sustain.
3. The commitment of the WCC to be inclusive needs to be reactualized in a forward-looking perspective. The place and participation of women in the life of the Council is, to mention a crucial test, not to be seen as a "settled question". While the "achievements" of the WCC in this respect should not be underestimated, it was indicated that the quota system, which remains necessary, does not secure, by itself, equitable participation. What is true of women is certainly true of ecclesial traditions and geographical-cultural-political areas.
4. The WCC should not fail to see the importance of recognizing the ambiguities and shortcomings of representation based on numbers of churches and on difficult-to-estimate numbers of church members. This does invite taking more seriously the identity and self-understanding of churches as part of "families" or traditions.
More efforts are to be invested in examining the sociological realities of Christianity today, confronting "ecclesiologies" with those realities, and evaluating the fifty years of ecumenical experience in the WCC.
In this context, a number of specific questions/problems could be mentioned. For example the present state of Protestant "denominationalism", both in the North and in the South, deserves careful scrutiny. So does the creation of new churches and the impact of their acceptance, as new members in the community of the WCC, on the search for Christian unity.
The idea of two families of churches, one Orthodox and one Protestant, addresses the centrality of the East-West division and the call to its healing. Some may feel that this centrality should not over-shadow other divisions and paths of reconciliation. A question could also be raised whether the consecration of Orthodox-Protestant bi-polarity in the Council serves necessarily the cause of reconciliation. In the same vein, there may be reservations expressed about the risk for the Council of becoming a "federation of churches".
5. There is no ready-made model that can justly and efficiently accommodate the plurality of "identities" as expressed in the life of the WCC. The present system of representation and governance is, to a great extent, dependent on goodwill, sensitivity and the "art" of being inclusive. While recognizing the difficulty to devise a system that takes into account the ecclesial criterion and at the same time other criteria (regional ... ), it was stated that some further exploration is both necessary and desirable. The idea of setting up a "bi-cameral" system was mentioned as an example. It was recognized, nevertheless, that defining areas of competence and sharing decision-making power between two governing bodies based on two different modes of representation is, indeed, a thorny question.
III. The Ecumenical Forum
Most of the reactions and comments expressed in paragraphs 6.10-6.15 of the working draft on a policy statement on Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of Churches do not express an opinion regarding the suggestion for a "Forum of Christian Churches and Ecumenical Organizations". However, a large majority did indicate that the Assembly should continue as a main event in the life of the WCC. 48% of the answers received did not comment at all on the Forum. 26% was positive, some being enthusiastic, while others welcome the proposal but with some reservations. 16% were doubtful about the possibilities of a Forum and 10% clearly against it.
Among those who welcomed the idea of a Forum, many indicated that it needs to be developed and clarified. Some regard it as a "starting point" to help widen the participation of non-member churches in a larger ecumenical dialogue. It is to be used as a transitional tool. Among the responses to the CUV document, some suggested that the Forum first be developed on an experimental basis. Others who were less enthusiastic pointed out that it should not become another ecumenical organization, warning that when such initiatives are implemented, they tend to create their own programmes and staff, involving financial requirements. There was also some concern that the existence of such a Forum could weaken the WCC.
Those in doubt about the viability of the Forum underlined that there is no need for another instance which mainly involved meetings and dialogue. It was strongly felt that the WCC is a council of churches and should not become a movement of movements.
The negative comments about the Forum clearly rejected the proposal. Some asked whether other partners of the ecumenical movement had been consulted about the idea. These nonmember churches and organizations, which are not related to the WCC, should participate as decision-makers in the Forum and not merely be advisors.
From the various comments already received it is clear that the idea of the Forum needs to be clarified and developed. In this sense, it could be said that the Forum could be envisaged as a space for meeting and dialogue for partners of the ecumenical movement. Its flexible character would allow these partners to develop dialogue regarding matters concerning the different expressions of the ecumenical movement, preparing them to take decisions bearing in mind the position of the others. In this sense, the Forum could be understood to complement the policymaking instances of the different ecumenical actors. In this respect, the relationship between the Forum and the fife of the WCC, the connection and complementarity of the Forum with the WCC Assembly and the Central Committee, should be precise. The Forum could be a space where valuable ideas could be discussed, allowing the WCC to take them into consideration and following them up if necessary.
One of the main goals of the Forum is to enable all ecumenical partners, and above all, those who are not yet members of the WCC, to meet and give witness of their commitment to unity. Other ecumenical organizations (e.g. WAYMCA, WAYWCA, WSCF, WACC, etc.) as well as World Christian communions, would also be welcome in the Forum. Having said this, it is important to note that one of the main points which needs further clarification in dialogue with other possible partners in the Forum is related to the criteria for participation. Most of the comments received which are in agreement with the idea of a Forum, underline that inclusiveness should be a major characteristic of this type of event.
If the proposal of a Forum is accepted by the policy-making bodies of the WCC, then it will be necessary to start a process of consultation about the possibilities of churches, ecumenical organizations, confessional families and ecumenical associations of different sorts, willing to accept the idea and getting involved in the Forum. This process, in its initial stages, may be informal and unofficial. If the proposal has a wide acceptance, then the WCC Assembly could endorse it, asking for support and commitment.
Details regarding the organization of the Forum should be discussed by the WCC with other partners who also support it, or could be interested in this initiative.