The ecumenical movement at a crossroads
By Aram I
The Ecumenical Review
October 1995
Massive world transformations have resulted in new realities that affect the ecumenical movement. These changes, and changes within the movement itself, have placed the movement at a crossroad and created problems. Several steps toward solutions are suggested, among which are an evaluation of the bilateral dialogues and application of their results, a shift from doctrinal to practical mission issues and a clearer understanding of the nature of unity.
The ecumenical movement is at a decisive point in its history. Various terms have been used to describe this situation: some refer to the present period as one of "transition"; others speak of "uncertainty" and "stagnation"; still others would go so far as to say that the movement is in the process of "losing its integrity". But what lies behind all of these and similar characterizations is the reality that the ecumenical movement is at a crossroads of new realities in a world that itself is marked by radical transformation. Under these circumstances, the movement is searching for a new identity, a new self-expression, a new orientation.
Looking at the present ecumenical scene, one may identify a number of emerging trends and growing challenges that the ecumenical movement must wrestle with realistically and seriously.
From individual-centred to church-centred ecumenism
The ecumenical movement was given shape and visibility by a few visionary people who came from different confessions and regions. For many years ecumenism was largely sustained by the commitment of such individuals. Their churches, including in many cases most of the hierarchy, were hardly aware of it. Today, the ecumenical movement is a movement of churches. In theory this development is surely to be welcomed. It has become clear that ecumenism is not a movement extra ecclesiam; and by penetrating into the whole life and mission of the churches, it has acquired a certain "ecclesial character". But neither is ecumenism only an intra ecclesiam reality. As the movement of the Holy Spirit, the ecumenical movement transcends the boundaries of institutional churches and embraces the whole people of God.
In practice, this shift towards church-centred ecumenism has produced a number of problems:
1. There is a fear in some quarters that becoming church-centred leads inevitably to confining the movement to church institutions and totally paralyzing it. The result is that distinctions are made between "ecclesiastical" ecumenism, "social" ecumenism, "secular" ecumenism and other types of ecumenism. While it is useful for analytical purposes to distinguish different facets of the ecumenical vocation and to recognize that different individuals and bodies may concentrate on one or the other of these, such distinctions should not lead to compartmentalization of the ecumenical movement, which creates ambiguity, disintegration and polarization. The all-embracing and the ecumenical character of the ecumenical movement must be nourished constantly and articulated clearly, though again without undermining its ecclesial (not "ecclesiastical") basis and identity.
2. The shift away from individual-centred ecumenism has brought with it an overall lowering of commitment to the ecumenical movement and a reduction in the quality of its work. Not all of the "ecumenists" who are appointed by their churches as "conference-goers" are qualified in terms of their acquaintance with the life and history of the ecumenical movement; and in some cases they may not even have a particular commitment to the search for visible unity. Instead of being present to contribute fully from the life of their own church to the fellowship of churches, they may be there only to "represent" their church and to "defend" its theological teachings or political positions. The ecumenical zeal and deep engagement of former generations have too frequently given way to nominal and uncommitted representation.
3. Church-centred ecumenism has also created difficult problems pertaining to the nature and size of representation in ecumenical bodies. While the clergy tries to maintain its predominance, the laity, and particularly women and youth, struggle for more power and visibility. The establishment by many ecumenical bodies - usually after a long and strenuous debate - of "quotas" for certain categories of participants, has not proved to be a satisfactory solution to the problem. While at one level these formulas may secure a certain diversity, the division of people into "categories" also heightens tensions and has not in most cases proved to secure more participation and wholeness. The fundamental problem is related to the compartmentalization of ecumenism noted above: the failure to maintain the oneness of ecumenism as perceived by church leadership and ecumenism as perceived by movements and action groups, of ecumenism which is the projection of the inner divisions of the churches and new types of ecumenism which are emerging from the grassroots.
4. The ecumenical movement is inconceivable without the participation of the churches, and the churches cannot exist responsibly and authentically without the ecumenical movement. Yet after a short period of great ecumenical enthusiasm, during which the self-understanding of the church was significantly enhanced, it has been clear in the last decade that a general indifference towards if not weariness with ecumenism has set in. Many churches are losing their sense of ownership of the ecumenical movement. Instead of being a reality touching their lives, ecumenism is often dealt with purely as a matter of "external relations". In this sense (to take an example), the World Council of Churches is seen less as a fellowship of the churches than as a reality outside the churches.
At the same time, the representatives of the churches in ecumenical bodies may not in fact "bring back home" what they have learned and experienced. The appearance of being "ecumenical" which a church gives through what its representatives say in ecumenical gatherings may be contradicted by the behaviour of that same church within its own context. There may be a variety of explanations for such discrepancies. Some churches face an overwhelming variety of immediate problems in their own everyday life - economic and political difficulties, internal conflicts of different sorts, including in many cases the growth of conservative anti-ecumenical groups. Some churches may regard trends and developments within the ecumenical bodies as a diversion from or even a contradiction of what they judge to be the real nature and goals of the ecumenical movement. In some churches the ecumenical momentum may have been taken up by groups and movements whose activities completely bypass the formal institutional boundaries and structures.
In the face of this situation ecumenical education is often disorganized and in a number of churches even non-existent. If members hear about the ecumenical movement it is only by chance, and what they hear is likely to be partial, unclear or even mistaken.
It is thus vitally important that the churches re-appropriate the ecumenical movement by giving a new and holistic articulation to it. Otherwise the ecumenical movement will develop along lines which will move further and further away from the reach of the churches. Moreover, the ecumenical movement must help the churches to rediscover the true meaning of church as being essentially the people of God. In fact, what is crucial for the future of the ecumenical movement is the fuller participation of all the people of God in the life and witness of the church, not just in the ecumenical movement.
Defensive and critical ecumenism
It is probably inevitable that as the ecumenical movement took shape in various institutions the passion and high expectations which motivated and sustained it in the early years would be replaced by more realistic and pragmatic attitudes. At the same time, what might be called "defensive" ecumenism has often come to take the place of a more "critical" ecumenism.
1. It has become common in the ecumenical movement to focus on issues which seem the least likely to threaten further the unity of the churches and to avoid altogether certain crucial topics that spark controversy. Despite many years of ecumenical togetherness, we remain fearful that raising sensitive questions and touching divisive issues will harm our ecumenical fellowship. The churches must find the courage to tackle the root causes of their old and new divisions with a spirit of honest and constructive mutual criticism. Unless such a readiness for mutual challenging, undertaken with a clear sense of mutual accountability, prevails in all spheres and at all levels of the ecumenical movement, the movement will remain passive and risks becoming a sentimental exercise in togetherness quite foreign to the existential concerns of the life of the churches.
2. The scope and agenda of the ecumenical movement have clearly expanded. This is as it should be. Whether or not one accepts the expansive definition of "ecumenical" proposed by the WCC central committee in 1951 - that it has to do with "everything that relates to the whole task of the whole church to bring the gospel to the whole world" - it is clear that the ecumenical agenda must be dynamic and open. At the same time, the ecumenical movement must be critically selective. It must identify its specific priorities in a local, regional or global context. Its agenda must emerge from given situations and its actions must respond to the realities and needs of those situations. Any agenda that is imposed from outside and is alien to a given context is simply ecumenical colonialism.
3. Despite the tremendous impact that churches from the South and Orthodox churches have had on the ecumenical movement, especially since the 1960s, it remains true that the structures, methodologies and institutional culture of the ecumenical movement remain Western-centred. In some ways this situation has become more acute and urgent in recent years, as the political, economic and media dominance of Western culture has increasingly entrenched it around the world. The result is that many non-Western churches have become more and more alienated from the institutional ecumenical movement. The ecumenical movement must never lose sight of the fact that ecumenism is essentially a local reality. Unless it becomes responsive in its priorities, agendas and structures to the realities of any local situation, it will remain a foreign intrusion in and imposition on that situation.
4. In many regions, ecumenism is still perceived and practised mainly in terms of relationship and collaboration among the churches. While relationships and collaboration are indeed indispensable means for realizing the goals of the ecumenical movement, they do not exhaustively define it. The ecumenical movement is a quality of common life and witness for the renewal, mission and unity of the church. It is a movement of the Holy Spirit that challenges the churches in their isolation and self-centredness, giving them the sense of belonging to each other both locally and globally. In ecumenism the churches do not co-exist; they inter-act. They do not act independently; they act inter-dependently. The goal of the ecumenical movement is to strengthen and give visible manifestation to the churches' inner inter-relatedness and God-given koinonia in the one body of Christ. All ecumenical efforts should be sustained by and oriented to this end.
Return to contextualism and confessionalism
The churches' ecumenical witness is often made more difficult because of contextual and confessional considerations. If these two elements of the churches' identity are not perceived in the proper perspective and oriented in the right direction, they threaten to destroy the holistic nature of the ecumenical vision.
1. The whole church and the whole oikoumene and their inseparable wholeness and unity form the raison d'etre of the ecumenical movement. It is within the framework of this holistic vision of the ecumenical movement that the inter-dependence and complementarity between the contextual and the global must be articulated. The ecumenical vision should neither be completely contextualized nor completely globalized. One must distinguish at this point between an holistic vision and what is sometimes called "globalism" - a way of thinking, acting and being that totally ignores the local. Authentic holism emerges from the encounter of different contextual realities in critical openness to each other. The ecumenical movement can protect its integrity and indivisibility only if it is guided by the kind of vision which maintains the specificities of both the contextual and the global and thus enhances their inner coherence within one whole. We should not underestimate the difficulties of achieving such a vision, but without it ecumenism will fall into the trap either of blind parochialism and exclusive regionalism or of absolute globalism.
2. Paralleling the steady growth of ecumenical contextualism in the last few decades is the increasingly organized structural expression of confessionalism. Feeling themselves more at home or more secure in the context of their own church family or communion, many churches spend much of their ecumenical energy and resources within their own confession. The extent to which they are ecumenically engaged outside their own confession is basically conditioned by factors pertaining to its own interests.
There is no doubt that a church's awareness of its own confession and traditions strengthens its identity and self-awareness. But it may also prevent it from experiencing more fully its ecclesial inter-relatedness with other churches and from moving towards the reality of one church. In other words, renewed emphasis on confessional awareness brings the danger that the churches will isolate themselves, rather than contributing towards the fuller and richer expression of the unity of the church.
3. Closely related to the growth of what we might call "confessional ecumenism" is the role played by the bilateral dialogues in advancing towards visible unity. There is no doubt that these dialogues have been instrumental in moving churches from isolation to openness, from misunderstanding to better understanding and from mistrust to collaboration. While some of these dialogues have formulated theological agreements or resulted in joint declarations on specific doctrinal issues, others have become repetitious or come to a standstill.
Different churches display different attitudes and approaches to consensus-oriented bilateral dialogues. Some give them a high priority, claiming that positive tangible results are likely to be attained from what is referred to as "ecumenism of negotiation". Others clearly treat these dialogues as a kind of ecumenical fashion, engaging in them with no clear agenda, focus or direction. Thus, although the bilateral dialogues are increasing in many parts of the world, they often have no connection with each other.
There are several reasons why I doubt that this major shift of focus from multilateral to bilateral dialogues can bring any remarkable contribution to church unity. For one thing, most of the major sources of theological and doctrinal controversy have already been exhaustively treated in the main bilateral dialogues. There is little if anything substantial to be added. Moreover, the agreements reached in these dialogues, while clarifying a number of divisive issues, have so far failed to offer any basis for communion and thus to advance significantly the common search for unity. In the third place, the churches are very slow to receive and implement the consensus reached through bilateral dialogues.
Even so, both multilateral and bilateral dialogues are crucial for the future course of the ecumenical movement in general and of the debate about unity in particular. While bilateral dialogues deal mainly with doctrinal issues, multilateral dialogues touch questions with missiological and pastoral implications of daily concern to the lives of the churches. While bilateral dialogues approach the question of unity from a confessional perspective, multilateral dialogues tackle it from a multi-confessional and multi-contextual perspective. Confessional awareness is strengthened in bilateral dialogues, while it serves to enrich ecumenical fellowship in multilateral dialogues. The renewed impetus which bilateral dialogues give to the process of convergence on church-dividing doctrinal and theological issues is tested through a common reception process only in the multilateral dialogues. And the unions between communions or confessions which are facilitated by bilateral dialogues will remain isolated achievements if they fail to advance the broader unity of the church through multilateral dialogues. Thus emphasizing the one at the expense of the other makes for a poor ecumenical strategy.
To conclude, if bilateral dialogues are carried on independently and do not provide a common framework and orientation for multilateral dialogues, their effect may be both to jeopardize the sense of the holistic nature of church unity and to reduce the urgency of the common search for visible unity. After almost thirty years of intense bilateral dialogues, it seems to me that the time has come for a comprehensive evaluation and implementation of their results, a steady shift in subject matter from doctrinal issues to practical missiological and pastoral issues arising out of the life of the churches and a closer organic inter-relation between bilateral and multilateral dialogues, probably within the framework of Faith and Order.
Unity at an impasse?
Many observers have described the past few decades, since the late 1960s, as a time of unprecedented "activism" in the ecumenical movement. Apart from ambiguities created by the different ways in which this word is used, it is evident that the churches have reacted in different ways to the phenomenon being described. Some have welcomed it as a clear sign that the ecumenical movement is investing more time and energy in concrete actions than in dreams and visions. Others have seen it as an attempt to bridge the gap between unity on the one hand and the church's missionary and diaconal responsibilities on the other. Still others have discerned in this process a regrettable shift of priority away from unity to issues of church and society.
There is no doubt that the ecumenical movement must address concerns arising in the daily life of people and requiring a Christian response. But the growing engagement in this area may create tensions and polarizations within the ecumenical movement if it is not understood in the right perspective and manifested in a proper way. Let me elaborate my concern:
1. We must be unequivocal about the organic association between the search for unity and the struggle for justice. What are sometimes called the "horizontal" and "vertical" dimensions cannot be in contradiction or competition; they must complement each other and act together. The ecumenical movement has reached this conviction after a long debate and bitter experience. The merger of the Faith and Order and Life and Work movements to form the World Council of Churches was not an arbitrary decision in the interest of administrative efficiency. It was a concrete expression of the wholeness of faith and life and of the inter-connectedness of ecclesiological and political issues.
But if the theological and spiritual dimensions of ecumenical action are overshadowed by secularistic perspectives and considerations, or if unity is conceived exclusively in terms of the church's struggle for justice and peace, or if we do not identify the specificity of our ecumenical involvement and establish a creative and sound theological interaction between the search for unity and engagement in social and ethical issues, then the ecumenical movement becomes totally "horizontalized", and an uncritical commitment to human issues may engender a serious dichotomy.
2. The ecumenical movement has created a sense of coherence, integrity and wholeness among the churches. For example, the churches have been brought closer to each other in a convergence process by the study on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, (BEM) and by some of the agreed statements of bilateral dialogues. However, they are still far from eucharistic sharing and conciliar fellowship. On this crucial question, the ecumenical movement is almost at an impasse.
In my view, three basic issues must be addressed if the search for unity is to be brought out of uncertainty and stagnation:
First, the concept of unity itself is in confusion. The ecumenical movement has proposed a number of models of unity, but it has not yet achieved a common understanding of the nature of unity. The existing models of unity are mainly motivated by confessional and contextual considerations and are hence largely unrelated to each other. If a consensus on a common understanding of the nature of the "unity we seek" is not established among the churches, the present uncertainty may lead the churches to further confusion.
Second, the churches' failure to reach a common concept of the nature of unity is due mainly to the lack of a common understanding of the nature of the church, and to the Christocentric emphasis that has dominated our discussion of unity. Ecclesiology and pneumatology must be given a focal place in the quest. The concept of koinonia, which has once again moved to the centre of the ecumenical agenda, will certainly give a new clarity and impetus to the search for visible unity.
Third, it is time for the ecumenical movement to move from the convergence process to the reception process. While I recognize that many churches require further theological discussion and ecumenical maturation regarding eucharistic sharing, I see no basic reasons to postpone the mutual recognition of baptism. Such a concrete step would significantly enhance the search for full and visible unity.
Many churches feel insecure in an ecumenical movement that is moving towards new horizons. They feel that the emerging models and priorities of the ecumenical movement are compromising its goals, and so they call for a retour aux sources. In my opinion, the question is not one of returning, but rather of moving forward in faithful obedience to the call of God. The ecumenical movement has never been an established reality. Tensions and ambiguities are inherent to a movement that is constantly shaped and reshaped by responding to the changing situations and challenges of the world. What is required today is a broader vision which, without marginalizing the basic goals of the ecumenical movement, takes the churches beyond the classical ecumenical priorities; a critical vision which offers the ecumenical movement a clear and comprehensive self-understanding within the context of the total life of the church and the whole creation of God; and a clearer vision which makes the ecumenical movement identifiable in the midst of new movements and realities.
Aram I is moderator of the World Council of Churches central committee and catholicos of Cilicia, Armenian Apostolic Church. This article grows out of observations. comments and presentations he made during a visit earlier this year to churches in six cities in the USA.
This document provided by HighBeam Research at http://www.highbeam.com
The Ecumenical Review
October 1995
Massive world transformations have resulted in new realities that affect the ecumenical movement. These changes, and changes within the movement itself, have placed the movement at a crossroad and created problems. Several steps toward solutions are suggested, among which are an evaluation of the bilateral dialogues and application of their results, a shift from doctrinal to practical mission issues and a clearer understanding of the nature of unity.
The ecumenical movement is at a decisive point in its history. Various terms have been used to describe this situation: some refer to the present period as one of "transition"; others speak of "uncertainty" and "stagnation"; still others would go so far as to say that the movement is in the process of "losing its integrity". But what lies behind all of these and similar characterizations is the reality that the ecumenical movement is at a crossroads of new realities in a world that itself is marked by radical transformation. Under these circumstances, the movement is searching for a new identity, a new self-expression, a new orientation.
Looking at the present ecumenical scene, one may identify a number of emerging trends and growing challenges that the ecumenical movement must wrestle with realistically and seriously.
From individual-centred to church-centred ecumenism
The ecumenical movement was given shape and visibility by a few visionary people who came from different confessions and regions. For many years ecumenism was largely sustained by the commitment of such individuals. Their churches, including in many cases most of the hierarchy, were hardly aware of it. Today, the ecumenical movement is a movement of churches. In theory this development is surely to be welcomed. It has become clear that ecumenism is not a movement extra ecclesiam; and by penetrating into the whole life and mission of the churches, it has acquired a certain "ecclesial character". But neither is ecumenism only an intra ecclesiam reality. As the movement of the Holy Spirit, the ecumenical movement transcends the boundaries of institutional churches and embraces the whole people of God.
In practice, this shift towards church-centred ecumenism has produced a number of problems:
1. There is a fear in some quarters that becoming church-centred leads inevitably to confining the movement to church institutions and totally paralyzing it. The result is that distinctions are made between "ecclesiastical" ecumenism, "social" ecumenism, "secular" ecumenism and other types of ecumenism. While it is useful for analytical purposes to distinguish different facets of the ecumenical vocation and to recognize that different individuals and bodies may concentrate on one or the other of these, such distinctions should not lead to compartmentalization of the ecumenical movement, which creates ambiguity, disintegration and polarization. The all-embracing and the ecumenical character of the ecumenical movement must be nourished constantly and articulated clearly, though again without undermining its ecclesial (not "ecclesiastical") basis and identity.
2. The shift away from individual-centred ecumenism has brought with it an overall lowering of commitment to the ecumenical movement and a reduction in the quality of its work. Not all of the "ecumenists" who are appointed by their churches as "conference-goers" are qualified in terms of their acquaintance with the life and history of the ecumenical movement; and in some cases they may not even have a particular commitment to the search for visible unity. Instead of being present to contribute fully from the life of their own church to the fellowship of churches, they may be there only to "represent" their church and to "defend" its theological teachings or political positions. The ecumenical zeal and deep engagement of former generations have too frequently given way to nominal and uncommitted representation.
3. Church-centred ecumenism has also created difficult problems pertaining to the nature and size of representation in ecumenical bodies. While the clergy tries to maintain its predominance, the laity, and particularly women and youth, struggle for more power and visibility. The establishment by many ecumenical bodies - usually after a long and strenuous debate - of "quotas" for certain categories of participants, has not proved to be a satisfactory solution to the problem. While at one level these formulas may secure a certain diversity, the division of people into "categories" also heightens tensions and has not in most cases proved to secure more participation and wholeness. The fundamental problem is related to the compartmentalization of ecumenism noted above: the failure to maintain the oneness of ecumenism as perceived by church leadership and ecumenism as perceived by movements and action groups, of ecumenism which is the projection of the inner divisions of the churches and new types of ecumenism which are emerging from the grassroots.
4. The ecumenical movement is inconceivable without the participation of the churches, and the churches cannot exist responsibly and authentically without the ecumenical movement. Yet after a short period of great ecumenical enthusiasm, during which the self-understanding of the church was significantly enhanced, it has been clear in the last decade that a general indifference towards if not weariness with ecumenism has set in. Many churches are losing their sense of ownership of the ecumenical movement. Instead of being a reality touching their lives, ecumenism is often dealt with purely as a matter of "external relations". In this sense (to take an example), the World Council of Churches is seen less as a fellowship of the churches than as a reality outside the churches.
At the same time, the representatives of the churches in ecumenical bodies may not in fact "bring back home" what they have learned and experienced. The appearance of being "ecumenical" which a church gives through what its representatives say in ecumenical gatherings may be contradicted by the behaviour of that same church within its own context. There may be a variety of explanations for such discrepancies. Some churches face an overwhelming variety of immediate problems in their own everyday life - economic and political difficulties, internal conflicts of different sorts, including in many cases the growth of conservative anti-ecumenical groups. Some churches may regard trends and developments within the ecumenical bodies as a diversion from or even a contradiction of what they judge to be the real nature and goals of the ecumenical movement. In some churches the ecumenical momentum may have been taken up by groups and movements whose activities completely bypass the formal institutional boundaries and structures.
In the face of this situation ecumenical education is often disorganized and in a number of churches even non-existent. If members hear about the ecumenical movement it is only by chance, and what they hear is likely to be partial, unclear or even mistaken.
It is thus vitally important that the churches re-appropriate the ecumenical movement by giving a new and holistic articulation to it. Otherwise the ecumenical movement will develop along lines which will move further and further away from the reach of the churches. Moreover, the ecumenical movement must help the churches to rediscover the true meaning of church as being essentially the people of God. In fact, what is crucial for the future of the ecumenical movement is the fuller participation of all the people of God in the life and witness of the church, not just in the ecumenical movement.
Defensive and critical ecumenism
It is probably inevitable that as the ecumenical movement took shape in various institutions the passion and high expectations which motivated and sustained it in the early years would be replaced by more realistic and pragmatic attitudes. At the same time, what might be called "defensive" ecumenism has often come to take the place of a more "critical" ecumenism.
1. It has become common in the ecumenical movement to focus on issues which seem the least likely to threaten further the unity of the churches and to avoid altogether certain crucial topics that spark controversy. Despite many years of ecumenical togetherness, we remain fearful that raising sensitive questions and touching divisive issues will harm our ecumenical fellowship. The churches must find the courage to tackle the root causes of their old and new divisions with a spirit of honest and constructive mutual criticism. Unless such a readiness for mutual challenging, undertaken with a clear sense of mutual accountability, prevails in all spheres and at all levels of the ecumenical movement, the movement will remain passive and risks becoming a sentimental exercise in togetherness quite foreign to the existential concerns of the life of the churches.
2. The scope and agenda of the ecumenical movement have clearly expanded. This is as it should be. Whether or not one accepts the expansive definition of "ecumenical" proposed by the WCC central committee in 1951 - that it has to do with "everything that relates to the whole task of the whole church to bring the gospel to the whole world" - it is clear that the ecumenical agenda must be dynamic and open. At the same time, the ecumenical movement must be critically selective. It must identify its specific priorities in a local, regional or global context. Its agenda must emerge from given situations and its actions must respond to the realities and needs of those situations. Any agenda that is imposed from outside and is alien to a given context is simply ecumenical colonialism.
3. Despite the tremendous impact that churches from the South and Orthodox churches have had on the ecumenical movement, especially since the 1960s, it remains true that the structures, methodologies and institutional culture of the ecumenical movement remain Western-centred. In some ways this situation has become more acute and urgent in recent years, as the political, economic and media dominance of Western culture has increasingly entrenched it around the world. The result is that many non-Western churches have become more and more alienated from the institutional ecumenical movement. The ecumenical movement must never lose sight of the fact that ecumenism is essentially a local reality. Unless it becomes responsive in its priorities, agendas and structures to the realities of any local situation, it will remain a foreign intrusion in and imposition on that situation.
4. In many regions, ecumenism is still perceived and practised mainly in terms of relationship and collaboration among the churches. While relationships and collaboration are indeed indispensable means for realizing the goals of the ecumenical movement, they do not exhaustively define it. The ecumenical movement is a quality of common life and witness for the renewal, mission and unity of the church. It is a movement of the Holy Spirit that challenges the churches in their isolation and self-centredness, giving them the sense of belonging to each other both locally and globally. In ecumenism the churches do not co-exist; they inter-act. They do not act independently; they act inter-dependently. The goal of the ecumenical movement is to strengthen and give visible manifestation to the churches' inner inter-relatedness and God-given koinonia in the one body of Christ. All ecumenical efforts should be sustained by and oriented to this end.
Return to contextualism and confessionalism
The churches' ecumenical witness is often made more difficult because of contextual and confessional considerations. If these two elements of the churches' identity are not perceived in the proper perspective and oriented in the right direction, they threaten to destroy the holistic nature of the ecumenical vision.
1. The whole church and the whole oikoumene and their inseparable wholeness and unity form the raison d'etre of the ecumenical movement. It is within the framework of this holistic vision of the ecumenical movement that the inter-dependence and complementarity between the contextual and the global must be articulated. The ecumenical vision should neither be completely contextualized nor completely globalized. One must distinguish at this point between an holistic vision and what is sometimes called "globalism" - a way of thinking, acting and being that totally ignores the local. Authentic holism emerges from the encounter of different contextual realities in critical openness to each other. The ecumenical movement can protect its integrity and indivisibility only if it is guided by the kind of vision which maintains the specificities of both the contextual and the global and thus enhances their inner coherence within one whole. We should not underestimate the difficulties of achieving such a vision, but without it ecumenism will fall into the trap either of blind parochialism and exclusive regionalism or of absolute globalism.
2. Paralleling the steady growth of ecumenical contextualism in the last few decades is the increasingly organized structural expression of confessionalism. Feeling themselves more at home or more secure in the context of their own church family or communion, many churches spend much of their ecumenical energy and resources within their own confession. The extent to which they are ecumenically engaged outside their own confession is basically conditioned by factors pertaining to its own interests.
There is no doubt that a church's awareness of its own confession and traditions strengthens its identity and self-awareness. But it may also prevent it from experiencing more fully its ecclesial inter-relatedness with other churches and from moving towards the reality of one church. In other words, renewed emphasis on confessional awareness brings the danger that the churches will isolate themselves, rather than contributing towards the fuller and richer expression of the unity of the church.
3. Closely related to the growth of what we might call "confessional ecumenism" is the role played by the bilateral dialogues in advancing towards visible unity. There is no doubt that these dialogues have been instrumental in moving churches from isolation to openness, from misunderstanding to better understanding and from mistrust to collaboration. While some of these dialogues have formulated theological agreements or resulted in joint declarations on specific doctrinal issues, others have become repetitious or come to a standstill.
Different churches display different attitudes and approaches to consensus-oriented bilateral dialogues. Some give them a high priority, claiming that positive tangible results are likely to be attained from what is referred to as "ecumenism of negotiation". Others clearly treat these dialogues as a kind of ecumenical fashion, engaging in them with no clear agenda, focus or direction. Thus, although the bilateral dialogues are increasing in many parts of the world, they often have no connection with each other.
There are several reasons why I doubt that this major shift of focus from multilateral to bilateral dialogues can bring any remarkable contribution to church unity. For one thing, most of the major sources of theological and doctrinal controversy have already been exhaustively treated in the main bilateral dialogues. There is little if anything substantial to be added. Moreover, the agreements reached in these dialogues, while clarifying a number of divisive issues, have so far failed to offer any basis for communion and thus to advance significantly the common search for unity. In the third place, the churches are very slow to receive and implement the consensus reached through bilateral dialogues.
Even so, both multilateral and bilateral dialogues are crucial for the future course of the ecumenical movement in general and of the debate about unity in particular. While bilateral dialogues deal mainly with doctrinal issues, multilateral dialogues touch questions with missiological and pastoral implications of daily concern to the lives of the churches. While bilateral dialogues approach the question of unity from a confessional perspective, multilateral dialogues tackle it from a multi-confessional and multi-contextual perspective. Confessional awareness is strengthened in bilateral dialogues, while it serves to enrich ecumenical fellowship in multilateral dialogues. The renewed impetus which bilateral dialogues give to the process of convergence on church-dividing doctrinal and theological issues is tested through a common reception process only in the multilateral dialogues. And the unions between communions or confessions which are facilitated by bilateral dialogues will remain isolated achievements if they fail to advance the broader unity of the church through multilateral dialogues. Thus emphasizing the one at the expense of the other makes for a poor ecumenical strategy.
To conclude, if bilateral dialogues are carried on independently and do not provide a common framework and orientation for multilateral dialogues, their effect may be both to jeopardize the sense of the holistic nature of church unity and to reduce the urgency of the common search for visible unity. After almost thirty years of intense bilateral dialogues, it seems to me that the time has come for a comprehensive evaluation and implementation of their results, a steady shift in subject matter from doctrinal issues to practical missiological and pastoral issues arising out of the life of the churches and a closer organic inter-relation between bilateral and multilateral dialogues, probably within the framework of Faith and Order.
Unity at an impasse?
Many observers have described the past few decades, since the late 1960s, as a time of unprecedented "activism" in the ecumenical movement. Apart from ambiguities created by the different ways in which this word is used, it is evident that the churches have reacted in different ways to the phenomenon being described. Some have welcomed it as a clear sign that the ecumenical movement is investing more time and energy in concrete actions than in dreams and visions. Others have seen it as an attempt to bridge the gap between unity on the one hand and the church's missionary and diaconal responsibilities on the other. Still others have discerned in this process a regrettable shift of priority away from unity to issues of church and society.
There is no doubt that the ecumenical movement must address concerns arising in the daily life of people and requiring a Christian response. But the growing engagement in this area may create tensions and polarizations within the ecumenical movement if it is not understood in the right perspective and manifested in a proper way. Let me elaborate my concern:
1. We must be unequivocal about the organic association between the search for unity and the struggle for justice. What are sometimes called the "horizontal" and "vertical" dimensions cannot be in contradiction or competition; they must complement each other and act together. The ecumenical movement has reached this conviction after a long debate and bitter experience. The merger of the Faith and Order and Life and Work movements to form the World Council of Churches was not an arbitrary decision in the interest of administrative efficiency. It was a concrete expression of the wholeness of faith and life and of the inter-connectedness of ecclesiological and political issues.
But if the theological and spiritual dimensions of ecumenical action are overshadowed by secularistic perspectives and considerations, or if unity is conceived exclusively in terms of the church's struggle for justice and peace, or if we do not identify the specificity of our ecumenical involvement and establish a creative and sound theological interaction between the search for unity and engagement in social and ethical issues, then the ecumenical movement becomes totally "horizontalized", and an uncritical commitment to human issues may engender a serious dichotomy.
2. The ecumenical movement has created a sense of coherence, integrity and wholeness among the churches. For example, the churches have been brought closer to each other in a convergence process by the study on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, (BEM) and by some of the agreed statements of bilateral dialogues. However, they are still far from eucharistic sharing and conciliar fellowship. On this crucial question, the ecumenical movement is almost at an impasse.
In my view, three basic issues must be addressed if the search for unity is to be brought out of uncertainty and stagnation:
First, the concept of unity itself is in confusion. The ecumenical movement has proposed a number of models of unity, but it has not yet achieved a common understanding of the nature of unity. The existing models of unity are mainly motivated by confessional and contextual considerations and are hence largely unrelated to each other. If a consensus on a common understanding of the nature of the "unity we seek" is not established among the churches, the present uncertainty may lead the churches to further confusion.
Second, the churches' failure to reach a common concept of the nature of unity is due mainly to the lack of a common understanding of the nature of the church, and to the Christocentric emphasis that has dominated our discussion of unity. Ecclesiology and pneumatology must be given a focal place in the quest. The concept of koinonia, which has once again moved to the centre of the ecumenical agenda, will certainly give a new clarity and impetus to the search for visible unity.
Third, it is time for the ecumenical movement to move from the convergence process to the reception process. While I recognize that many churches require further theological discussion and ecumenical maturation regarding eucharistic sharing, I see no basic reasons to postpone the mutual recognition of baptism. Such a concrete step would significantly enhance the search for full and visible unity.
Many churches feel insecure in an ecumenical movement that is moving towards new horizons. They feel that the emerging models and priorities of the ecumenical movement are compromising its goals, and so they call for a retour aux sources. In my opinion, the question is not one of returning, but rather of moving forward in faithful obedience to the call of God. The ecumenical movement has never been an established reality. Tensions and ambiguities are inherent to a movement that is constantly shaped and reshaped by responding to the changing situations and challenges of the world. What is required today is a broader vision which, without marginalizing the basic goals of the ecumenical movement, takes the churches beyond the classical ecumenical priorities; a critical vision which offers the ecumenical movement a clear and comprehensive self-understanding within the context of the total life of the church and the whole creation of God; and a clearer vision which makes the ecumenical movement identifiable in the midst of new movements and realities.
Aram I is moderator of the World Council of Churches central committee and catholicos of Cilicia, Armenian Apostolic Church. This article grows out of observations. comments and presentations he made during a visit earlier this year to churches in six cities in the USA.
This document provided by HighBeam Research at http://www.highbeam.com
posted by Eric Nicolai @ 5:53 p.m.
1 Comments:
At 3:29 p.m.,
Eric Nicolai said…
Very interesting article. Ecumenism is certainly up there in Benedict XVI's priorities. Seeing all Christians come together is a great dream that I pray for and hope for daily.
Post a Comment
<< Home