Community Unity Communion

Community - Unity - Communion
'Reconciled diversity' and the visible unity of the Church
'full communion' within the Concordat.9 That the question is not simply a matter of an Anglican-Lutheran disagreement but rather of a potential incompatibility among various Lutheran-Anglican proposals indicates the complexity of the issues. Mary Tanner's unease is, in my estimation, well founded, although I feel it in a slightly different way than she does. I hope here to show, from a Lutheran perspective, how Mary Tanner's concerns highlight the strengths and limitations of the concept 'unity in reconciled diversity' and point towards important tasks we face as we move forward from dialogue about unity to living into unity. 1. 'Unity in reconciled diversity': what does it mean?
ecumenical quest for unity and its realization room must be allowed, in principle at least, for confessionally determined convictions and structures of fellowship, including their indispensable, institutional and structural presuppositions.' 15 The bodies that could enter into a conciliar fellowship but would remain distinct within that fellowship would include not only organically united and comprehensive local churches but also local churches which preserved their distinct denominational or confessional identity alongside local churches of other denominations and the national and international organizations of these distinct confessions or denominations. 16 If, as seems to be foreseen in most discussions of unity in reconciled diversity, these distinct bodies are to be self-governing churches in their own right, then such unity can be described in traditional categories as unity with the possible long-term existence of parallel jurisdictions. 17 It should be emphasized that what is foreseen is not simply the communion of highly diverse local churches or the ongoing institutional identifiability of confessional traditions, but parallel church structures. Here seems to lie the specificity of unity in reconciled diversity. The genius of the concept of unity in reconciled diversity was just this appropriation of much of the content of the discussions of unity in Faith and Order circles, while introducing a change in what one might call its ontology, its sense of the units which participate in this fellowship. As the concept of communion became more prominent in the 1980s and 1990s, the differences between the conciliar fellowship and reconciled diversity lines tended to blur. As long as one did not ask what were the units which entered into communion with one another, the two lines seemed to have become one. For example, the statement on 'The Unity of the Church as Koinonia: Gift and Calling' of the 1991 Canberra Assembly of the WCC says nothing about the nature of local unity, except that it is to be conciliar (para. 2.1). 18 If one allowed that this conciliarity could either be within an organically united local church or among congregations which preserved their confessional or denominational distinctiveness, then the Canberra Statement is fully compatible with unity in reconciled diversity.19 This appropriation and reinterpretation of earlier discussions of unity accounts for some of the mixed reception of the concept of unity as reconciled diversity. On the one hand, its most theologically sophisticated defenders have argued that this concept represents a significant step forward. It is not simply a new way of talking about unity as mutual recognition and co-operation, a theological gloss on what would be very much like the status quo. Rather, the 239
The idea of 'unity in reconciled diversity' was developed in a specific conceptual context and has shaped what has become the official ecumenical position of world Lutheranism.10 As the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches (WCC) continued to work on the understanding of the unity of the Church in the wake of the statements on unity by the 1961 New Delhi and 1968 Uppsala Assemblies of the World Council of Churches, a counter-development occurred in some of the Christian World Communions, especially the Lutheran World Federation. The idea of 'conciliar fellowship' that was taking shape in Faith and Order circles still assumed that the bodies entering into this fellowship would be 'local churches which are themselves truly united'. As the New Delhi Assembly said, these local churches would gather 'all in each place who are baptized into Jesus Christ and confess him as Lord and Saviour'." As the 1975 Nairobi Assembly emphasized, '"conciliar fellowship". .. does not look towards a conception of unity different from that full organic unity sketched in the New Delhi statement'.12 The New DelhiUppsala-Nairobi line within the WCC was thus seen as continuing the insistence that true unity required the disappearance of identifiable, distinct confessional bodies.13 The idea 'unity in reconciled diversity' was put forward not as an alternative to the idea of conciliar fellowship, but as a corrective to this 'organic unity' element within it. Most of what was said about the committed fellowship or communion of churches within such a conciliar fellowship was preserved, but the ecclesial unit which entered into this fellowship was not limited to the united local church defined along the lines of the New Delhi statement. 14 As Gunther Gassmann and Harding Meyer said in the early 1980s: 'The principle must be adhered to that at every level - local, regional, and universal - of the
238
emphasis has been on the elements taken over from the wider discussion. Th statement on 'The Unity We Seek' from the Lutheran World Federation's 19S4 Assembly in Budapest states that the unified communion 'assembles i n worship and intercession for all people. It is active in common witness to Jesus Christ; in advocacy for the weak, poor, and oppressed; and in striving f0r peace, justice, and freedom. It is ordered in all its components in conciliar structures and actions.' This unity 'is a committed fellowship, able to make common decisions and to act in common'. 20 'Committed fellowship' is a phrase from the 1961 New Delhi statement, from which Harding Meyer draws structural consequences: 'That there must be structures of fellowship or communion which, when such is necessary, make it possible to take common decisions and to speak and act together is an inherent postulate of the idea of "committed fellowship".'21 While the formerly divided but now reconciled churches would remain distinct, they would live within whatever structures are necessary not only for common worship and witness, but also for common decision-making. As a communion able to decide and act as one, the churches would form a unity in reconciled diversity. On the other hand, critics of the concept of reconciled diversity argue that the insistence on the possibility of confessionally distinct congregations and confessionally distinct larger structures fatally compromises unity. Of course, those committed in principle to the disappearance of the distinct identity of the presently divided churches as what unity truly means cannot accept reconciled diversity as true unity. Other voices less committed in principle to reject unity in reconciled diversity as a form of unity have nevertheless still been sceptical. If the present confessional bodies continue to exist, can structures of communion, decision and action truly overcome the institutional inertia of centuries? Jean Marie Tillard worries that unity and diversity are being placed on the same level in a way that undercuts unity. 'Thus the temptation arises (to which the concept of "reconciled diversity" can succumb) of understanding unity as an interconfessional adjustment in which diversity is so privileged that unity runs the danger of being fragile, accepted but only to a limited degree actually realized "in conciliar forms of life and action".' 22 This worry is strengthened when one notes the sorts of structures foreseen by some authors and ecumenical commissions who explicitly or implicitly understand unity along the lines of 'unity as reconciled diversity'. The Cold Ash Report, which was the focus of Mary Tanner's worry noted above, does not speak of common decision-making in its description of full communion, but only of 'recognized organs of regular consultation and communication, including episcopal collegiality' (para. 25d) and of 'an exchange and a commitment to one another
in respect of major decisions on faith, order, and morals' (para. 27). Common decision-making also falls out of the description given in the survey by Beatus Brenner noted above.23 If, as some worry, the driving force behind the idea of unity as reconciled diversity is the desire 'to maintain the coexistence of confessional blocks up to limit of the possible',2i then will this desire also in practice reduce reconciled diversity to just what its most articulate defenders say it is not: friendly, co-operative coexistence with mutual recognition? This critique points to a problem in the discussion of unity as reconciled diversity. The term covers a spectrum of possibilities, depending on the degree to which the still institutionally identifiable churches are or are not integrated into a larger structure which itself exercises decision-making power. On the one end of the spectrum, Meyer seems to foresee rather vigorous common structures. At the other end, Brenner's brief survey seems to foresee little structure.25 The Lutheran World Federation statement on 'The Unity We Seek' speaks of common decisions but mentions no structures. The Cold Ash Report does not speak of common decision, but does speak of 'episcopal collegiality'. Is it helpful to use one term to describe this entire spectrum? At the very least we need terms for the two poles of the spectrum. Here I will refer to the poles as 'structured unity in reconciled diversity', which foresees the preservation of the existing church bodies within some structure capable of making common decisions, and unstructured unity in reconciled diversity, which does not foresee the existence of such structures.
2. Unity in reconciled diversity: historical and dogmatic arguments? In the light of these worries, why might one argue for unity in reconciled diversity, i.e. unity as a conciliar fellowship with the preservation of parallel jurisdictions? Arguments against uniformity in general or for diversity in general will not suffice. Organically united national churches can allow great diversity among their congregations and even a single comprehensive local church can allow significant diversity by permitting, for example, varying styles at different worship services. Nor is the issue directly the ongoing institutional identifiability of certain traditions, e.g. Methodism, along the lines of the institutional identifiability of organizations within the Roman Catholic Church such as the Society of Jesus or the Order of Preachers. These latter groups are institutionally identifiable but not autonomous and not churches in their own right. What must be argued for is the compatibility of
240
241
the unity we seek ecumenically with the ongoing existence of geographicali overlapping institutions which understand themselves to be churches. Here I will limit myself to arguments that might be made from a Lutheran perspective. My contention, which here can only be outlined, is that unity jn reconciled diversity represents an historical innovation and the doctrinal arguments in its favour are usually insufficient. Rather, the decisive arguments in favour of some form of unity in reconciled diversity are contextual, arising out of the specific situation of the divided churches. Pre-modern historical precedents for unity in reconciled diversity are hard to find. The question 'Did parallel jurisdictions exist in the New Testament Church?' is anachronistic, but we must ask both whether the New Testament as historical source provides evidence for something analogous to parallel jurisdictions, i.e. for distinct Christian communities in the same place which understood themselves to be one, and whether the understanding(s) of the unity of the Church presented in the New Testament seem to allow for unity in reconciled diversity. A full answer to these questions cannot be attempted here. Nevertheless, it does appear difficult to find evidence in the New Testament for something that looks like unity in reconciled diversity. Oscar Cullmann states: 'From the very beginning, we hear of different groups. We think of the group of "Hellenists" mentioned in Acts 6, and especially of the division of the apostolic preaching into two different missions, a JewishChristian mission and a Gentile-Christian mission, of which Paul speaks in Galatians 2.1-10.'26That Hellenists and Hebrews in Jerusalem constituted distinct communities in such a sense, however, is highly doubtful. 27 However we understand the relationship between the Jewish and Gentile missions in the first generation of the Church, it does not seem to have led to distinct churches in the same place. (Would the problems at Antioch discussed in Galatians 2 have taken the shape they did if such were the case?) The existence of 'house churches' is an interesting possible analogy to what is envisaged as unity in reconciled diversity, but the evidence for such house churches becoming something we might anachronistically call 'independent and confessionally distinct' is scarce.28 Once we come to the patristic and mediaeval periods and the acceptance of the monarchical episcopate as the standard (even if significantly varied) organization of the Church, the term 'parallel jurisdictions' ceases to be anachronistic. Rather, it becomes suspect even in exceptional cases and disallowed as normal. As Andrew Louth states: 'This principle of "one city, one bishop' seems to have been adhered to quite strictly . . . More than one bishop meant
schism.' 29 In its eighth canon, the Council of Nicaea permitted reconciled communities of 'so-called Cathars' (i.e. Novatianists) to preserve their own bishops when there was no other bishop in that place. When a bishop of 'the catholic church' was already present, however, the Cathar bishop should have the place of a chorepiscopus or presbyter to 'prevent there being two bishops in the city'.30 The union foreseen by the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century would have tolerated parallel jurisdictions (i.e. two bishops in one city) only until either the Latin or Greek bishop in that city died. Afterwards, the parallel jurisdictions would be eliminated. 31 Harding Meyer is certainly correct when he says that modern notions of unity as communion or Kirchengemeinschaft represent a return to central patristic notions, 32 but to the degree that unity as reconciled diversity foresees parallel jurisdictions, it contradicts what was assumed about unity in the patristic and mediaeval periods. While the traditional episcopal structure disappeared during the course of the Reformation from most Lutheran churches in Continental Europe, the Lutheran Reformers nevertheless continued to assume that only one church could exist at one place. The crucial word here, however, is 'assume'. It is difficult to find explicit discussions of this question by the Reformers from an ecclesiological viewpoint. The assumption seems to be more a social and political one that a peaceful political order required religious unity. For example, Heinz Scheible writes about Philipp Melanchthon: 'He wished to exclude even peaceful Baptists who remained unteachable because they were seen in their difference as an intolerable foreign element within society and because he saw the maintenance of true worship as the duty of political authority.'33 The unity discussions at Augsburg in 1530 were precisely about whether the Lutheran estates would again come under the jurisdiction of the Catholic bishops, i.e. about returning to an integrated institutional structure. Lutheran churches accepted the parallel presence of other churches only when they had no choice (as, for example, in Brandenburg in the seventeenth century after the Elector became Reformed). When able to do so, the Lutheran churches insisted on local unity. As Wilhelm Kahle has written about the Lutheran churches in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: 'Local unity was the presupposition of all further unity of the Church.'34 Lack of historical precedent is, of course, not itself a decisive argument. It does, however, cast some doubt on arguments that unity in reconciled diversity is the obvious corollary of the fundamental convictions of the Reformation. If it is so, it somehow escaped the notice of the Reformers. The most obvious precedent
242
243
Community - Unity - Communion for unity in reconciled diversity are the various so-called rites within the Roman Catholic Church. These did not originally involve parallel jurisdictions however, but came to do so only after emigration led to the presence of significant numbers of persons from different rites in the same place. This fact is significant; in a world as mobile as ours, it is difficult to permit diversity in discipline, liturgy, and theology among different locales and then insist on unity in such matters within each locale. Persons wish to bring some of their tradition with them when they move from one place to another. The dogmatic argument Lutherans often offer for unity in reconciled diversity also is of doubtful strength. The argument is straightforward and usually involves an appeal to the seventh article of the Augsburg Confession: If the true unity of the Church exists wherever the gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered (so Augsburg 7), then the existence of an integrated institutional structure, even at the local level, is non-essential to unity and thus a matter which human freedom can decide as seems best to fit the situation. The appeal of such an argument to the Augsburg Confession, however, is problematic. The issue addressed by the Confession's statement about unity is not the form that lived unity must take but rather what must be true about a community if one is to conclude that it is within the unbroken unity of the one Church. If a community rightly preaches the gospel and rightly administers the sacraments, then it is a realization of the one Church, even if it has reformed 'human traditions, or rites and ceremonies'. 35 The question of the shape the common life of the true Church should take is not directly addressed by the Confession, although the reconciliation proposal it embodies would have led to locally unified churches under episcopal administration. A unity involving parallel jurisdictions is simply not considered by the Augustana. This dogmatic argument also has a parallel conceptual problem. It assumes that all ecclesial possibilities can be adequately handled by two categories, the strictly essential and the merely indifferent. It ignores the possibility that something might be less than strictly essential but still theologically desirable, even normative, in most normal situations. 36 A common life in worship, love, and mission shared by various local churches cannot be said to be of the essence of the Church, since political oppression, for example, can make such a common life impossible even while the local communities continue to gather around word and sacrament and thus remain churches. Nevertheless, when such a common life is possible, it is not a matter of indifference, a matter
which human freedom can take up or omit. The pursuit of such a common life is normally normative. A doctrinal argument in favour of unity as reconciled diversity would need to argue that the common life to which we are called by the unity we are given in Christ can be realized within parallel structures at the local and supralocal levels. It would need to argue that the unified institutional life usually referred to as organic unity is theologically both non-essential and non-normative, despite the assumption held throughout most of the history of the Church, including that of the Lutheran churches, that such unity was in fact normative. Such an argument would need to attend less to general questions of doctrine, of what is true about the Church always and everywhere, and more to the pragmatic and contextual problems that confront the modern, divided Church. 3. Unity in reconciled diversity: pragmatic arguments and tests
The strongest and, in my estimation, convincing arguments for some version of unity as reconciled diversity are not those that appeal to history or to a general doctrine of the Church, both of which should make us suspicious of this model. Rather, the decisive arguments arise out of a consideration of the concrete ecumenical situation of the Church today, which makes organic union on the pattern of a merger of churches problematic as either a short- or middleterm goal. On the one hand, it was argued from the beginning of the 1970s debate on models of unity that the simple abandonment of distinct confessional traditions for the sake of organic unity would lead to an impoverishment of church life. The differing traditions of theology, worship, and spirituality have been enriched by their encounters with one another, but further enrichment would not occur if the traditions were simply to disappear. The increasing valuation of diversity in church life over the last 40 years has certainly contributed to this judgement. 37 The development of various ecclesiologies of communion has provided ways of understanding how diversity can contribute to a richer unity. Would this diversity be preserved if its institutional basis were immediately destroyed? On the other hand, the benefits of organic union in the shape of church mergers have proved more ambiguous than hoped. Even if one judges the unions on the Indian subcontinent as on the whole significant steps forward, the road they have taken has proved rockier and the advantages more meagre than many expected. 38 Church mergers in the USA have usually been followed by at least short-term membership losses. The time it takes for the formerly distinct
244
245
churches to grow together into a new church has proved to be extensive p of the problem lies in the bureaucratic, programme-oriented model of nation church life which has como to dominate at least the North Atlantic world in th twentieth century but which is becoming increasingly unwieldy. Furthe unions along such lines appear ever less attractive. Unfortunately, we seem to lack other clear pictures of how to organize our churches. The entry of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches into ecumenical discussions has also placed a question mark over the primarily Protestant and Anglican discussions of union. Would a corporate merger of most of American mainstream Protestantism (including the Episcopal Church) aid or hinder the prospects for reconciliation with Rome and Constantinople? The question is at least debatable. One can believe that true unity involves the eventual disappearance of parallel jurisdictions, but still judge that the preservation of distinct Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist and Reformed traditions will aid an ecumenical convergence that will include Catholics and Orthodox. Taken together, such arguments appear to have gained a certain degree of acceptance for 'unity in reconciled diversity' in the wider ecumenical scene. The ecumenical steps that appear to be possible in the immediate future seem to be movements toward unity in reconciled diversity. In this context, discussions about models of unity need to take a rather different shape today than they did during the 1970s. Two questions are now decisive: how is unity which does not remove the institutional distinctness of the churches structured? And what sort of growth should occur within the unity we are now able to achieve? If the primary alternative in the 1970s was organic unity or unity in reconciled diversity, then the decisive alternative today is between, on the one hand, a structured communion oriented toward growth into common decision and action and, on the other, an unstructured communion for which common decision and action remain ad hoc. The sharpness of the alternative is blurred by the fact that the choices are actually points on a spectrum, as noted above. Nevertheless, the differences between points on this spectrum are real. Will structures be created which will make committed fellowship a reality in the lives of the churches and not simply words in a resolution the churches pass and then forget? If 'unity in reconciled diversity' arose in a situation where unity discussions seemed to threaten the heritage of the distinct traditions, such a danger does not loom large today. In a situation of 'friendly division with porous borders', in which persons move freely between churches with little sense of what divides them but also with little sense of any need to overcome their division, the danger is of a peaceful coexistence on the model of market
competition. A potentially fateful correspondence exists between various trends in modern religious life and understandings of unity as an unstructured reconciled diversity. IViary Tanner's concern noted at the outset of this essay is thus very much to the point. We must ask of present ecumenical proposals, will they be able to move the churches involved beyond peaceful coexistence and into a common life? Any answer to this question must attend to the context of each proposal and the churches involved. Since any answer can only be a prediction until the proposals are adopted and realized, proposals will also need to provide some means by which the structures can be assessed as the churches live into unity. What the churches do after proposals are adopted is as important as the proposals themselves. How are we to understand the relation between the final ecumenical goal and the various steps into unity in reconciled diversity that may be possible in the immediate future? A detailed model of what the final goal can or must look like is not yet possible. The churches which need to come together are too diverse; the present models of church life need themselves to be creatively rethought; the world within which such a united Church must live is changing too rapidly. In a world far more pluralistic than that of the mediaeval or even the ancient Roman world, we should expect a more pluralistic Church. Various forms of parallel structures may need to be in place for very long periods of time. At present, we can do little more than construct statements of the necessary elements such unity will need to include, statements such as the Canberra statement on 'The Unity of the Church as Koinonid1 or the LWF Budapest statement on 'The Unity We Seek'. Such statements can serve as criteria and orientation points as we structure and implement the steps that are now possible. The test of a model lies not in itself but in what it models. The test of 'unity in reconciled diversity' will be whether the relations it shapes grow into a committed fellowship within which diversity, however it is institutionally structured, visibly is at the service of unity. One of the great skills of Mary Tanner as an ecumenical leader has been her ability to attend to the immediately possible without losing sight of the larger horizon. It is just such a skill that the churches will need if 'unity in reconciled diversity' is in fact going to contribute to the visible and lived unity we believe is the Lord's will for his Church.
39
246
247
'Reconciled diversity' and the visible unity of the Church |4. Meyer, Zielvorstellungen, $. 143.
Notes 1.
Mary Tanner, 'The Goal of Unity in Theological Dialogues Involving Anglicans' i G. Gassmann and P. N0rgaard-H0jen (eds), Einheit der Kirche: Neue Entwicklungen und Perspektiven (Frankfurt am Main, 1988), pp. 69-78. Ibid., p. 76. Anglican-Lutheran Joint Working Group, Anglican-Lutheran Relations: The Cold Ash Report (London/Geneva, 1983), para. 25. Mary Tanner, 'Goal of Unity', p. 77. Emphasis in original. See also her comments on the Anglican-Lutheran dialogue in Mary Tanner, 'The Ecumenical Future' in S. Sykes and J. Booty (eds). The Study of Anglicanism (London: SPCK, 1988), p. 386. Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue - Series III, 'Toward Full Communion' and 'Concordat of Agreement', ed. W. A. Norgren and W. G. Rusch (Minneapolis/Cincinnati, 1991). Although the Concordat was not adopted by the necessary two-thirds majority by the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in 1997, I share the hope that a proposal highly similar to the Concordat will be adopted by the Lutheran and Episcopal churches in the next few years. It is improbable, however, that a new proposal will differ from the Concordat on the ecumenical goal. Together in Mission and Ministry. The Porvoo Common Statement with Essays on Church and Ministry in Northern Europe (London, 1993). The Meissen Agreement: Texts (Council for Christian Unity Occasional Paper no. 2, 1992). Church of England Faith and Order Advisory Group, 'Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue in the USA, Towards Full Communion and Concordat of Agreement: A Response' (unpublished typescript, 1995). The history of the discussion of the ecumenical goal is laid out in H. Meyer, Okutnenische Zielvorstellungen (Okumenische Studienhefte, 4, Gottingen, 1996). An English translation of this work should appear during 1998 as The Goal of the Ecumenical Movement (Grand Rapids). My extensive dependence on this and other works by Meyer is clear; how far I might be in disagreement with him, however, is not so clear to me. Quotations from the New Delhi and Nairobi Assemblies, the latter itself quoting the 1973 Salamanca Consultation of the Faith and Order Commission. These statements can be found in G. Gassmann, Documentary History of Faith and Order 1963-1993 (Faith and Order Paper no. 159, 1993), p. 3. Breaking Barriers: Nairobi 1975. The Official Report of the Fifth Assembly of the World Council of Churches, Nairobi, 23 November-10 December, 1975, ed. D.M. Paton (London, 1976), p. 60. Emphasis in original. Whether 'organic union' does in fact require the disappearance of distinct confessional bodies is not immediately the question here. It was seen as having this implication. See, for example, Meyer, Zielvorstellungen, p. 115.
15. G. Gassmann and H. Meyer, 'Requirements and Structure of Church Unity' in G. Gassmann
and H. Meyer (eds), The Unity of the Church: Requirements and Structure (LWF Report no. 15, 1983), p. 23.
2. 3.
4.
16. Unity
5. 6.
in reconciled diversity was intended to preserve both confessionally distinct local congregations and confessionally distinct national and international bodies. Part of the background of the models of unity debate was the critique of the Christian World Communions that was widespread in the late 1960s and 1970s (for the Lutheran reaction to this critique at the world level, see The History and Theological Concerns of the World Confessional Families [LWF Report no. 5, 1979]). While this preservation of both local and supralocal distinctiveness forms a neat package, neither requires the other. One could have the continuation of confessionally distinct congregations within a single church structure (as occurred in the Prussian Union) or the continued existence of distinct confessional bodies at the regional or international level, whose members were all comprehensive local churches (the German Landeskirchen each take in all the Protestants in their territory, but still identify themselves confessionally). So, in a recent brief survey of understandings of unity, Beatus Brenner of the Bensheim Institute in Germany said that in this understanding of unity, 'the churches remain independent and need not complete an institutional union with a common church leadership [Kirchenleitung]'. (B. Brenner, 'Gegenseitige Anerkennung der Getrennten Konfessionen: Versohnte Verschiedenheit und unversohnte Gegensatze', MD: Materialiendienst des Konfessionskundlichen Instituts Bensheim, 48 (1997), p. 85). This rejection of the need for a common Kirchenleitung is precisely the allowance for parallel jurisdictions, In Gassmann, op. cit., p. 4. This aspect of the Canberra Statement was criticized by Lukas Vischer, 'Is This Really "the Unity We Seek?" Comments on the Statement on "The Unity of the Church as Koinonia: Gift and Calling" Adopted by the WCC Assembly in Canberra', Ecumenical Review, 44 (1992), 473f. Budapest 1984 'In Christ - Hope for the World'. Official Proceedings of the Seventh Assembly of the Lutheran World Federation, Budapest, Hungary, July 22-August 5, 1984, ed. C. H. Mau (LWF Report no. 19, 1985), p. 175. Meyer, Zielvorstellungen, p. 69 (my translation). Meyer and Gassmann had earlier stated: 'It has become clearer that a "unity in reconciled diversity" can only be "a binding common purpose of witness and service" (Dar es Salaam) if there are also structural institutional elements and instruments that make possible this common action and the common decisions it requires' (G. Gassmann and H. Meyer, 'Requirements', p. 22). 'Dar es Salaam' refers to the 1977 Assembly of the LWF in Dar es Salaam.
17.
7. 8. 9. 10.
18. 19.
20. 21.
11.
12. 13.
22. J.M.R. Tillard, '"Konziliare Gemeinschaft", "versohnte Verschiedenheit", CommunioEkklesiologie und Schwesterkirchen' in Gemeinsamer Glaube und Strukturen der Gemeinschaft: Erfahrungen - Oberlegungen - Perspektiven (Frankfurt am Main, 1991), p. 153 (my translation).
248
249
Community - Unity - Communion 23. See note 17.
The Unity of the Church See, for example, S. B. Joshua, 'The Future of the Ecumenical Movement: From the Perspective of a Member of a United Church' in On the Way to Fuller Koinonia. Official Report of the Fifth World Conference on Faith and Order, ed. T.F. Best and G. Gassmann (Faith and Order Paper no. 166, 1994), pp. 146-52. See M. Root, 'The Unity of the Church and the Reality of the Denominations', Modern Theology, 9(1993), 385-401.
24. 25.
Tillard, op. cit., p. 149 (my translation; emphasis in the original). At the extremes, the spectrum shades off into other models of unity. The 'single episcope in collegial form' seen as one possible realization of unity by the Roman Catholic/Lutheran Joint Commission, Facing Unity: Models, Forms and Phases of Catholic-Lutheran Church Fellowship (Geneva, 1985), paras 127-31, 142-45, is hard to distinguish from an organic union that permitted internal diversity. Similarly, more unstructured forms of unity in reconciled diversity are hard to distinguish from the federative approach of Oscar Cullmann, Unity Through Diversity: Its Foundation, and a Contribution to the Discussion Concerning the Possibilities of Its Actualization, tr. M. E. Boring (Philadelphia, 1988). Cullmann, op. cit., p. 29. See the careful work of Craig C. Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division Within the Earliest Church (Minneapolis, 1992). If, as Wayne Meeks says might be the case, house churches were the basis for the 'incipient factions' Paul criticizes in 1 Corinthians 1- 4, then the evidence is rather for a rejection of this option. See W. A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven, 1983), p. 76. A. Louth, 'Unity and Diversity in the Church of the Fourth Century' in R.N. Swanson (ed.), Unity and Diversity in the Church (Studies in Church History, 32, 1996), p. 6. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. N.P. Tanner (London, 1990), i, p. 10. J. Gill, The Council of Florence (Cambridge, 1959), p. 297. For example, H. Meyer, 'To Serve Christian Unity: Ecumenical Commitment in the LWF' in J.H. Sch0rring, N.A. Hjelm and P. Kumari (eds). From Federation to Communion: The History of the Lutheran World Federation (Minneapolis, 1997), p. 254. H. Scheible, 'Philipp Melanchthon, der Reformator neben Luther' in J. Haustein (ed.), Philipp Melanchthon: Ein Wegbereiter fiir die Okumene (Bensheimer Hefte, 82, 1997), p. 29 (my translation). W. Kahle, 'Fragen lutherischer Einheit von der Reformation bis zum Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts' in Wege zur Einheit der Kirche im Luthertum. Die Lutherische Kirche, Geschichte und Gestalten, i (Giitersloh, 1976), p. 45 (my translation). B. Lohse, 'Die Einheit der Kirche nach der Confessio Augustana' in K. Lehmann and E. Schlink (eds), Evangelium - Sakramente - Amt und die Einheit der Kirche: Die bkumenische Tragweite der Confessio Augustana (Dialog der Kirchen, ii, Freiburg i. B. Gottingen, 1982). On the category of the 'normally normative', see M. Root, 'Should We Do It? The Question of Criteria', Currents in Theology and Mission, 24 (1997), 135-46. See the affirmation of diversity in the paper from the 1974 Discussion Paper on 'The Ecumenical Role of the World Confessional Families in the One Ecumenical Movement', partially reprinted in G. Gassmann and H. Meyer (eds). The Unity of the Church: Requirements and Structure (LWF Report no. 15, 1983), pp. 27-32.
26. 27. 28.
29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.
250
251
Authentic koinonia, confessional diversity

Jean Marie R. Tillard, OP One of the most significative features of our Christian world today, especially in the West, is certainly, alongside the traditional organization of the Eastern Patriarchates and of the Catholic Church (to which the Anglican Communion may be added), the grouping of local communities in large associations. Some of these associations call themselves 'confessional families', others are designated as federations, fellowships, clusters or societies. It is now nearly impossible to find, even amongst the so-called independent or Afro-Christian churches, an entirely isolated local congregation. Almost all of these churches are connected with other communities of the same origin. I 1. The Christian map is thus made up more and more of the coexistence of many groups neighbouring each other, often on friendly terms (especially if they belong to the ecumenical movement), but at times ignoring one another or even in conflict. The specific internal bond uniting the members of each of these groups is usually their interpretation of some basic element of Christian faith.1 In the 'confessional families', this is normally based on the vision of a strong personality who protested against the doctrinal or theological opinions current in his age and gathered around himself a community which lost its ties with the official Church.2 Sometimes firmly and zealously attached to a specific confession of faith, the great majority of these groups gave themselves an ecclesiastical structure, implying a ministry in harmony with their own understanding of the will of Christ. Moreover, they slowly acquired and developed a characteristic set of beliefs, laws, customs, doctrinal features, which here and now constitutes their own tradition. This tradition - an essential factor of their cohesion - pertains deeply to their identity. Consequently, if one wants to grasp the authentic nature of any of these groups, one needs to look at its tradition. 2. Such an inquiry into the confessional traditions brings about very important theological conclusions. One of these conclusions is at the root of the
Authentic koinonia, confessional diversity vision of the Church of God that Vatican II professed. Even if - as is the case for the Catholic Church - a church is strongly convinced that it possesses everything necessary to be really the salvific community God intended to create in Christ Jesus, nevertheless it must recognize that outside its own canonical edges many of the essential elements which constitute the Church are present. According to Vatican II, the action of the Holy Spirit and the essential channels of his activity cannot be located only within the limits of the community in which the Church of God subsists. Canonical frontiers and charismatic borders do not necessarily coincide. For instance, a Catholic must acknowledge how, thanks to some of the Protestant confessions, the faith has been maintained in strongly atheist societies. He has also to recognize that through the missionary zeal of many of them the gospel never ceased to be preached in countries otherwise ignoring the name of Christ. No one, today, would dare to affirm that in these Protestant evangelical, free, independent churches the name of God is not praised and the desire to serve Christ not alive, or that their liturgies are mere ceremonies void of any authentic Christian signification. The Christian map we were describing is in fact the map of Christian Baptism. Everywhere an authentic Baptism is celebrated, the Spirit of Christ is certainly at work. Since Augustine all agree that the lordship of Christ operates there. Consequently, all these confessions are really seized by what Irenaeus called the two hands of God: the Logos and the Spirit. 3 3. One is tempted to conclude that the authentic nature of the Church of God as such can only be deduced from this Christian map. A serious question arises: Does the Church of God on earth consist merely of the harmonious addition, juxtaposition, coexistence of all these confessional identities? We have just affirmed that the Church of God is not to be found only within the canonical confines of any one group of Christian communities. Have we to consider these confessions as the parts of a puzzle Christ wants to be filled and assembled together by them, thanks to their mutual love, their mutual tolerance, their mutual acceptance of each other, their common action, their alliances in the struggle against racism, poverty, all forms of injustice? After nearly a century of ecumenical endeavours and ventures, the question is more and more crucial. It is linked to the fundamental nature of the koinonia Christ himself asks his disciples to achieve."
262
263
n
1. Nobody would deny that between all the Christian confessions - we shall from now on use this word in a broad sense, including the Catholic and Orthodox churches - there exists a real koinonia. Even if they ignore each other or fight against each other, as continues to happen in some parts of the world, they are objectively united in Christ Jesus, because of the gifts of the Holy Spirit they are sharing and of the one Baptism they all received. This is a koinonia coming from God, involving the Trinity, since all of them are seized by 'the two hands of the Father'. It is a koinonia of grace. The same gospel they 'received', the same Lord's Prayer they recite, the same mission they carry three realities without which none of them would be truly a Christian community - are facets of this one and indivisible gift of God's charis. They are all Christians in and through the same divine oikonomia by which God brings them into communion. 2. Nevertheless, this objective and real koinonia is imperfect, even in relation to the 'reception' of the gospel of God. The imperfection comes from human fragility and sinfulness. It is, on the human side, a real but imperfect koinonia. One of the worst effects of human vulnerability and weakness is precisely the possibility to misuse the gift of God, to 'receive' it in an improper or incorrect manner, to mix up its essential elements, to pollute it with games of power and lust, to put aside some of its crucial demands, to reduce it to one's own understanding, to fail to give the word of God the consideration it deserves, especially when it contradicts one's basic tendencies, to neglect the contemplation of divine realities.5 This explains why the scandalous division of Christianity, evident in what we describe as the Christian map, is the tragic illustration of what the Johannine tradition calls 'the sin' (John 15.22-24; 16.8-9), the work of the Devil (1 John 3.8). The Christian map is at once the manifestation of the untiring faithfulness of God and the sign of the constant weakness of humanity, the proof that human responsibility is wounded even in its 'reception' of divine grace. 3. A. The wounds and imperfections of Christian koinonia are evident at two levels. But the most scandalous and obvious of them is not the most fundamental. It is an undeniable fact that subjectively Christian communities belonging to diverse confessions do not fully or perfectly love each other. On our Christian map, borders are often marked not only by mutual ignorance of the needs of the neighbour but also by rancours, rivalries, contempts, sometimes even hostility. After many decades of ecumenical action, memories are
not yet released from the bondage of mutual enmity. Forgiveness remains difficult. Distrust persists as one of the most insurmountable obstacles to authentic fraternal relations. From the New Testament we can deduce that the normal relations between communities marred by the remembrance of mutual offences are supposed to be more than bonds of polite coexistence. Moreover, strenuous collaboration for the service of humanity 'in the name of Christ' does not suffice to achieve reconciliation. The New Testament calls for authentic forgiveness. We translate the verb a<]>ir||it(Matthew 6.12; 12.32; 18.32; Mark 11.25; Luke 5.20; 11.4; James 5.15) and the noun a^eoiq (Matthew 26.28; Luke 4.18; Acts 2.38; Ephesians 1.7; Colossians 1.14), as forgive and forgiveness meaning very concretely the action of sending away, releasing, letting go and departing. And another verb, which we also translate forgive, Xapi,0|ica (2 Corinthians 2.7, 10; 12.13; Ephesians 4.32; Colossians 2. 13; 3.13), stresses the generosity, the liberality, the graciousness - grounded in God's sending of the Beloved Son -of such behaviour. Mark (11.25) and Matthew (6.12) are clear: if you are filled with resentment, anger, bitterness about others 'when you stand praying' and if you want to receive correctly the pardon of God, you have to forgive. This means that it is necessary to let go of your grudges, grievances, unfriendly and distrustful attitudes. Moreover, to initiate the movement towards full reconciliation, this evangelical law governing relations between individuals must be extended to relations between communities of disciples. It is obvious that, even if their relations are increasingly inspired by sincere friendship, peaceful acceptance of their belonging to the same family (the family of Christ), and consciousness of the necessity to work together, many Christian confessions are nevertheless not yet ready for such forgiveness. Memories are not yet entirely purified. Consequently, a too quick and easy forgiveness would not be deep enough to sustain a perfect communion. Christian divisions are never easily cured. Long is the way to full and perfect unity. Love is not enough. B. We already know the source of the problem. Christian division is not basically the consequence of a lack of brotherly love. Many pages of the New Testament and the first documents of the tradition show how at the root of the main splits tearing apart the Church of God there is a dissent concerning the interpretation of the word of God. Christians are not unanimous in their understanding of the person of Christ Jesus, the divine Trinity, the nature of the Church, the oikonomia of salvation, the means of grace, the guidance of the Christian community. They are divided because each one believes its own
264
265
interpretation to be the right one and its own attitude to be the one faithful to the will of God. Consequently, the doctrine or the behaviour of other groups is considered as an error or a deviance from what is normal and acceptable sometimes as a sell-out of the gospel. It is regarded as incompatible with the faith and practice of the one community really attached to the truth. Undoubtedly, at this fundamental level, there is, on the human side, no perfect koinonia. In another context - relations with pagans - we read in a fragment, probably non-Pauline but inserted in the second letter to the Corinthians, the following principle which applies also to relations between groups of Christians: no koinonia is possible between light and darkness (2 Corinthians 6.14). The letter to the Ephesians prescribes: 'have no koinonia (\xr\ OWKOIVcoveixe) with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them' (Ephesians 5.11; cf. John 3.20-21). We find in the first centuries no tolerance for those accused of betraying the truth of Christ.6 One of the most prized and important fruits of Vatican II is certainly, and not only for the Catholic Church, the recognition that a koinonia may be imperfect and nevertheless real. Furthermore, it is impossible to deny that in spite of their imperfection the relations between churches of diverse confessions are a quite significative element of Christian agape. However, we must firmly hold with the past centuries the certitude that the koinonia God desires does not consist in the mere coexistence of Christian groups confessing sometimes incompatible, and even opposite visions of the revealed truth. By its own nature, truth is one and indivisible. Full Christian koinonia cannot exist outside a fundamental unity in the true faith. Is it not founded on the word of God? 4. We are thus facing a very difficult task. How can we discern if different confessional traditions are compatible or incompatible? On which basis may we declare that two distinct interpretations of fundamental elements of Christian faith are really a legitimate diversity? The discussions between the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran churches on the burning issue of 'justification by faith' are indeed a good proof of the possibility of such a discernment, as are the discussions with the Disciples of Christ. It was also the case for the dialogue of the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion on 'Salvation and the Church'. But it is not easy.
a discernment. They are all rooted in a certitude and in a conviction: the certitude that because of its vocation the Church of God is called to be inseparably one and diverse, the conviction that confessional families as such might become, on some conditions, parts of a fully united Church without necessarily losing their identity. Some timid but promising steps in this direction have been already initiated. But it is realistic to acknowledge that, at any rate, the journey of confessional families as such towards this kind of communion will be necessarily a slow process, initially involving only a few of them. It presupposes, together with the mutual forgiveness we described, a costly reevaluation and probably a courageous readjustment of some of their distinctive features. To achieve authentic re-evaluation and efficient readjustment, the confessional families will need to ask themselves, lucidly, two sets of questions. These questions belong to what I call 'the hermeneutics of the confessions'. 8 They all presuppose a clear understanding of the transcendence of faith and of the limits of human mind. No creature, even illuminated by the Spirit, can grasp the wholeness of God's revelation, nor express it in a perfect manner, 'for we walk by faith not by sight' (2 Corinthians 5.7), 'for now we see in a mirror dimly' (1 Corinthians 13.12). Already in the New Testament, the variety of approaches to the reality of Christ and the richness of salvation is a way to cope with this disproportion between the content of faith and its expression. All the traditions need to resist the temptation to consider their own understanding of God's revelation as the only one marked with the seal of authenticity. Antioch and Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople serve the faith better when they try to understand their complementarity than when they anathematize each other. 9 Nevertheless, it is clear that they are complementary only in so far as they do not contradict each other on essential elements of 'faith and order'. And none of them may deviate from these essential elements. These are the norm. 2. A. The first set of questions a confessional family needs to ask itself concerns the justification of its existence here and now in relation to the mind of its founder. Why, at its very origin, did this founder and his first disciples refuse or oppose the current way of understanding, teaching, living out Christian tradition? Did their reaction stem mainly (even if not exclusively) from a fresh reappropriation of the whole of God's words and deeds or from the awareness of a dangerous or scandalous crisis of the Church in their time? Did this situation appear scandalous to their eyes chiefly for doctrinal reasons or because it was mixed with a deviant exercise of authority by Christian ministers disloyal to Christ? Were the specific features they gave to their 267
ni
1. On the basis of the experience of the last decades, especially through bilateral dialogues and the efforts of the so-called United and Uniting Churches,7 it is now possible to deduce some principles able to guide such 266
Authentic koinonia, confessional diversity Whilst it is relatively easy to judge if the doctrine of a confession is faithful to the christological foundations of faith, it is less easy to discern if it accords with the revealed vision of salvation and how it really fits into the common teaching 'received' by the churches. For one needs to know if it is an authentic development of Christian doctrine or a spurious statement which cannot be inserted into the common proclamation of the Good News of salvation. But -precisely because of their divisions - churches do not make this judgement according to the same norms. Their reactions to the Lima document (Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry) showed clearly that norms for discernment are quite often parts of confessional identity. This is a circle which is difficult to break. This situation constitutes an important chapter of what I have called the necessary hermeneutics of the confessions. Yet many churches do not seem ready for it, few seem willing to accept its conclusions. It is thus evident that, until this urgent question is resolved, only churches sharing the same basic criteria of authenticity and orthodoxy will be able to decide upon the compatibility of all their main differences with a full visible koinonia. B. For the Orthodox and Catholic churches, the most decisive criterion to decide upon the compatibility or incompatibility of confessional differences is their impact on a true concelebration of the Eucharist. Any diversity which manifestly makes impossible a common synaxis cannot be accepted as compatible with a full visible koinonia. This impossibility of common synaxis may have many causes: not yet reconciled ministries, manifestly opposed understandings of constitutive elements of the Eucharist, conflicting views concerning the mission of the Church, contradictory stances on crucial doctrinal issues, strong disagreements about essential points of Christian ethics. For these old, patristic traditions, oneness in the Eucharist and oneness in the daily life ('the liturgy after the Liturgy') are inseparable. Any difference making this link impossible is considered incompatible with canonical full visible koinonia. C. To this 'liturgy after the Liturgy' is attached another important criterion, difficult to measure. It concerns the Pauline affirmation that in Christ between Jews and Greeks there is no distinction (1 Corinthians 12.13; Galatians 3.28; Colossians 3.11; Romans 10.12). The problem is not only hypothetical. In some countries, the racial issue becomes so prominent that it has to be handled seriously in any project of visible unity between churches traditionally associ ated with one specific people. Studying the recent evolution of the so-called independent churches, speaking with ordinary parishioners of Hutu and Tutsi communities, hearing declarations of Croatian Catholics, reading articles 269
community chosen in order to 'give birth to the real Church' or in order to bring the existing Church back to its authentic nature? Were these specific features considered so essential, so constitutive of the identity of the group, that they seemed untouchable? What is their rank in the hierarchy of Christian truths? What would be the consequences in the life of the confessional family of a modification of some distinctive features? If it is feared that such a modification might damage the unity of the confessional community, what are the main reasons for this fear? B. If they are answered lucidly, these questions must be followed by a quite essential query. In the light of theological research over the last centuries and of the aggiornamento of the other churches, is it still legitimate and correct to consider the specific character of the confession as a protest, a way of being Christian really incompatible with the 'faith and order' of the mainstream from which its founders departed? Is it possible to see it, now, more as the relevant emphasis or necessary (perhaps providential) affirmation of a crucial element of Christian faith and practice than as a rupture with the common teaching? Are mutual excommunications or anathematizations still valid? If not, it is clear that obedience to the will of Christ must lead to forgiveness and - step by step -to the search for a canonical insertion of the confessional 'difference' within the diversity compatible with canonically full, perfect visible koinonia.10 But any diversity is not necessarily a gift of the Holy Spirit for the Church of God. But any diversity is not necessarily a danger, threatening communion. 3. A. A diversity is incompatible with a full, visible, canonical koinonia when it makes members of the Church of God unable to confess faith unanimously and to accomplish their common mission. Key issues are at stake. The question to be asked is the following. Does the coexistence of different dogmatic interpretations or strong doctrinal opinions make impossible the common proclamation and confession of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, Saviour of humanity? We all know that this was the question debated during the first ecumenical councils. These discussions gave birth to declarations about the non-belonging of some groups to the koinonia of the churches, but also to the 'recognition' that some suspected churches were part of this koinonia after it had been proved and 'received' that the difference of expressions did not mean an opposition in the faith. Arian communities were declared out of communion at Nicaea; the faith of the disciples of Theodoret and Ibas was declared orthodox at Chalcedon (26-27 October 451).
268
dealing with inter-Orthodox conflicts, one comes to the conviction that we shall very soon be confronted with a new kind of phyletism. Yet, as the Orthodox churches declared solemnly during the last century, phyletism is incompatible with the right vision of the Church of God. This is why, in spite of the validity of its ministry, a Christian group not ready to 'receive' the apostolic confession that 'the same Lord is the Lord of all' (Romans 10.12) cannot insert its distinctiveness into the bundle of acceptable and suitable differences. It would corrupt the common witness. D. There is another area where a denominational distinctiveness may be incompatible with full visible koinonia. It is related to the Christian under standing of the final destiny of humanity. An essential conviction of the New Testament is that human destiny is mysteriously connected with the eternal circumincessio of the three divine persons. Life has a transcendental origin and finality. Any interpretation of Christian doctrine which either denies or simply ignores this divine dimension gravely threatens the pastoral mission of the Church. It cannot be integrated into a sane diversity. Christian understanding of human destiny is indeed attached to the eschatological character of God's kingdom. But this link implies the certitude that the Church on earth belongs to the purpose of God, revealed and fulfilled in Christ Jesus and, consequently, that full visible koinonia is much more than a mere historical reality. One must at least admit that it has an eschatological horizon. The negation of this relation between the Church of God on earth and the ultimate vocation of humanity as such would be a grave obstacle to full communion. E. Let us end this reflection with an important remark. A careful study of the patristic dossier, confirmed by ecumenical experience, may incite theolo gians to pay more attention to the conditions required for declaring that, within a still canonically united community, a conflict, a tension, a strong doctrinal disturbance, a dispute constitutes in fact a rupture, a schism. The history of the Christian confessions proves that many groups became schismatic because they were declared schismatics" and not vice versa. Canonical links of koinonia are not a merely formal confirmation of common belonging. They exert, at least in the psychology of the communities, a specific causality. They contribute to the preservation of common life. In times of crisis they help to discover through dialogue the solutions permitting, all the same, perseverance with communion through difficulties and sharing in the Eucharist. Quite often the results of such a persistence are positive for the two groups involved.
Correlatively, as soon as a division is officially endorsed or sanctioned, it becomes extremely difficult to come back to the previous koinonia. The tragedy of Eastern and Western Christianity is, to a high degree, the consequence of this undeniable situation. IV Already in the New Testament, one finds a case of koinonia declared possible because diversity was 'recognized' as tolerable. Historically it is difficult to put together everything the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline literature say concerning the solution of the conflict between Gentile and Jewish local churches. Nevertheless, the Epistle to the Galatians (2.1-14) demonstrates how koinonia may be maintained, and probably healed, through dialogue, while really keeping one another's diversity. 'The right hand of koinonia' (Galatians 2.9) is not the simple handshake of two polite persons happy in their final agreement. 12 Neither does it seal a clever and useful compromise. It is the result of the 'recognition' that the same gospel of God was preached (2.2) and received in the Gentile churches as it was in Jewish Christianity, that the same grace of God was really shared by Paul and by the 'pillars of the Church', even if Paul was entrusted with the gospel to the Jews, that the same and common purpose was at work on both sides. Indeed this koinonia will remain fragile. In Antioch, Paul will clash violently with Peter (Galatians 2.11-15). It seems (Romans 15.30-31; Acts 20. 3; 21.10-11, 17-36) that even when he comes to Jerusalem again with the money collected for the poor (Galatians 2.10), Jewish leaders will still refuse to 'recognize' his apostolic mission. The koinonia established at the meeting with the Jerusalem leaders was not, evidently, the result of some natural affection or friendship towards each other (1.4-5, 12-13; cf. 5.4-12)! It was based on the 'recognition' that God was working in both groups and that, consequently, they shared the same gospel and the same mission, the same promise and the same freedom (eXEijOepio:2.4; cf. 5.1, 13, 16). They were different and nevertheless one in 'the truth of the Gospel' (2.14). But it is obvious that for the two partners, koinonia could not mean uniformity. Paul will not change the specificity of his message on the relations between gospel and law. Moreover, Paul's experience may also help us to understand the difficulty of life in koinonia. Indeed, in non-essential matters and in interpretations 'recognized' to be compatible with the common faith, diversity must be preferred to sterile uniformity. Nevertheless diversity might become a seed of division if it is not constantly governed by the supreme good of koinonia.
270
271
This point is crucial. It would be interesting to discuss at length some verses of the Pauline letters too neglected by those who write about koinonia (Romans 14.1-21; 1 Corinthians 8.7-13; 10.23-33). In situations where their legitimate option is at stake, the freedom of Christians 'strong in their faith' is not denied. They keep their native right to act according to their conviction (Romans 14.5-6).I3 However, Paul asks them to be aware that this liberty somehow may become a stumbling block to the weak (1 Corinthians 8.9), wounding their conscience (8.12). In this case, in order not to 'sin against Christ' (1 Corinthians 8.12), those 'who are strong' are called to forget their own rights. Because they belong to Christ and are 'members of Christ' (6.1520), they are not their own (OI5K eerie eomicbv) (6.19). Like Paul himself, since they live 'under the law of Christ', they have to accept being weak with the weak (cf. 9.12-22).14 The principle 'all things are lawful for me' (6.12) needs to be understood not juridically but always in the light of the implications of the koinonia in the Body of Christ. The certitude that there is neither Jew nor Greek (Galatians 3. 28; 1 Corinthians 12.13; Romans 10. 12; Colossians 3.11) demands mutual esteem for the distinctiveness of each other. But this mutual respect is the consequence of the new and transcendent identity created in the koinonia of Christ. The new identity is seized in the kenosis of the Son. Therefore, 'the right hand of koinonia' (Galatians 2.9) says and requires more than simple 'recognition of two missionary strategies'. The care of the poor (Galatians 2.10) is the sacramentum of this concrete mission to the imperatives of a koinonia authentically conscious that its source is the kenosis of Christ (2 Corinthians 8.9; 9.1-15). Confessional convictions and koinonia are thus compatible. Churches of all confessions or denominations are called to nothing more and nothing less than 'the right hand of koinonia'' but with everything it presupposes and everything it involves. They are not called to renounce their specific features, provided they are really compatible with at least all the essential elements and requisites of visible unity. Koinonia does not entail the disappearance of diversity, uniformity. Nevertheless it means a unity which, whilst transcending them, inserts compatible diversities in the evangelical dynamism of reciprocal concerns and care. Paul's prescription to the Corinthians does not apply only to individual Christians. It is also one of the most basic laws for communities in koinonia: 'Let no one seek its own good but that of the other' (1 Colossians 10.24). It is God's agape which compels Christian confessions to give to each other 'the right hand of koinonia'.
Notes 1.
2. Even in the Free Churches. For the so-called Anabaptist churches the problem of Baptism is one of the basic elements of Christian faithfulness to the gospel. And sometimes conflicted with the doctrinal positions of other 'reforms'. See Adv. Haer. V, 1,3; etc. The recent discussions about The Common Vision supposed to inspire the World Council of Churches oblige all the confessional families to be clear on the nature of the unity they want to achieve, together. In this enumeration one might find the list of the reasons officially given by the groups that decided to leave the community to which they first belonged. See W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christianity (Philadelphia, 1979); H.D. Betz, 'Orthodoxy and Heresy in Primitive Christianity', Interpretation, 19 (1965), 299-322; S.L. Greenslade, Schism in the Early Church (London, 1953); H.E.W. Turner, The Pattern of Christian Truth. A Study of the Relations Between Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Early Church (the Bampton Lectures for 1954, London, 1954); A. Le Boulluec, La notion d'heresie dans la litterature grecque I el II siecles (Paris, 1985). See What Unity Requires (Faith and Order Paper no. 77, 1976); Growing Towards Consensus and Commitment (Faith and Order Paper no. 110, 1981); Living Today Towards Visible Unity (Faith and Order Paper no. 142, 1988); Built Together, the Present Vocation of United and Uniting Churches (Faith and Order Paper no. 174, 1996). In my paper at the Moshi meeting of Faith and Order (1996). See Irenikon, 69 (1996), 325-31. Let us remember the document sealing the consensus between John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria in 433, text in Denzinger-Hiinermann, 271-3; Mansi V, 292 A-C, 304 E-305 B; Hahn, Bibliothek, 170. It is clear that we are dealing here with canonically perfect koinonia. At other levels many imperfections will remain, as is the case in all the communities in communion.
3. 4. 5. 6.
7.
8. 9. 10.
11. See the bibliography in note 7 above.
12.
See J. Hainz, 'Gemeinschaft (Koinonia) zwischen Paulus und Jerusalem (Gal. 2.9f): zum paulinischen Verstandnis von der Einheit der Kirche' in Kontinuitdt und Einheit, Festschrift Franz Mussner (Freiburg, 1981), pp. 30-42; J.P. Sampley, Pauline Partnership in Christ (Minneapolis, 1980); H. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, ii (New York, 1982), pp. 104-7; I. Lonning, 'Paulus und Petrus (Gal. 2.11)', Studia Theologica, 24 (1970), 1-69; J.D.G. Dunn, 'The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem according to Galatians 1 and 2', NTS, 28 (1982), 461-78; J. Reumann, 'Koinonia in Scripture: Survey of Biblical Texts' in On the Way to Fuller Koinonia (Faith and Order Paper no. 166, 1995), p. 52. See J.F. Collange, 'Connaissance et liberie, exegese de 1 Cor. 8', in Foi vivante (Cahiers bibliques 3, 1965), pp. 523-38. See C.H. Dodd, 'Ewo|ioc, Xpiaxox), 1 Cor. 9.12-22' in Studia Paulina in honorem De Zwaan (and More New Testament Studies [Manchester, 1968], pp. 134-48).
13. 14.
272
273
Visible unity and catholicity
Visible unity and catholicity

Nicholas Lossky The ecumenical movement is an invitation on the part of God to Christians that they might apply all their efforts to achieve what Christ himself prayed for: 'that they may be one'. When God sends an invitation, it is a gift, and a gift is not something imposed on people but something which must be received freely. Otherwise, we could not believe that God created us in the full sense of the word. Creation would be but a mere puppet show. If we are to respond freely to God's invitation to act within the ecumenical movement, the latter cannot be equated with an institution, or a set of institutions. Our God is a relational, personal God: the God of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob. He is a God that speaks to persons, and the invitation is addressed to persons, not institutions. Of course, institutions are necessary: they are necessary whenever persons are gathered together. And in the case of the Church, persons are gathered together in Christ's name, which makes the institution holy, as we confess in the creeds. The churches receive God's invitation to take part in the ecumenical movement through the persons gathered together within them. The work and the success of the movement depends on the active response of persons. One such person, who has set an example to many of us in 'submitting [her] own, to the will of Jesus [her] Master' (to paraphrase one of the greatest figures of the Church of England, George Herbert), and 'in whom', I hope, she will 'find perfect freedom', is Mary Tanner. As Moderator of the Commission on Faith and Order she has always done her best to keep us on the path of faithfulness to the pursuit of the true goal of the ecumenical movement: the restoration of visible unity among Christians 'that the world may believe . . .'. She has done it in an exemplary way in that she has always served, and remained faithful to, her own church, the Church of England. This service and faithfulness are not passive. Mary's obedience is an active one, in constant search of a deeper faithfulness to what is fundamental to all Christians and what therefore can unite them all: life in Christ. The way towards the restoration by God of the visible unity of all Christians begins precisely with our faithfulness, our active faithfulness, to our own church. And so Mary will, I hope, forgive me for speaking in this short essay as an Orthodox, an Orthodox convinced that active faithfulness to true Orthodoxy consists today in playing a leading part in the ecumenical move274
ment, because the Orthodox are clearly called by most to witness to what they claim to be faithful to, that is true tradition. Visible unity is based on the local church. This should be understood in the sense in which St Paul speaks to 'the Church of God which is at Corinth' and at other places. This is the local eucharistic community which gathers all Christians in each place. It is what St Ignatius of Antioch calls the 'catholic' Church (Smyrn. VIII, 2). Whatever St Ignatius himself meant exactly by 'catholic', Fr Jean Tillard has shown in the most enlightening manner that in patristic literature the adjective very early came to point, not so much to a geographic universality, but primarily to the etymological sense of the Greek 'kath' holon', 'according to the whole', that is the fullness of the truth. In this sense a local church is catholic because it confesses the fullness of the revealed truth, made our own through the gift of the Holy Spirit sent upon the disciples at Pentecost in Jerusalem. This fullness of the faith is confessed by each local church in communion with all the other local churches.1 The mutual recognition of the catholicity of the local churches is apparent in old traditions such as the necessary plurality of co-consecrators at the consecration of a new bishop. This symbolizes the fact that the other catholic churches attest to the fullness of the catholic faith confessed in this local church in the person of the new bishop. (The 'fullness of the catholic faith' is something of a tautology: if the faith is 'catholic', it is the 'fullness' of the faith.) When the presiding co-consecrator asks the newly elected bishop to give account of his faith, it is no mere formality. It is perhaps regrettable that in the Byzantine liturgical tradition this confession of faith by the new bishop became a set text, probably sometime around the tenth century. Before that, the new bishop answered in a personal way, in the name of, and in full communion with, his local community. Another interesting old tradition concerning the communion in the one catholic faith among the local churches is the fact that after his consecration it was customary for the new bishop to inform his brothers in the episcopate of his consecration by letter with a confession of faith. This particular tradition might perhaps inspire us in the ecumenical movement for the promotion of a mutual recognition of the catholic and apostolic faith in forms not necessarily familiar to us. This is where a continuation of the Apostolic Faith Study in Faith and Order seems essential. The continuation of this study should be greatly helped by the ongoing study on Ecumenical Hermeneutics. 'Catholic' is often understood as a synonym of 'universal' (particularly by French-speaking Protestants who associate 'catholic' with 'Roman Catholic'
275
and therefore show reluctance to use the word). In fact, universality is only something like a consequence of catholicity, which is an intimate quality of the Church. Thus Vladimir Lossky, quoting the example of St Maximus the Confessor, says that in some cases catholicity may be reduced to one person let alone a local church.2 So catholicity is to be understood as the opposite of heresy. Vladimir Lossky goes on to say that the catholicity of the Church is the work of the Son and the Spirit together yet distinctly, Christ uniting, the Holy Spirit diversifying each hypostasis of humanity. 'Catholicity consists in the perfect concord between the two terms: unity and diversity.' 3 Catholicity, he says, is no abstraction. 'It is concrete for it is the very essence of Christian Truth which is the revelation of the Holy Trinity . . . God the Trinity can only be known in the unity-diversity of the catholic Church, and ... if the Church possesses catholicity it is because the Son and the Holy Spirit sent by the Father have revealed the Trinity to it.'4 If catholicity is the very heart of our faith, the ecumenical movement must necessarily consist in our constant conversion-reconversion together (and this is the novelty in our time: the deepening of our confession together) to an ever closer attachment to what we are called to 'receive', in the full ecclesial sense of the word, the gift of a Trinitarian life, what St Peter calls becoming 'partakers in the divine nature' (2 Peter 1.4). This the Orthodox like to express by using the famous patristic adage 'God became man that man may become God'. Let me end by adding that this quotation of the Second Epistle of St Peter is the favourite quotation of one of the greatest among the Fathers-in-God of the Church of England, Lancelot Andrewes, whose sermons convey, as their central message, precisely this patristic adage which he calls the 'Royal exchange'. May the prayers of Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, a forerunner of the ecumenical movement, and of his disciple George Herbert, who divested himself of all ambitions of this world to serve God as a modest parson at Bemerton, enlighten Mary Tanner in the pursuance of her ecumenical path. Notes 1. 2. 3. 4.
See J.M.R. Tillard, L'Eglise locale; ecclisiologie de communion et catholicite (Paris, 1995). To this remarkable book I owe most of what I am trying to say. Essay on 'The Third Note of the Church', chapter 9 of In the Image and Resemblance of God (Paris, 1967), p. 173. Ibid., pp. 175-6. Ibid., p. 176.
276
'Seen and unseen'
'Unity in reconciled diversity'? So, can the Christian Council be understood as in any sense an ecclesial bod perhaps as the focus of unity in reconciled diversity? The concept of unity i' reconciled diversity was developed at the Lutheran World Federation Sixth Assembly in 1977, in response to the organic union schemes of the period which, it was feared, might mean that the distinctive doctrines or gifts of n ar' ticular denominations might be lost to the Church, to the impoverishment of the whole. The concept of unity in reconciled diversity would preserve these gifts within continuing denominations which, would not be separate, however but reconciled to one another, working together in councils. This vision of visible unity seems the best portrait of both the present reality and the future vision of the Markham Ecumenical Parish. At the Review and Renew day, many present supported the idea that the Christian Council should 'be a hub for the life of the Ecumenical Parish'. However, there are ecclesiological questions over the authority of the Christian Council to make decisions and set priorities for the churches, and these arise partly from the nature of representation of the participating churches on the Christian Council. Some representatives are from congregational councils, and are people with authority within the congregations, who are able to commit their church, at this very local level, to a course of action, a piece of shared work or worship or some expenditure. Because of the differing ecclesiologies of the participating denominations, and therefore their differing structures of government and authority, other denominations are not able to send such authoritative representatives; only very limited measures of decision are open to local churches and even attempting to determine priorities together would be complex. The fact that these questions were sent to congregational councils for their comments underlines another ecclesiological assumption: many local ecumenical structures of authority and decisionmaking are established with an unstated but basically congregational polity, which is not that of most of the Ecumenical Parish churches. The participating denominations have sometimes been willing to shape themselves into common or parallel structures and to use unfamiliar ecclesiological language to describe themselves so that they can work together (the Friends, for example, have adapted to the language of 'church' and 'congregation', although they often add a comment). In addition, each local church also expresses their basic denominational understanding of the Church in a way which is characteristic of that parish, that locality, so that there may be considerable variation between, for example, the degree of lay involvement in consultation in m
rious Anglican churches involved in the Ecumenical Parish. All participat o denominations have made some ecclesiological accommodations to enable heir common life, which is an indication of the priority which they place on ecumenical relationships. A in other situations of developed ecumenical relationship, some of the oeople in the Ecumenical Parish expressed frustration at the apparently slow progress of ecumenical development at national and international levels, which was perceived as inhibiting the development of their shared mission and service in Local Ecumenical Partnerships like Markham. 'We always knew that we were ahead of some others, but now we feel out on a limb, and we are always afraid someone is going to come along and cut off the branch.' Paradoxically, some people in the Ecumenical Parish felt uncomfortable, and perhaps threatened, by the vision of visible unity which they felt was emerging at national level. 'What is meant by visible unity? We are not ready to close buildings and lose any of our traditions; we are not all the same, but we do all need each other.' So although there is impatience with the speed of ecumenical development at other levels of the church life, there is also a fear of the idea of visible unity as enforced uniformity, threatening the most important shared value of the Markham Ecumenical Parish, which is comprehensiveness. The Christian Council has, so far, proved to be a body which has enabled the development of a degree of unity in reconciled diversity, but there are tensions about the possibility of future growth in its role - 'this is a place where we can meet each other, but it is not a super-church' - and also about the degree of responsibility which it is possible to devolve to such a body, given the differing ecclesiologies of the participating denominations.
S
In Markham, some of the participating denominations are more ready, and more able, to regard the Christian Council as an ecclesial body than others. One Methodist referred to it as 'the skeleton of the Body of Christ, a framework without which life is impossible: but we only notice it is there when things begin to creak'.
102
103
An ecclesiological understanding of councils of churches

Alan Falconer
Introduction 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 us 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 I became 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. 11 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 that 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 programmes. 2 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. First, 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 in so far 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 organizations 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. the Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland, Action for Churches Together in Scotland, and Churches Together in England, 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 churches.3 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
104
105
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.4 That definition applies in fact to all councils of churches. Councils exist 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 it.5 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'.6 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 reappearing at every significant point of re-evaluation. 7 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 fellowshipCouncils of churches are therefore not static organizations 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
f these councils simultaneously. In the late 1970s, the Dublin Council of f hurches - 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 orominent 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 for 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 time.8 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
106
107
insights and perspectives which have not been central to their own lives, thei horizons are broadened. As Jean Tillard has noted, councils are the crucible i n which the churches receive the gospel afresh.9 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.' 10 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 transformation." 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 Church.12 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, for example 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 or being Church because of the multilateral nature of the enquiry which did not simply seek to reconcile existing patterns of church organization and polity-
if the above features of 'ecumenical space' help to clarify the nature and role r 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 rational councils of churches. While the World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches, many of which 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 nations and regions might interrogate each other on their stewardship of the gospel in each specific situation. 14 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 meeting at Rochester in 1963 noted: [A National Council of Churches isj 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 their 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 *s 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 spel may address society, and not simply be culturally conditioned by it?
108
109
Community - Unity - Communion What is the most appropriate way of being Church which reflects the rec ciling love of God in the specific context? It is therefore important to disci from time to time the most appropriate profile of unity in each context, pan' cularly 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 js 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 other. 15 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.
uncils of churches today seems to me to occur in the attempt to seize the nortunities of this 'ecumenical space'. Many such challenges relate to counM jn each place, while others are specific to local, national and world councilsOne contemporary challenge for councils is to become what they declare themselves to be, namely a fellowship of churches which 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 [,,-ing 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 'a 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 focusing on decision-making processes.
S
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 instances. 16 Similarly, a long process of seeking to involve Pentecostal and Evangelical churches has been occurring in the WCC
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
110
111
Community - Unity - Communion to eliminate caricatures and misconceptions and to encourage the churches including WCC member churches - to address the issues of koinonia.11 Many member churches focus on particular aspects of the integrated vision of unity - particularly the doctrinal and worship issues. The experience of th 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 constantly to 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.
went on to propose that it would be better to have stated that 'no church is hiioed to change its ecclesiology as a condition of membership of the World muncil of Churches'. Councils are dynamic entities where the churches are . Uenged, and through common reflection and action grow in fellowship. While the ecclesiological significance resides in the fellowship of churches themselves, councils have an instrumental 19 or a derivative20 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 via,21 in anticipation." 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 hie 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.2* He 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, n ot simply that churches recognize in each other vestigia Ecclesiae because w here there is true Baptism the Church itself is present though in a greater or esser degree of fullness. Through incorporation in and recognition of Baptism,
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) emphasizes that the World Council of Churches is neither a super-church nor presupposes any understanding of the nature of the Church or of councils of churches on the part of the individual member churches (therefore membership does not imply any loss of the selfunderstanding 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 . . .'8
112
113
an identical purpose in mission, indeed, participation in the one mission/ny istry of Christ - involving martyria, diakonia and leitourgia - leads not sirnnl to a transitory unity but a germinal unity which has ecclesial density, ev though it does not yet constitute the goal aimed at, but remains by definite 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 keens the churches in the initial dynamic of baptism which incorporates them into Christ.'24 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.' 25 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?'. 26 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',27 while Lukas Vischer speaks of councils 'bringing to birth [unity] and helping it to grow'. 28 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 Calvin29 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.
ncils of churches are a 'mother' for the unity of the Church, and as such ve ecclesiological significance.
lU
Notes 1 Earlier versions of this reflection have been shared with colleagues and with participants at the
General Assembly of the Disciples of Christ (Denver, July 1997) and the Faith and Order network of the Nordic Ecumenical Council (Stockholm, August 1997).
2 3 4. 5. 6. 7.
Currently there are seven regional councils or conferences of churches and some 98 national councils. See World Council of Churches Yearbook (Geneva, 1997). Unpublished paper by Huibert van Beek, Office of Church and Ecumenical Relations, WCC, March 1995. W. A. Visser't Hooft, Memoirs (London, 1973), p. 210. Seamus Heaney uses this phrase to characterize the role of poetry in The Redress of Poetry (London, 1995), p. 106. Leonardo Boff, Ecology and Liberation (New York, 1995). For example, the ecclesiological significance of churches: see L. Newbigin, 'Comments on the Church, the Churches and the World Council of Churches', Ecumenical Review, 3 (1951), 253-4; L. Vischer, 'Councils - Instruments of Ecclesial Communion', Ecumenical Review, 24 (1972), 79-87; J. Tillard, 'An Ecclesiology of Councils of Churches', Mid-Stream, 22 (1983), 188-98; see also the debates on the 'Common Understanding and Vision' process of the WCC, e.g. Minutes of the Meeting of the Faith and Order Board, Bangkok 1996 (Faith and Order Paper no. 172, 1976). For discussion of ecumenical space, see the Faith and Order report Episkope and Episcopacy within the Quest for Visible Unity and in the Service of the Apostolic Mission of the Church (Geneva, 1997). J. Tillard, 'The Mission of Councils of Churches', Ecumenical Review, 45 (1993), 276.
8.
9-
10. Unpublished report of consultation on the significance and contribution of councils of churches in the ecumenical movement, A. 1. - a consultation organized for the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches. " For a development of this understanding of transformation, see my article 'The Ecumenical Journey: Conversion, Transformation and Ubuntu', Mid-Stream, 36 (1997), 39-54. Cf. Groupe des Dombes, For the Conversion of the Churches (Geneva, 1993).
I2
- See J. Tillard, 'The Mission of Councils of Churches', Ecumenical Review, 45 (1993), 271-82; the Director's Report in Minutes of the Meeting of the Faith and Order Board, Fontgombault 1997 (Faith and Order Paper no. 178, 1997). See The Church for Others (Geneva, 1966); see also M. A. Thung, The Precarious Organization (The Hague, 1976). Cf. the discussion of the 'maxi-parish' in the work of the
114
115
Community - Unity - Communion Scottish Church Initiative for Union (SCIFU) - see the contribution by Shelagh Resting in Sun'ey of Church Union Negotiations 1994-1996 (Faith and Order Paper no. 176, 1997).
14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.
See my contribution on 'Ecclesiology and Koinonia' to the Lutheran World Federation Consultation on 'Communion, Community, Society' (Geneva, October 1997), where I sought to interrogate the Danish Lutheran Church through the WCC Canberra Statement. See my article 'Healing the Violence: Christians in Community', Mid-Stream, 35 (1996), 16376. For a recent discussion of this see the editorial and article by Ian Groftaers, 'An Unfinished Agenda: The Question of Roman Catholic Membership of the World Council of Churches', Ecumenical Review, 49 (1997). See the reports of the various consultations of the WCC Office of Church and Ecumenical Relations at Lima (1994), Leeds (1995), Ogere (1996), Costa Rica (1996). L. Newbigin, 'Comments on The Church, the Churches and the World Council of Churches', Ecumenical Review, 3 (1951), 253f. L. Vischer, 'Christian Councils - Instrument of Ecclesial Communion', Ecumenical Review, 24(1972), 79-87. D. Kessler, 'Does the Ecumenical Movement Have or Need a Viable Ecclesiology?', MidStream, 33(1994), 191-204. J. Tillard, 'An Ecclesiology of Councils of Churches', Mid-Stream, 22 (1983), 189. L. Vischer, op. cit. J. Tillard, op. cit, p. 189. J. Tillard, 'The Mission of Councils of Churches', Ecumenical Review, 45 (1993), 274. L. Vischer, 'Christian Councils - Instruments of Ecclesial Communion', Ecumenical Review, 24(1972). G. Peluso, 'State Ecumenical Organisations: Who Owns Them?' in National Consultation on State Ecumenism (New Orleans, 1995). J. Tillard, 'An Ecclesiology of Councils of Churches', Mid-Stream, 22 (1983), 193. L. Vischer, op. cit. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, ch. 1, sections 1-4 - ed. J. T. McNeill (London, 1961), vol. 2, pp. 1011-16.

Community Unity Communion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Community Unity Communion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Community - Unity - Communion

'Reconciled diversity' and the visible unity of the Church