Conversion and identity, the United Churches: origins, progress, relationships

Ecumenical Review, The, Oct, 1995 by Reinhard Groscurth

Let me start with my strongest impression about them. Here is where I have found the "fully committed fellowship" (New Delhi, 1961), a foretaste of the unity to be discovered, a group of Christians and delegates from churches "built together" - the theme of this sixth consultation. The question raised in Santiago de Compostela,(1) "Is it possible for us to serve the table of the world when we are divided at the table of the Lord?", found here a clear answer. In these consultations it was possible under the grace of God to celebrate holy communion together - without the slightest doubt whether this was "permitted". We experienced koinonia.

But certainly it is not sufficient to limit ourselves to a repetition of this experience. I am sure we all brought other hopes and expectations to Ocho Rios. What then is the purpose - or what are the purposes - of our meeting? As an introduction I have put together a list of ten possible meanings - and in doing so I discovered that it is easier to state the aim in a negative way: "We are not here for this..." I would like to invite you to a kind of multiple-choice procedure; perhaps one or two will strike you as relevant.

1. The first catch-word is orphanage. This term does not appear in the minutes of the first meeting in Bossey in 1967, but the issue was raised in the very beginning. Was it to be a conference of churches which, by their very unions, had lost the connection to their parent bodies, the Christian World Communions (CWCs), and felt somewhat lost and lonely? In Bossey this approach was immediately rejected.

2. A second catch-word: travelling circus or merry-go-round. This might be a description of many United Nations - and probably also ecumenical - conferences, meant for people who like to travel, who then write a report and request another meeting in some years. Unfriendly critics may ask, "Do you really need this, from here to eternity, in order to prove that you are still alive?" Needless to say, this criticism comes mostly from those who were not invited.

3. Another attempt: briefing. Are we a group like the Roman Catholic bishops who once in a while are called to Rome for the so-called ad limina visits? Are we here to receive orders from Faith and Order? Well, sometimes I wished for more directive or non-directive counselling, but the by-laws of Faith and Order make it clear that this is not possible. And you are certainly not willing to act on orders.

4. Let us try another option: family reunion. After all, aren't we a family with many similarities? In Toronto the "deep affinity among united churches" was mentioned. But again I have my suspicions. Not all the relatives like those reunions, not all attend, and those who come may have their internal power struggles. Thus not every family reunion is a happy event.

5. Could we then be a self-awareness group, gathered for taking our own pulse (and discovering whether our pulse-rate is too high or too low)? Do we need a therapist for our doubts, pains and frustrations, our defeats and despair? After all, between 1961 and 1968 twenty-two new united churches came into life, but, as you know, we have been less "successful" since then. Some consciousness-raising, some "power of positive thinking" could be helpful.

6. This can be altered by a more theological description: mutua consolatio sororum et fratrum, the mutual comforting of sisters and brothers. There must be a place where this can happen: admission of failures and shortcomings, a place to confess and to get consolation. There is clearly a spiritual task in these meetings. Let me mention two occasions. In Toronto (1975), just before the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the United Church of Canada, the union with the Anglicans failed; many people despaired. In Potsdam (1987) many local Christians received the Christians from abroad as a gift from God in their struggle with the atheistic government.

7. Another attempt. We could be a historical society. The sub-title of my paper, "Origins, Progress, Relationships" could lead in this direction. It is a real temptation for an old man: to look through the wealth of material from Bossey (1967), Limuru (1970), Toronto (1975), Colombo (1981) and Potsdam (1987) and to add all the relevant material from WCC assemblies, commission and standing commission minutes, not to forget the fifth world conference on Faith and Order (1993). One could ask: Is there a direction, could one discover lines of development? Though I have often complained about our "stop-and-start" ecumenism and about the fact that so much is forgotten, I could propose one or more doctoral dissertations about this material (though one could then ask "who is going to read those volumes?").

8. Let us try another approach: protest or pressure group, people swimming against the stream, people who would like to go faster, who are fed up with those reservations reiterated by some CWCs, who would like the WCC to be more engaged in making visible the unity of the church, who doubt whether "fuller koinonia" is a viable option. Yes, there are reasons to complain, for example, against those who have not united, who so often look backwards, who do not see that Christians can no longer afford religious narrow-mindedness. We could also express our dismay about those who seem to have watered down the idea of organic union which was so forcefully expressed in Edinburgh (1937)(2) and who look for "cheaper grace" in other models like cooperation, conciliar structures or "talks about talks" between, say, the Church of England and the Methodists.(3) Indeed, we could find many scapegoats, but in looking for the speck in our neighbour's eye we may overlook the log in our own eyes. In a review of the book containing the Potsdam results, Lesslie Newbigin was surprised that there was "no agreement about the goal", commitment to "organic unity in some form".(4)