THE CHURCH IN THE NEW CENTURY

By Konrad Raiser and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

GENEVA, Dec 1 2003 (IPS) - While inter-church relations have changed for the better, trends that see the ecumenical movement as threatening are gaining momentum, writes Konrad Raiser, member of the Evangelical Church of Germany and general secretary of the World Council of Churches through 2003. Such fears are linked to the breakdown and fragmentation of religious identity, secularisation, and the growing relativism at the heart of our society, Raiser writes in this article. Fears linked to the identity or integrity of each community – among Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, or Orthodox – are increasing. Religious renewal in former Communist countries is impressive but their terms of reference remain to some extent involved in the distinction between \’\’enemies\’\’ and \’\’friends\’\’. In addition, today there is an indigenous, a black, and an Asian Christianity, a profusion of charismatic, Pentecostal, and prophetic communities This is the background against which the question of a new configuration of the ecumenical movement is being posed. If there is no structure of reference, nor any discipline regarding participation, we may encourage the rise of a militant, populist, and fundamentalist Christianity.

Is the ecumenical movement progressing? Or has it come to a standstill?

As general secretary of the World Council of Churches (WCC), I often heard questions like that. The answer I can offer after eleven years at the helm is that not only has the ecumenical movement progressed, but the very quality of inter-church relations has changed for the better.

Not all of the progress can be attributed to the Council. The 1999 agreement signed between the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church is a good example of that. It was the first time official Vatican representatives had signed a doctrinal agreement with another communion of churches. Lutherans and Catholics had the courage to say together that what had separated them for four centuries should no longer divide them.

There has also been progress in other inter-church bilateral dialogues, and other agreements have been signed. We are witnessing a real reorganisation of relations between all churches, including churches of the Reformation, Anglicans and even Roman Catholics. We can, therefore, agree with Pope John Paul II that progress on the road toward Christian unity is irreversible. It is unthinkable that we could return to the situation as it was in the past.

However, it is impossible to ignore the fact that fears linked to the identity or integrity of each community – among Roman Catholics, but also among Anglicans, Lutherans or Methodists or Orthodox – are increasing . Trends that see the ecumenical movement as threatening or disturbing are developing or gaining momentum. Such fears are linked to the breakdown and fragmentation of religious identity, to secularisation, and to the relativism that continues to gain ground at the heart of our society.

These fears do in part determine the direction chosen by the Roman Catholic Church. I do not doubt for a moment that Pope John Paul is personally committed to ecumenism, but the approach he has adopted is not the most appropriate one. John Paul has been very courageous in proposing a reflection about the way the ”primacy” of the bishop of Rome is exercised to his ecumenical partners. However, in excluding the concept of ”primacy” itself from the debate, he has demonstrated that the main obstacle in the path to unity continues to lie in how each of the Christian churches understand the nature of the church.

Something similar is happening in Orthodox churches. The religious renewal in former Communist countries is impressive. However, it is partly explained by the fact that it has become an alternative ideology for some. Seeking certainties in Orthodoxy that they do not find elsewhere, they have switched from one system to another. But their terms of reference, which to some extent involved making a distinction between ”enemies” and ”friends”, has not changed. Such terms hardly encourage ecumenical dialogue.

Within the World Council of Churches, the situation has improved thanks to the patient and at times painful dialogue that we managed to continue over the past five years. Thanks to this dialogue, Orthodox Churches have felt listened to and a little better understood for the first time. On our side, we Protestants have had to understand that Protestant tradition still has too much influence over what gets onto the WCC agenda and the way we make decisions or celebrate worship. Realising that the Orthodox did not feel as comfortable as we do in the ecumenical movement has allowed a deepening of the understanding of the WCC as a ”fellowship of churches”.

Now, beyond progress and difficulties in the dialogue among the major historic churches, we must not forget that they only represent a part of Christianity that today has many new and diverse expressions. Today, there is an indigenous, a black, and an Asian Christianity, a profusion of charismatic, Pentecostal, and prophetic communities, and a spiritual energy that makes me think of Christianity during its initial growth. With the passing of time, their identities have become more defined, and today they are more open. These new expressions of Christianity convey, in different ways, the need for recognition by and solidarity from the ecumenical movement.

This is the background against which the question of a new configuration of the ecumenical movement, including new structures and forms of governance, is being posed. If there is no structure of reference, no transparency in the way responsibilities are exercised, nor any discipline regarding participation, we may encourage the rise of a militant, populist, and fundamentalist Christianity. The World Council of Churches has begun to promote and facilitate a discussion that could lead to the kind of reconfiguration that is needed, based on a renewed and shared ecumenical vision and on common values.

In the church and in the ecumenical movement, renewal is a permanent process. At the beginning of the 21st century, the ecumenical movement is leaving a period of major construction and organization behind in order to begin a new phase of pilgrimage together with all the people of God. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)