The Church- towards a common vision

Last summer 2012, a new Faith and Order Convergence Text was approved by the Faith and Order Commission of the WCC

Quick View Approved as a convergence text, the completion of “The Church” brings to a close an intense period of ecumenical reflection on the meaning of “Church” that began nearly 20 years ago at the Fifth World Conference on Faith and Order at Santiago de Compostela, Spain in 1993.

The statement asserts that the aim of the Faith and Order commission and the World Council of Churches as a whole, is to proclaim the oneness of the "Church of Jesus Christ" and to call the churches to visible unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship, "expressed in worship and in common life in Christ" by it's witness and service to the world so that the world may believe.

This affirmation does not seem (to this author) grounded in the socio-politico realities of the WCC however, in that it has, through the language used in the Toronto Declaration, been unable to define itself outside of it's own bias towards denying that any member Church could be actually already be correct in matters of unity and ecclesiological positions. Or in the reality that in it's own review of itself some have lamented that the organization has created more division than unity.

The paradigm of organizing a "visible unity" asserts either spoken or unspoken "brokenness" on Church members who do not and have not considered themselves "broken" in the sense promulagated through the lens of protestant denominational disputes. This view is evident by the Toronto Declaration, in their statement that the existance of the WCC is itself proof that none of the members has true "Church" unity. This position on the nature of the brokenness of the Church is completely at odds with the Orthodox Church's teachings about the fullness of the Church. It also renders the gospel questionable in it's assertion that God is not an author of confusion, that He did and continues to exhibit visible true and invisible unity, (whether or not the christian world recognizes it or not). Instead the focus on the WCC's "visible unity" introduces the doctrine of division as and state of confusion as normative, because visible unity does not have to reflect true unity. Dissecting a living thing and restitching it together may give an appearance of a unified body, but it's a far cry from a living and thriving one.

When an overwhelming historical view of the Church's ecclesiological positions and the significance of communion  (such as the true presence of the body and the blood of Christ in the mysteries of the Church), is now supposed to reflect "visible unity" within relatively modern tenents in the life of the christians of opposing view of communion, the ideal of  unity is rendered nonsensical when it comes to communion, the heartbeat of the Church. Is the new "visible" unity a theological pacemaker in a dead construct of "Churchness"? As harsh as this point of view is, it would seem relevant to all Christians, regardless of denomination or historical position, to not readily relinquish themselves to a beaureacratic organization which has no relevance without it's members, but which can, in the turn of the spirit of the times, become more parasitic in it's nature of self preservation than thearaputic in the solutions it considers to problems it defines for its' members.

Far from preaching the "Good News" of the gospel, that Christ has risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and has freed the captives of death and sin, the new paradigms of some "modern" christian circles don't have to proclaim divine intervention at all; they can characterize Jesus as simply an inspiring human revolutionary for social justice who loved God, to an inspiring human who espoused wisdom sayings. Or if divinity is evoked, it may be considered far from the "Good News" as well, focusing mostly on metaphysical, gnostic and inter-faith interpretations of "Christ" that have nothing to do with sin, redemption, death as a result of sin, sin as a result of death, the true resurrection of Jesus in his body (not just spirit) and Christ as redeemer of mankind. It would be curious to note how many christians within the WCC might flinch uncomfortably at such wholely Christocentric language. Certainly some key personalities from WCC's history have done so, such as Konrad Raiser, general secretary of the WCC who within a short time concluded that Christocentric teachings would not translate to effectively reach the world in the mission of the WCC, but that it would be better to just refer to "Trinitarian" language when speaking about God.

The "convergence" text The Church-Towards a Common Vision, defines itself as a progress report measuring how far Christian communities have come in their common understanding of the one invisible "Church" (as opposed to the 'churches' making up WCC members in their current state of unified or unified self-understanding). The vision does not represent full consensus, and it remains to be seen whether it, by it's own confession, overrides the agreed upon method of consensus adopted in it's 2006 Final report of the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC. The language of the report, at least in it's reference to it's "Church of Jesus Christ" would appear at the outset to already be at odds with both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church's view, as they each view themselves. By implication of the report, both those Churches are rendered incorrect in their self-understanding of Christ's Church, not because they are called incorrect at the outset, but at the outset, they are included in a non consensus evaluation of brokenness, lumped in with churches who are admittedly by their self understanding as incomplete.

The importance of moving to "consensus" over simple majority voting was a factor keeping the Orthodox Church from withdrawing it's membership in the WCC. According to the "Final report of the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC in 2006 the following definition of the consensus method was adopted.

a) The consensus method is a process for seeking the common mind of a meeting without deciding issues by means of voting. A consensus is reached when one of the following occurs:

i) all are in agreement (unanimity);

ii) most are in agreement and those who disagree are content that the discussion has been both full and fair and that the proposal expresses the general "mind of the meeting"; the minority therefore gives consent;

iii) the meeting acknowledges that there are various opinions, and it is agreed that these be recorded in the body of the proposal (not just in the minutes);

iv) it is agreed that the matter be postponed;

v) it is agreed that no decision can be reached.

http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/assembly/porto-alegre-2006/3-preparatory-and-background-documents/final-report-of-the-special-commission-on-orthodox-participation-in-the-wcc.html ===="General secretary of the WCC, Konrad Raiser, noted that this Commission marked the first time the WCC has created an official body "with equal participation from the Orthodox churches and from the other member churches in the WCC". He suggested that "never before in its fifty years of history has the WCC taken its Orthodox member churches as seriously as with this decision".==== Further excerpts from the Speical commission:

15. "The response to these questions is influenced by the existence of two basic ecclesiological self-understandings, namely of those churches (such as the Orthodox) which identify themselves with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, and those which see themselves as parts of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. These two ecclesiological positions affect whether or not churches recognize each other's baptism as well as their ability or inability to recognize one another as churches. They also affect the way churches understand the goal of the ecumenical movement, its instruments - including the WCC - and its foundational documents." 20. "Some of the issues identified will be addressed within the developing programmes of Faith and Order on ecclesiology and baptism. Faith and Order is asked, within the development of the convergence text on The Nature and Purpose of the Church, to explore the specific issue of the relation of the church to the churches, ensuring the engagement of the major streams of the Christian tradition in that exploration."

...'there has been a perception that churches are coerced into treating issues they deem as either foreign to their life or inappropriate for a worldwide forum. There has also been a perception that the WCC has on occasion sought to "preach" to the churches rather than be the instrument of their common reflection. The following observations and recommendations are an attempt to address these dissatisfactions. '

28. By the same token, member churches should understand that not all matters discussed within their own fora can be imposed on the WCC agenda. Skill and sensitivity are needed on all sides to perceive which matters should remain within the counsels of particular churches and which can profitably be discussed together.

33. The WCC needs constantly to monitor procedures for dealing with social and ethical issues proposed for common deliberation. For example, how should it be determined that a given matter is directed to the WCC for discussion by a genuine "church" request, rather than by pressure-group advocacy? "

It is hoped that the Orthodox Church is not being referred to a "pressure-group advocacy" in this instance, as a way to minimize the obligation of the WCC to honor it's committment to a consensus method, or that the concerns of the Orthodox Church regarding how it can more fairly and accurately be represented within the WCC will not now be identified as mere "impositions" on the WCC agenda.

In light of the 2012 "The Church- toward a common vision" convergence text, it will take time and a fine tooth comb to examine the convergence and divergence of it with the special commission report, as the language of the WCC ever steers and encloses the boundaries and frontiers of it's self proclaimed mission of visible unity of the world's christians. This is not say that the those boundaries and frontiers are detrimental (if they are) to only the Orthodox christians, but such considerations asked within the "The Church" text may place other member churches in similar need of special consideration in the future, if and when the topics of the unity of non-believers overrides the pursuit of "visible" unity among believers.

Curiously, the "Church-Towards a common vision" text does not at first pass express much of an statement of the Church as the bride of Christ, one that is so characteristic in the Bible. Perhaps in the movement "towards" a common vision, the WCC does not find that symbol of what the Church is as relevant. The views of the text do support however, the language of liberation theology and social justice theology. It will be curious if in the future, "the church" as portrayed in the language of the WCC convergence movement, emancipates or divorces the "Bride" and the Bridegroom from each other.