From Edinburgh 1910 to Jerusalem 1928

For the ecumenical movement, the Second Vatican Council was a turning point that fundamentally changed the conditions for relationships between the churches. Since the council, the Roman Catholic Church has become an active partner in the ecumenical movement, while until the middle of the 20th century it had deliberately rejected any recognition of the ecumenical movement as a new reality in the life of the churches. The change has particularly affected the World Council of Churches (WCC), and the jubilee of the Second Vatican Council (2nd VC) is an appropriate moment to assess the developments in ecumenical relations during these fifty years. Of course, the significance of the 2nd VC goes far beyond its impact for ecumenical relations. Mention could and should be made of its new understanding of the place of the church in the modern world, of its affirmations of human rights and religious liberty, as well as of its initiatives preparing the way for inter-religious encounter and dialogue. The following reflections, however, will be limited to the development of ecumenical relations in the fifty years since the council. The generation of those in the leadership of the WCC who witnessed the 2nd VC and who participated in its successive sessions as observers on behalf of the WCC and of some of its member churches has passed away. This is true in particular for the first general secretary of the WCC, Dr W.A. Visser't Hooft; for the principal observer on behalf of the WCC, Dr Lukas Vischer; and for the two Orthodox observers, Dr Nikos Nissiotis and Fr Vitalij Borovoij. Their accounts still provide a vivid testimony for the groundbreaking significance of the council. The present attempt to assess the development in ecumenical relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC is written from the perspective of someone who since 1971 has been involved in shaping these relationships, who was co-secretary of the Joint Working Group between the Vatican and the WCC, and general secretary of the WCC from 1993-2003. The foundation for the new phase in ecumenical relationships was laid decisively by the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, which was approved by the council in November 1994. With its affirmation that those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are brought into certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (N. 3), the decree formulated the ecumenical consequences of the new articulation of the ecclesiological self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium). Thus, the relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the other Christian churches were placed on a new basis. Soon after the council, this became evident in the development of an impressive network of bilateral dialogues between the major church families, which have led to important results. An assessment of these dialogues, which have been documented in several volumes under the title “Growth in Agreement,” is beyond the scope of these reflections. In the immediate period following the announcement of the forthcoming Vatican Council, the WCC became the privileged ecumenical partner for the Roman Catholic Church. Even before the official establishment of the Vatican Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, a first secret encounter took place at Milano in 1960 between Cardinal Bea, the future president of the secretariat, and Dr Visser't Hooft, the general secretary of the WCC. Subsequently, the WCC served as a facilitator for the invitations of ecumenical observers at the council and was itself represented by two observers. The position papers and commentaries of the ecumenical observers were taken seriously at the council. For example, the preface to the Decree on Ecumenism, which refers positively to the ecumenical movement, has been influenced by a memorandum from the WCC. A second encounter between Cardinal Bea und Dr Visser't Hooft took place in April of 1964, even before the promulgation of the Decree on Ecumenism. It prepared the way for the establishment of a Joint Working Group (JWG) between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC with the initial mandate to clarify the basis for future relationships. During its first mandate period between 1965 and 1967, the JWG developed a very productive activity. With the publication of a basic working document on the understanding and the methodologies of “ecumenical dialogue” it had fulfilled its initial task. As a consequence, a number of common initiatives were launched for direct collaboration between the Vatican and the WCC. Mention should be made in particular of the joint Committee on Society, Development and Peace (SODEPAX), which began its work with a joint secretariat in 1968. High hopes were placed in this endeavour and SODEPAX quickly became a symbol for the new quality of relationships. However, the increasingly independent dynamics of its activities led the two parent bodies to reduce and refocus the mandate, and eventually this form of structured cooperation was concluded in 1980. The Joint Advisory Group on Social Thought and Action that was created in its place proved to be ineffective and was terminated after a few years. The same fate caught up with two other early initiatives, that is, the Women's Ecumenical Liaison Group and a structure for cooperation in the field of the laity, both of which ceased operation after only a few years. What remained from this initial hopeful period were official cooperative relationships in the fields of theological study, especially in the framework of the Commission on Faith and Order; of mission and evangelism, facilitated especially by Catholic missionary orders; of ecumenical diakonia; and of inter-religious dialogue. The most long-lasting cooperative endeavour has been the joint preparation of the Week of Prayer for Christian unity. At the 4th Assembly of the WCC in Uppsala (1968), Fr Roberto Tucci SJ in a public address mentioned the possibility that the Roman Catholic Church might join the WCC as a full member. At the same time, the Vatican approved the inclusion of Roman Catholic theologians as official members of the WCC Commission on Faith and Order. Since then all decisive theological study processes in the WCC have benefited from full Roman Catholic participation. One year later, in June 1969, Pope Paul VI visited the WCC secretariat in Geneva. This was a gesture of high symbolic significance, even though the Pope left no doubt about the difficulties that still needed to be resolved on the ecumenical way. In the same year, the JWG formed a small working group to study the conditions and implications of a possible Roman Catholic membership of the WCC. The report under the title “Pattern of Relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches” (1972) came to the conclusion that there were no fundamental obstacles preventing possible membership. However, serious consultations on the highest levels in the Roman Curia led to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church would not further pursue this option in the near future. These conditions have not changed in the forty years since then, even though the Roman Catholic Church has joined national ecumenical structures in more than fifty countries as a full member. The focus of ecumenical activities on the part of the Vatican shifted more and more towards bilateral dialogues with the major Christian church families and structured cooperation with the WCC was reduced. despite all divisions which have occurred in the course of the centuries there is a real though imperfect communion which continues to exist between those who believe in Christ and are baptized in his name . . . Through the development of the ecumenical movement that communion has been experienced anew. This is not to claim that it has been created anew. Since it is beyond human power and initiative, it precedes all ecumenical efforts for the restoration of the unity of all Christians.1 The report also referred to the failure of the efforts to give visible and structured expression to the relationships between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC. While there was no doubt that the Roman Catholic Church could accept the basis of the WCC, the report indicates that the Roman Catholic Church understood its constitution “as a universal fellowship with a universal mission and structure as an essential element of its identity.” It sees further difficulties in “the way in which authority is considered in the Roman Catholic Church and the processes through which it is exercised.”2 In this way the report for the first time points to the fundamental differences in the understanding of ecclesial fellowship, and thus it concludes this assessment with the question: “How can the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, without forming one structured fellowship, intensify their joint activities and thereby strengthen the unity, the common witness and the renewal of the churches?”3 In any case, the question how “the real, though imperfect communion” can gain visible shape has remained open since then and it has become clear that the Decree on Ecumenism of the 2nd VC did not offer a conclusive answer. In the following years, until the 5th Assembly of the WCC at Vancouver (1983), cooperation with the Roman Catholic Church concentrated more and more on the work of the Commission on Faith and Order. During this period the commission concluded its work on the convergence documents on “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” (BEM), which were approved at the meeting of the commission in Lima (1982). In appropriating the results of bilateral dialogues and with full participation of the Roman Catholic members of the commission these convergence texts manifested a large measure of agreement on central issues of doctrine and church order. No other result of ecumenical theological work has been discussed on a similarly broad level in the churches. In 1987 an official response from the Roman Catholic Church to the convergence texts stated that “BEM is perhaps the most significant result of the [Faith and Order] movement.” The response underlines that baptism is the decisive basis for the communion which “already exists between divided Christians.” It is somewhat more reserved regarding the text on the eucharist, but it considers that a reception by all churches of the theological understanding and description of the celebration of the eucharist as expressed in the Lima document would be an important development in the direction of affirming a “common faith.” Critical questions were addressed in particular to the document on the ministry. But even here the response comes to the conclusion that the acceptance of the proposals of the Lima document on the ministry would represent a “major step towards Christian unity.”4 In order to avoid misunderstandings the response however underlines once again the self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church and its unity by quoting explicitly the affirmation in the Decree on Ecumenism (No. 4) that the “unity of the one and only Church which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning . . . subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.”5 It links this with the expectation “that the study of ecclesiology must come more and more into the centre of the ecumenical dialogue.”6 When in 1984 Pope John Paul II visited the ecumenical centre in Geneva he emphasized his office as Bishop of Rome, which had served as the visible point of reference and as the guarantee of unity in faithfulness to the apostolic tradition. Ten years later, after the Commission on Faith and Order at its 5th World Conference in Santiago de Compostela also recommended a common study of the question of a universal office of unity, the Pope came back to this question in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint “on commitment to ecumenism” (1995) and invited church leaders and theologians “to engage in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject” in order “to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation” (No. 95f). This dialogue has begun, but so far no solution has been found. The WCC assembly at Vancouver (1983) gave the impulse for a “conciliar process for justice, peace and the integrity of creation,” which became a crystallization point for ecumenical cooperation in the period until 1990. The Roman Catholic Church was invited to co-sponsor this process. While it accepted this invitation on national and regional levels, its participation on the global level remained restricted, especially because of questions regarding the ecclesiological foundations of the conciliar process. This fact served to underline the need to give more focused attention to the issues of ecclesiology, as had been urged already in the Roman Catholic response to the BEM document. On the basis of a proposal by the Faith and Order Commission, the 6th Assembly of the WCC at Canberra (1991) in its declaration on “The Unity of the Church as Koinonia: Gift and Calling” re-affirmed the importance of the concept of koinonia in searching for a common ecumenical understanding on ecclesiology. Since its 5th World Conference at Santiago de Compostela (1993) the Commission on Faith and Order had concentrated its attention on working out a convergence statement on the church. Several preliminary statements were published and circulated among the churches for reaction. After successive revisions, a final text has been accepted by the Commission in 2012 under the title, The Church: Towards a Common Vision. In November 2013 it was received by the 10th Assembly of the WCC at Busan and it is now before the churches for serious study and appropriate reception. It will now have to be seen whether and how the Roman Catholic Church will respond to this concerted ecumenical effort to address the core issues of ecclesiology that have been at the centre of ecumenical dialogues during these past decades. This question is of particular interest since, with the document “Dominus Jesus” (2000) and the subsequent Decree with “Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the Doctrine On the Church” (2007), the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith strongly affirmed the uniqueness and exclusivity of the Roman Catholic Church and defended a rather restrictive interpretation of the teachings of Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the 2nd VC. This is a matter of concern particularly for the churches of the Reformation. The council had referred to them as “ecclesial communities,” but this has now been sharpened in the sense that they cannot “according to Catholic doctrine be called Churches in the proper sense,” since, due to “the absence of the sacramental priesthood they have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the eucharistic mystery.”7 These statements were issued by the Vatican under the responsibility of Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope Benedict XVI. Whether new ecumenical signals will come from Pope Francis still has to be seen. At this stage it appears that there are still profound differences in the understanding of the church and of ecclesial communion. On the one hand we discern a universal ecclesiology oriented towards communion with the Bishop of Rome and the recognition of his primacy which stands over against an ecclesiology that recognizes the plurality of local churches and is oriented toward a communion in which “all churches are able to recognize in one another the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church in its fullness.”8 This brief retrospective of developments during these fifty years leaves a mixed impression. The 2nd VC and particularly the Decree on Ecumenism have irrevocably brought the Roman Catholic Church into the ecumenical movement and its ecumenical commitment has been re-affirmed in very solemn terms by successive popes. In many ways the Roman Catholic Church has even begun to claim leadership responsibility regarding the development of ecumenical relationships that would have been unthinkable in the period before the 2nd VC. The numerous bilateral doctrinal dialogues have reached important clarifications regarding basic issues of faith and order and have concluded many of the doctrinal controversies between the churches. One of the most significant results is the “Common Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” between the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran churches that was solemnly signed in 1999. Ecumenical collaboration between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC has so far been based on the conviction that there is only “one ecumenical movement” that embraces all Christian churches and traditions. This is reflected also in the Decree on Ecumenism, which in the headline of its first chapter speaks of “Catholic Principles of Ecumenism,” instead of “Principles of Catholic Ecumenism” as was initially proposed. However, after fifty years there are increasing doubts whether we are still dealing with one and the same ecumenical movement, or whether competitive understandings of ecumenism and its ultimate goal have emerged in the meantime. The ecclesiological self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church as articulated in the official interpretation of the teachings of the 2nd VC places the Roman Catholic Church with its universal structure and its hierarchical understanding of authority and its exercise into the centre of the search for Christian unity. This cannot easily be reconciled with the understanding of ecclesial unity in conciliar fellowship that has developed in the course of serious dialogue within the fellowship of churches in the WCC. The fact that it has not been possible so far to give visible and structured expression to the “real though imperfect” communion based on the common baptism indicates that there are still differences of rather basic character. The recent Vatican statements referred to above strengthen this impression, precisely where they interpret the teachings of the council. It is evident that the declarations of the 2nd VC, including the Decree on Ecumenism, were the result of controversial discussions among the council fathers trying to hold together widely divergent positions and convictions. Thus, they allow for different interpretations and show signs of internal tension or even contradictions. It should therefore not come as a surprise that the process of renewal that was initiated by the council has not yet reached its full clarity. However, that raises the question whether the changes in ecumenical relationships that were initiated by the council, and particularly by the Decree on Ecumenism, can be regarded as an open process in the sense that the ecumenical reception and discussion of the teachings of the council can make a contribution to clarifying the remaining questions and tensions, or whether the Decree on Ecumenism has to be regarded as the final word of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the challenges of the ecumenical movement. While the papal encyclical Ut Unum Sint has in many respects been received as a source of encouragement, there was disappointment among many ecumenical partners that Pope John Paul II did not go beyond repeating and re-affirming the teachings of the Decree on Ecumenism and did not appear to adequately recognize and honour the insights and clarifications that have been reached in the course of fifty years of intensive ecumenical dialogue, not least in the context of bilateral conversations. The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are ‘numerous elements of sanctification and of truth’ which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.9 In a lecture 2004, on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the Decree on Ecumenism, Cardinal Kasper as President of the Pontifical Council on Promoting Christian Unity already dealt extensively with this same issue and stated that the formulation “subsists in” “contains in nuce the whole ecumenical problem.”10 The Cardinal felt that thanks to this formulation, which replaced the simple “is,” the council was able to take a decisive step forward. “It wished to do justice to the fact that there are found outside of the Catholic Church not only individual Christians but also ‘elements of the church’, indeed churches and ecclesial communities which, although not in full communion, rightly belong to the one church and possess salvatory significance for their members.” The concept “subsistit in”, according to the intention of the Theological Commission of the Council, means: the church of Christ Jesus has its concrete location in the Catholic Church… It is not a purely Platonic entity or a prospective future reality, it exists in a concrete historical form, it is located in the Catholic Church. Understood in this sense “subsistit in” encompasses the essential thrust of the “est.” But it no longer formulates the self-concept [self-image] of the Catholic Church in “splendid isolation”, but also takes account of churches and ecclesial communities in which the one church of Jesus Christ is effectively present, but which are not in full communion with it. In formulating its own identity, the Catholic Church at the same time establishes a relationship of dialogue with these churches and ecclesial communities. Accordingly it is a misunderstanding of “subsistit in” to make it the basis of an ecclesiological pluralism or relativism which implies that the one church of Christ Jesus subsists in many and thus the Catholic Church is one among many other churches . . . The Catholic Church continues to as it to be the true church of Christ in which the of the of are present, but it now sees itself in a context of dialogue with the other churches and ecclesial communities. It does not any new doctrine but establishes a new and formulates its self-concept in a concrete one could even The Council is that the church is on a through towards a concrete historical of what its most profound This interpretation is but it is not clear how this position can as a basis of further ecumenical dialogues on ecclesiology. the theological dialogue will But the reception of their results difficulties in all because the new and common that has been developed through these dialogues cannot easily be reconciled with the doctrinal of the churches. a towards the affirmation of a communion” will not be possible without a of the ecclesiological by the teachings of the council. The papal encyclical Ut Unum Sint also has not been able to open a way forward. An of a new ecumenical might be in the response from the Vatican to the of the WCC document Towards a Common and a Common of the WCC This response the “common or basis of ecumenism” by repeating the conviction that is a true and real, even imperfect, koinonia between the Catholic Church and other Churches and But it then “It is a real sacramental koinonia the churches a true baptism by which one is into the of explicitly the of the which already exists between the churches by of their common this statement recognizes the ecclesiological quality of these ecumenical relationships. It once again that this “real but imperfect communion” is to any to form of it even is to that understanding the WCC has ecclesiological believe that a further development of the of a as in these statements could the ecumenical dialogue about the understanding of the church and its unity from the present, and open future It is that the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC has a study on the and Ecumenical of a Common was the general secretary of the World Council of Churches, from through

The issue central to this study can be considered one of the most pressing facing the World Council of Churches today and in the decades to come, and is much greater than that which confronted the International Mission Council in the years 1910 to1938. The question answered in this study is: what significance can the theology of religions, as it developed between 1910 (Edinburgh) and 1938 (Tambaram), have for present-day endeavours to develop a more common understanding and vision within the ecumenical movement as regards the theological problem of religious plurality? This significance becomes clear in the conclusions and suggestions in the final chapter. One of these conclusions is that classic Trinitarian theology and Pneumatology will be incapable of drawing the theology of religions out of the present impasse as long as traditional Christological models continue to exist within them. A commemoration of the Edinburgh meeting will undoubtedly be organized in 2010; and in view of this commemoration Dr van Lin suggests considering the possibility of starting a process of reflection on the World Council of Churches' theology of religions, similar to those on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, and Towards the Common Expression of the Apostolic Faith Today. Given the fact that the study of religious plurality shakes the ecumenical movement to its foundations, within the foreseeable futures serious thought has to be given to placing the study of the theology of religions on the agenda of Faith and Order within the World Council of Churches.

Dewesternisation is a concept still undergoing conceptual clarification and refinement. It is used in different theoretical approaches, often differently meant and assessed. Irrespective of its still uncertain theoretical scope, it appears to be a valuable tool for denoting the phenomena and processes taking place in global Christianity, especially in the ecumenical movement, including the World Council of Churches (WCC). The article aims to identify the crucial field of the WCC’ teaching that demonstrates and highlights dewesternisation processes within the ecumenical movement. Before tackling the main problem of this study, it discusses the issues ‘internal’ for dewesternisation and ecumenism, such as evolutionism, postcolonial theory and postcolonial theology. They all set a historical deduction that helps better comprehend dewesternisation within the ecumenical movement, as exemplified by the WCC. Literary analysis is the primary method employed in this study. Contribution: By identifying and exemplifying the term of dewesternisation within the WCC, the article contributes to its better comprehension, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere.

Preface

and a Master of Divinity student at the

The World Council of Churches (WCC) is a fellowship of churches. However, membership of the fellowship of churches does not imply (tacitly or otherwise) ecclesiological recognition of other member churches. This “ecclesiological tension” has been addressed in a number of ways through the years by the WCC, most notably through the work of the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC. Since the 9th assembly in Porto Alegre (2006), ecclesiological matters have appeared in assembly statements, and more substantially in the working agenda of Faith and Order. The convergence document, The Church: towards a common vision was received by the WCC Central Committee and sent to the member churches for discussion and response in 2013. The responses were presented and discussed at the 11th assembly in Karlsuhe (2022). This article offers a personal reflection on the eccelsiology and the WCC.

World Council of Churches: Lausanne 77, Fifty years of Faith and Order. Geneva, 1977. Pp. 82. £1.50. - World Council of Churches: Faith in the Midst of Faiths, Reflections on Dialogue in Community. Geneva, 1977. Pp. 190 + bibliography.£3.10. - Volume 31 Issue 5

This article compares two documents from the World Council of Churches (WCC): The Church: Towards a Common Vision , published by the WCC’s Commission on Faith and Order in 2013, and The Gift of Being , published as a joint venture by the WCC’s Ecumenical Disabilities Advocates Network and Faith and Order and presented to the WCC central committee in June 2016. This article explores the concerns of persons with disabilities as ecumenical and ecclesiological issues. These issues tend to be understood as questions of human rights and of working against practices that discriminate against persons with disabilities. However, this article explores how our understanding of these concerns changes if they are seen as ecumenical and ecclesiological questions.

In the ecumenical conversation about and evangelism in the last decade, there is frequent reference to doing and evangelism in Jesus Christ's way. In 1989, the World Council of Churches (WCC) convened its conference on world and evangelism in San Antonio under the theme, Your Will Be Done: in Christ's Way.(1) In 1987, an international grouping of ecumenical-evangelical missiologists and church leaders met in Stuttgart to consider the forthcoming San Antonio meeting. Their purpose was to think about the evangelistic of the church and to prepare a statement reflecting their insights for the 1989 conference. The result was a book entitled Proclaiming Christ in Christ's Way, Studies in Integral Evangelism.(2) In 1982, the WCC's Commission on World and Evangelism presented its major statement, and Evangelism: An Ecumenical Affirmation.(3) It contains a section entitled Mission in Christ's Way. The reception of this language can be traced around the world. In 1991, for example, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) adopted a document on and evangelism entitled Turn to the Living God: A Call To Evangelism in Jesus Christ's Way,(4) which specifically refers to the WCC statement of 1982.(5) This imagery, doing and evangelism in Jesus Christ's way, indicates a broadening ecumenical consensus about the relationship between the incarnation -- the actual way in which the Word became flesh or the model of Jesus' life -- and the way in which the church goes about its mission. Such an approach (incarnational is apparently a twentieth century neologism) raises a lot of questions, particularly at a time when, in some quarters, the incarnation is itself the theme of heated debate. Therefore, it will be helpful to examine carefully what is occurring theologically when we talk about mission in Jesus Christ's way. When we go back before the appearance of the WCC 1982 document, and Evangelism: An Ecumenical Affirmation, we enter into a period of several decades in which most western mainline Protestant traditions tended to de-emphasize evangelism as the verbal proclamation of the gospel with the intent to draw people to personal faith in Christ. The focus was generally more upon the church's social witness and involvement with broad agenda of justice and peace. Often evangelism was redefined as an expression of social witness, so that the word was used for almost anything a mainline denominational agency wanted to affirm. The American Presbyterian version of this process is called by Milton J. Coalter the rethinking, retooling, and restructuring of evangelism, which he dates from about 1963 on.(6) Throughout this period, however, thinking and writing about the of the church never completely disavowed the centrality of the church's evangelistic mission, as awkward as that central tenet of our confessional tradition might have been for some. The emphasis upon incarnational evangelism emerged in various attempts to define the church's witness in ways that sought to include both verbal proclamation and social witness. This approach has now established itself in the concept of mission in Christ's way. It is a genuinely helpful way of thinking, which does not undermine the evangelistic ministry of the church, but rather strengthens it. The emphatic use of this incarnational imagery in the 1982 WCC document, and Evangelism; An Ecumenical Affirmation, shows that such language had achieved a notable ecumenical currency. Such statements emerge from long and difficult processes of drafting and editing which draw together representatives across the full spectrum of churchly traditions and cultures. When they finally agree, then we have language that we can use in the multi-cultural, world-wide church with some hope that we all mean the same things when we say the same words. The publication of and Evangelism: An Ecumenical Affirmation in 1982 was a signal event for the theology and practice of mission. …

Ecumenical Chronicle

1) Ecumenism as an urgent need in theological education basis of the WCC affirms: The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the scriptures and therefore seek to fulfil together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In the constitution of the WCC the concern for ecumenical theological education therefore receives a high priority: it is defined as one of the primary purposes and functions of the WCC to nurture the growth of an ecumenical consciousness through processes of education and a vision of life in community rooted in each particular cultural context (WCC Constitution para. III). ecumenical movement from its very beginning and even before the founding of the WCC in 1948 (cf. history of World Council of Christian Education) had a profound impact on the understanding of Christian education in general and ministerial formation for future ministers and priests in particular. If the ecumenical movement as a whole is about strengthening common witness and promoting new forms of the visible unity between churches of different denominational and confessional traditions then the scandal of churches remaining in disunity and using distorted images of sister churches in one's own educational materials and publications needs to be overcome, with foremost priority in the area of theological education and ministerial formation. strengthening and pursuit of church unity in theological education is a gospel imperative for any church joining in the affirmation of the church as being one, holy, catholic and apostolic in its essence (The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed [381]) (interdenominational or ecclesial dimension of ecumenical formation). emergence of interdenominational or non-denominational institutions of theological education in the '50s and '60s which was intentionally supported by the Theological Education Fund (TEF) of the IMC as well as the introduction of distinct courses and curriculum models on ecumenism and the ecumenical movement was a consequence of this ecclesiological insight. emphasis on interdenominational cooperation in theological education as well as the development of proper teaching materials on ecumenism remains an indispensable and in many places still lacking component of the theological education of pastors and ministers. There is no future for the ecumenical movement as a whole if there is no commitment to ecumenical formation processes in formal and non-formal theological education programmes of WCC member churches. If theological education fails to be guided by an ecumenical vision of a church renewed in mission and service to the whole of humankind there will be a serious shortage in terms of a new generation of Christian leaders, pastors and theological teachers carrying on the ecumenical vision and commitment into the 21 st century and a widening gap and estrangement between the majority clergy and ever fewer experts on the ecumenical movement and ecumenical theological discourse which can already be observed in a number of member churches. 2) Contextualization of theological education Ecumenical formation in theological education is guided by the vision of the church truly united and serving the renewal of the human community. Therefore, ecumenical formation reaches beyond the realm of issues of inner church unity in addressing fundamental questions of the human family and the survival of the whole earth. Being inspired by the ecumenical vision of God as the owner of the whole earth (oikumene) as well as the eschatological vision of a new heaven and a new earth, theological education in ecumenical understanding will always try to respond to the pressing needs of social contexts and to be related to issues of human survival both in global and in local environments. Relating theological education to the realities of particular social and cultural contexts, liberating theological education from any captivity of certain social milieus, cultural one-sidedness and spiritual blindness to religious values existing in certain indigenous traditions has been a major emphasis of the WCC in the programme on theological education (PTE) since the sixties (social or contextual dimension in ecumenical formation of theological education). …

In 2013, the World Council of Churches (WCC) published its second convergence statement, The Church: Towards a Common Vision (TCTCV), and invited churches, ecumenical councils and groups, and others to respond officially with their assessment of the extent to which convergence had been reached in many areas. After offering an outline of the process in the WCC and its Commission on Faith and Order that led to this statement, this article discusses the process of evaluating the responses to the document and the main issues that were raised in the responses. The article notes the uneven nature of the responses in that no responses were received from Latin America or Africa and very few responses came from Pentecostal, evangelical, charismatic, or independent churches and movements. The article concludes by affirming the need for changes in the methodology of Faith and Order to more readily and clearly hear those churches and peoples who have long and often been marginalized.

This study explores juridical aspects of the ecclesiology presented in the World Council of Churches' Faith and Order Commission Paper, The Church: Towards a Common Vision (2013). It does so in the context of systems of church law, order and polity in eight church families worldwide: Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Reformed, Presbyterian and Baptist. Common Vision does not explicitly consider church law, order and polity or its role in ecumenism. However, many themes treated in Common Vision surface in church regulatory systems. This study examines how these instruments articulate the ecclesiology found in Common Vision (which as such, de facto, offers juridical as well as theological principles), translate these into norms of conduct and, in turn, generate unity in common action across the church families. Juridical similarities indicate that the churches share common principles and that their existence suggests the category ‘Christian law’. While dogmas may divide the churches of global Christianity, the profound similarities between their norms of conduct reveal that the laws of the faithful, whatever their various denominational affiliations, link Christians through common forms of action. For this reason, comparative church law should have a greater profile in ecumenism today.1

The many different interactions between globalization and religion can be approached from a variety of theological perspectives and ethical practices. The World Council of Churches (WCC) is one such model. The WCC constitutes the largest transnational institutional manifestation of diverse communities of Christian faith. It encompasses the denominations of Protestantism (Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, Baptist, etc.), structural dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, a strong presence of and leadership by Eastern Orthodox churches, and an assortment of new syncretized or indigenous forms of Christian religions from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The WCC takes seriously the Christian imperative to make all people followers of Jesus Christ, the light of the world. In this regard, Christianity perceives its domain as a form of discipleship on a global stage where, by way of the preached word, theological instruction, sacramental ritualization, iconographic representation, and a persistent witness of love, justice, and reconciliation, the message of Jesus the Christ will truly become the embodied vision of a new and ultimate future for all.

International Review of MissionVolume 82, Issue 325 p. 99-103 World Council of Churches' Consultation on Christian Religious Education in Central and Eastern Europe Today and Tomorrow First published: January 1993 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-6631.1993.tb02655.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume82, Issue325January 1993Pages 99-103 RelatedInformation