wfn.org | WCC - Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the

["Sheila Mesa" <smm@wcc-coe.org>]

WCC is preparing its final report

World Council of Churches
Feature, Feat-02-03
For Immediate Use
15 May 2002

The Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC is
preparing its final report

The Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the World
Council of Churches (WCC) will shortly hold its final plenary
meeting. The Commission will meet 27 May - 2 June in Jarvenpaa,
Finland, not far from Helsinki. The results of three years of
work will be presented by the Special Commission in a final
report to the WCC Central Committee, which meets this year 26
August - 3 September in Geneva, Switzerland.

The eighth assembly of the WCC in 1998 in Harare, Zimbabwe,
decided to set this Commission up following vocal criticism of
the WCC by the Orthodox churches.

At a conference in May 1998 in Thessaloniki, Greece, Eastern
Orthodox churches notably expressed serious concerns about
developments within some Protestant member churches of the
Council. They also pointed to a lack of progress in ecumenical
theological discussions, and their perception that the present
structure of the WCC makes meaningful Orthodox participation
increasingly difficult and even, for some, impossible.

In agreeing to create a Special Commission, the Harare assembly
was not only seeking to respond appropriately to the concerns of
the Orthodox, but also noted that "other churches and ecclesial
families" have similar concerns.

A great deal of work has been done since then in Special
Commission plenary sessions and sub-committees, and many matters
were discussed during the WCC Central Committee meeting in
Potsdam, Germany, at the end of January 2001.

The discussions have centred on five clusters of concerns:

- issues related to membership;
- decision-making processes;(
- common prayer;
- social and ethical issues;
- ecclesiological issues.

That considerable progress has been made, as was the case most
recently in November 2001, in Berekfurdo, Hungary, testifies to
the personal commitment of the members of this Commission, which
is comprised of Orthodox and Protestant member church
representatives "in parity".  

This personal commitment, along with stories, experiences,
evolving convictions and points of view, are the subject-matter
of a series of articles assembled by WCC Media Relations officer
Karin Achtelstetter. In this three-part series, Commission
members from different traditions speak directly, sharing their
very personal experiences and thoughts with a wider audience.  

The series takes up three of the five clusters of concern:
decision-making processes (part 1), social and ethical issues
(part 2), and common prayer (part 3). The question of membership
has, in the meantime, been allotted to a specially appointed
study group, and it is therefore not covered in this series on
the work of the Special Commission.  

As a "forerunner" to the series, in December 2000 the WCC Media
Relations Office issued an interview with the-then secretary for
Inter-Christian Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Very
Rev. Dr Hilarion Alfeyev, focusing on ecclesiological issues.  

-------------------------

How should the WCC make its decisions in future?  (part 1)

One of the most important conclusions of the plenary meeting of
the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the World
Council of Churches (WCC), held in Berekfurdo, Hungary in
November 2001, was the identification of  "consensus" as "the
appropriate decision-making method for WCC governing bodies".  

Discussion of the Special Commission's interim report, presented
at the WCC Central Committee meeting in Potsdam, Germany, in
February 2001, had already brought out Central Committee members'
positive attitude. His Beatitude Archbishop Anastasios of Tirana,
Durres and All Albania, for example, pointed out that according
to the biblical witness, it was always the Holy Spirit's
inspiration which guided the people rather than majority
decisions arrived at in parliamentary style.  

That a possible consensus model as the future decision-making
process for the WCC must not jeopardize the prophetic voice of
the WCC, was a concern expressed by the Lutheran pastor from
Finland, Rev. Mari Kinnunen. "What will happen to the prophetic
voice of the WCC?" she asked. "Will a decision-making process
based on consensus silence this voice?" She concluded, however,
that there is no basis for such fears. Consensus-building, said
Kinnunen, even when it results in an agreement to disagree, is of
great importance for the future life of the WCC.  

Two members of the Special Commission on Orthodox participation
in the WCC, Eden Grace from the Religious Society of Friends
(Quakers) in the United States and D'Arcy Wood from the Uniting
Church in Australia, have each had much experience with
decision-making by consensus, although in different ways.  

Eden Grace comes from a Christian tradition "that pays
particular attention to discernment of the Spirit in the context
of church government. ...Friends (Quakers) look for 'visible
unity' in the church community, and find it when 'all are of one
accord' in matters of business," she writes in her report.  

D'Arcy Wood, for his part, decided some ten years ago together
with his church to dare to depart from a parliamentary style and
make decisions by consensus.  

Two very different experiences. What do they have in common?
They give us courage to try setting our feet on new, and at the
same time old, paths.  
---------

Guided by the mind of Christ
Quaker decision making and the WCC
Eden Grace

How shall we behave toward each other, as Christians and members
of the World Council of Churches (WCC)? With love, respect and
generosity, or with suspicion and competition? From my
perspective, this is the underlying question of the Special
Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC, in all its areas
of work.   

As the Commission proposes to shift the Council from majority
rule to consensus, I find that the core qualities of Christian
community are at stake. How we make decisions matters, because
how we treat each other testifies to whether we are living in the
Spirit or not. The apostle Paul gives us a good list of outward
signs with which to discern whether we are rightly led by the
true Spirit of God: "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and
self-control." (Galatians 5:22-23)  

As a Quaker, I come from a community that pays particular
attention to discernment of the Spirit in the context of church
governance. Friends (Quakers) look for "visible unity" in the
church community, and find it when "all are of one accord" in
matters of business. We attach a high spiritual importance to our
business because we see it as a seamless extension of our
worship.   

Church government is not about politics, rules of debate, and
voting. It is about living as the faithful community which God
has called into being, which makes visible God's reconciling love
in the world. Paul gives his advice for church government: "Be of
the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of
one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in
humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you
look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.
Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus."
(Philippians 2:2-4)  

Of course, this is difficult, and we are not very good at it
when we rely on our own resources. But when we rely on the power
of the Holy Spirit, present among us and eager to lead us,
Quakers testify that we can experience the blessed community
which is characterized by the qualities Paul describes. We are
not seeking only for a common mind, but - as Paul says - we seek
to be guided by the mind of Christ.  

Among Quakers, I have often served as "recording clerk", the
person who puts into words the will of God as discerned by the
meeting. This is a weighty task, not a secretarial function. In
this role I have considered what it feels like to know the will
of God.  

I remember one particular meeting, concerning a decision with
potentially serious consequences. As Friends had been speaking,
offering what wisdom they had on the matter, I had been typing
most of it on my laptop. Many excellent points and sound
arguments were offered. The matter continued for quite a long
time. I had a lot of text on my screen. Yet the meeting was still
divided. Then one Friend stood to speak. Before he spoke, he
stood silently for a moment, and I felt a dramatic change in the
spirit of the meeting. It felt to me as if God's hand came to
rest upon this one man, and granted his message authority. I am
quite sure that the rest of those present also felt this shift.
Before he spoke, I wiped clean the computer screen and prepared
myself to record his message. Before he spoke, I knew with
certainty that he was guided by the mind of Christ.  

This sounds like a mystical experience, and it is. It cannot  be
controlled by systematic rules, but rests entirely on the grace
of God. However, it is not an impractical or otherworldly
experience. Friends make all our decisions this way, and not all
of them result in such a dramatic and memorable experience of
God's hand at work in our midst. But I can say that, even in
perfunctory items of business, we experience the fruits of the
Spirit as a consequence of the love and care we take for each
other, and our common commitment to obedience to God's will.  

Testify to an experience of peace

As the WCC moves toward adopting consensus decision-making, I
have heard skeptics who wonder if such a thing could work in a
global ecumenical context. Personally, I am convinced of two
things.   

One is that it is not practical nor advisable for the WCC to
adopt Quaker decision-making, as I have described it above, as a
shared experience of spiritual discernment. The WCC membership is
too diverse in its understanding of authority to assume that we
can share the presuppositions which make Quaker process
successful.  

But my second conviction is that, if we share new forms of
behaviour and expectations with each other, we can create space
for the Holy Spirit to work among us. I anticipate an increase of
love among us, as we make this change.  

The desire to reform decision-making in the Council parallels
our commitment to the Decade to Overcome Violence. In each case,
we are seeking to more faithfully embody the Christian charism of
reconciliation. We can not expect to witness to the world a
message of peace if the quality of our fellowship does not
testify to an experience of peace.   

In our own WCC process, do we bear the mark of "the
confrontational logic of war?" Do we have " the tendency to solve
a problem or conflict by establishing the dominance of one
position over the other? ... Peaceful resolution of conflict is
possible only as the win-lose matrix is being transformed into a
dynamic where both sides emerge as having won." WCC general
secretary Konrad Raiser spoke these words in reference to the
Decade to Overcome Violence. I believe they speak equally well to
the Council's own internal culture. We now seek to transform that
culture from the secular political win-lose model, to the
Christian biblical model of mutual love.  

"May the Lord make your love increase and overflow for each
other and for everyone else." (1 Thessalonians 3:12) Such are the
fruits of the Spirit, and such are what I anticipate as a result
of the Special Commission's work on decision-making.  
___________________
The author, Eden Grace, is a member of the Religious Society of
Friends (Quakers), and a member of the WCC Central Committee and
the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC. She
serves on the General Board of Friends United Meeting, an
international Quaker denominational body, and was a youth
delegate from Friends United Meeting to the Harare Assembly. She
is active in the Massachusetts Council of Churches.   

------------

Decision-making - from parliamentary style to consensus
The Uniting Church in Australia made the shift
D'Arcy Wood

The Uniting Church in Australia was formed in 1977, a union of
three denominations: Congregationalist, Methodist and
Presbyterian. One of the main aims in drawing up the constitution
and regulations for the united church was to distribute
responsibilities widely among the members, both lay and ordained.
 

The theological reasoning behind this aim was St Paul's image of
the Body of Christ with its limbs and organs, each having a
different function in the Body. The Holy Spirit gives gifts to
members of the church as and where the Spirit wishes, and it is
the role of the church to recognize these gifts and put them to
use in the ministries of the church. The Basis of Union of the
Uniting Church affirms that "government" of the church is a
function given to individuals and councils according to the
spiritual gifts they have received. In historical terms, one
could say that the form of government of the Uniting Church
resembles the Presbyterian system to a large extent, with lay
people participating, in at least equal numbers with clergy, at
the national level (the national assembly), state level (synods),
regions (presbyteries) and local communities (parishes and
congregations).  

As the Uniting Church moved into the 1980s there were deliberate
efforts to encourage women and young people to take a greater
role in the councils of the church and to be elected to office.
These efforts met with success to some degree, but one of the
barriers to full participation was the form of debate and
decision-making that the Uniting Church inherited from its
forebears. The rules are sometimes described as "parliamentary"
in style or "Westminster-derived".  

I found myself presiding over the Synod of South Australia from
1981 to 1983, and it was obvious that people who had had long
experience of the church and its procedures had a huge influence
on the decisions of the Synod. To some extent, one might say,
this is inevitable. On the other hand, one could also say that
the gifts of many members, especially women and younger people,
were being under-utilized. Gradually, the issue of reforming the
decision-making process came to the fore.  

Decision-making processes are uniform throughout the Uniting
Church. Some other denominations in Australia are more diocesan-
or state-based in their form of government, but the Uniting
Church has a strong national character. The reform of
decision-making processes therefore needed to be investigated on
a national level, so the standing committee of the National
Assembly established a small working group to prepare alternative
processes. I met with this working group on one or two occasions
but people like Dr Jill Tabart - later to be national president -
, Rev. Gregor Henderson - general secretary of the National
Assembly - and Rev. Hamish Christie-Johnston did much of the
work.  

The new system which was eventually adopted has the label
"consensus method". The general aim is to involve as many people
as possible in formulating the decisions of a council or other
meeting. The new procedures are also less rigid.  

Two examples will illustrate these points. First, a person may
speak more than once in the debate on a particular proposal. It
is the responsibility of the chairperson to ensure that no one
individual or small group dominates the discussion to the
exclusion of other voices. Secondly, an issue may be explored in
the meeting without any formulated proposal being "before the
chair". There is a process whereby the meeting moves to the
formulation (and modification) of any proposal by agreement -
"consensus".   

The chairperson will often check with members as to their
opinion - as distinct from a formal vote - as the meeting moves
towards a decision. The last National Assembly meeting to use the
"old" procedures was the one at which I presided in 1991. The
next Assembly in 1994 used the new procedures. At about the same
time, synods, presbyteries and parish councils - as well as
committees and commissions of various sorts - moved across to the
new procedures.  

A decade of experience with the consensus method

So the Uniting Church has a decade of experience with the
consensus method. What does this experience show?   

First, the new method has needed" fine-tuning" in order to serve
the church better. Second, very few people - as far as I can tell
- would want to go back to the old procedures. Despite
difficulties here and there, the new procedures do work; they
have achieved the aims of flexibility and greater participation
which were identified in the late 1980s.  

Have there been losses as well as gains? It could be said that
the new procedures are slower than the old. This is a consequence
of the need to hear many points of view and to encourage as many
people as possible to contribute to the formulation of decisions.
However the slowing down has not been as great as some people
feared. This is my experience, at least. While more voices are
now heard in debate, there is less need to spend time on
procedural discussion, e.g. "notice of amendment", "moving the
previous question", "motion to adjourn" and so on. There is also
a higher level of satisfaction that the council or meeting has
properly explored the possibilities in resolving any particular
issue.  

Another loss - perhaps "danger" would be a better term - is the
great authority vested in the chairperson of the meeting. The
chairperson has the responsibility of seeing that the discussion
is full and fair, and that all relevant viewpoints receive an
airing. He or she must also discern the developing "mind of the
meeting" and seek to express just what that "mind" is. This
requires a high level of skill. The choice of the chairperson is
obviously vital. The equipping of chairpersons for the task is
also important, especially if they are new to this role.
Therefore, in the early 1990s, an education process was
undertaken not only for chairpersons but for all members of the
councils of the church.  

It should be added that the influence of the chairperson can be
moderated by having a committee of advice or business committee
on hand to advise the chairperson both before and during a
meeting.  

The experience of the Uniting Church has helped the Special
Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC. However, an
ecumenical body is obviously very different from a single
denomination. The WCC will need to develop rules appropriate to
its own life. The Uniting Church's experience of consensus
decision-making has been helpful, but it is only one example of
how consensus procedures operate, The Special Commission has now
agreed on some general principles of consensus decision-making.
It will be up to the Central Committee, if it adopts the Special
Commission's proposals, to translate these principles into an
appropriate practical form. I hope the Central Committee will
move in that direction. Some of the difficulties experienced not
only by Orthodox participants but by some others in the WCC
may well be resolved by this means.  

___________________________
Rev. Dr D'Arcy Wood is a retired minister of the Uniting Church
in Australia. From 1974 to 1988 he lectured in Systematic
Theology and Liturgy in Adelaide. He was moderator of the Synod
of South Australia 1981-83 and president of the National Assembly
1991-94. Dr Wood was a staff member of the Australian Council of
Churches 1969-73 and president of that body 1984-88.  
 

Photos to accompany the Feature are to be found on the WCC web
site:
http://www.photooikoumene.org/bio/misc/index.html 

For further information, please contact  Media Relations Office,
 tel:  (+41.22) 791.61.53   	

**********
The World Council of Churches (WCC) is a fellowship of churches,
now 342, in more than 100 countries in all continents from
virtually all Christian traditions. The Roman Catholic Church is
not a member church but works cooperatively with the WCC. The
highest governing body is the assembly, which meets approximately
every seven years. The WCC was formally inaugurated in 1948 in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Its staff is headed by general
secretary Konrad Raiser from the Evangelical Church in Germany.

World Council of Churches
Media Relations Office

Tel: (41 22) 791 6153 / 791 6421
Fax: (41 22) 798 1346
E-mail: ka@wcc-coe.org 
Web: www.wcc-coe.org 

PO Box 2100
1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland