Europe Consultation on the Global Christian Forum
Warburg, Germany, 19 – 22 June 2006
Summary Report
The gathering
The Europe consultation brought together some 50 participants from Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical, Friends (Quakers), Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Old-Catholic, Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental), Pentecostal, Reformed, Salvation Army and United churches in Europe, and from a few national Christian councils. Several continent-wide organizations were also represented, officially or informally : the Conference of European Churches, the Council of European Bishops’ Conferences (Catholic), the European Evangelical Alliance, the Pentecostal European Federation, the European Pentecostal Theological Association, the Council of Christian Churches of African Approach in Europe, the Lausanne Committee Europe Region, World Vision Europe and the European Young Women’s Christian Association. The meeting was hosted by the Syrian Orthodox Church and took place at their monastery St. Jacob of Sarug in Warburg, Germany.
It was probably the first time that a gathering of such a broad range of churches and regional organizations happened in Europe. For some participants it was their first encounter with representatives of some of the other groups. The consultation was convened by the Continuation Committee on the Global Christian Forum (GCF), as part of the Forum process which began in 1998 and is leading up to a global Forum gathering scheduled to take place on 6 – 9 November 2007, in Nairobi, Kenya. Members of the Continuation Committee took part in the meeting, which was the third of a series of regional consultations (Asia 2004, Africa 2005 and Europe 2006, with Latin America scheduled for 2007).
Purpose of the consultation
As with the previous regional consultations the purpose was:
to broaden the range of participation in the Forum process
to widen the circle of participants
to test whether the Forum idea is a viable proposal in the European context
to establish a support base
to identify some of the issues at stake
to contribute to the preparation of the global Forum gathering.
The programme
The programme of the Europe consultation differed somewhat from other Forum meetings in that it was shorter and no formal papers were presented. Much of the input came from the participants themselves. After an introduction to the concept, purpose and process of the Global Christian Forum a round of sharing took place in which each participant told the story of his/her faith journey and faith community. Brief presentations were given by representatives of the various Christian traditions on the presence and witness of their ‘church family’ in Europe today. Thirdly, some examples were highlighted from countries in Europe where churches belonging to the ecumenical movement and Evangelical and Pentecostal churches are coming closer to each other. These contributions provided the material from which the participants identified issues for discussion in small groups and in plenary, focussing on opportunities to develop and strengthen relationships and cooperation, on obstacles and barriers to be overcome and on the relevance of the Forum concept in Europe. Each day began and ended with prayer and worship led by participants from a particular tradition.
Sharing and listening
For many participants it was a new experience to give a personal testimony of their faith journey and listen to that of the others. Many felt that it was a refreshing and meaningful way of beginning a Christian meeting. It is a very common practice in Pentecostal churches, from where the Forum adopted it. Applying it in a gathering in which some of the Christian traditions present have rarely or never met before helps participants to recognize each other in Christ, and to build a strong sense of fellowship and belonging. That proved to be the case also in this consultation.
Introduction to the Forum
Mel Robeck explained that the Forum idea emerged from a reflection in the World Council of Churches in the 1990s. Observing that many Churches were not represented in the WCC and could not be expected to join Dr Raiser the General Secretary at that time, suggested that a Forum could be a place where all could come together. A first consultation was held in 1998, which was almost entirely composed of representatives of churches and organizations related to the WCC and the ecumenical movement. This meeting formulated a proposal and set up a continuation committee from among the participants. The first thing the committee did was to organize a conversation with Evangelical and Pentecostal leaders, who responded positively to the idea and suggested to call it a Global Christian Forum. The next step was to convene a gathering that in its composition and content would reflect the concept of such a Forum. This took place in 2002 at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, USA, bringing together some sixty participants from all parts of the world and all the main Christian traditions, half of them coming from Evangelical, Pentecostal and Independent church constituencies. Affirming enthusiastically the Forum idea, the consultation produced a provisional purpose statement proposing to
« create an open space wherein representatives from a broad range of Christian churches and interchurch organizations, which confess the triune God and Jesus Christ as perfect in His divinity and humanity, can gather to foster mutual respect, to explore and address together common challenges ».
This consultation also suggested that the Forum be seen primarily as a process and that it should be explored further in other regions of the world. As a result the committee drew up a four-year plan for the period 2004 – 2007. The first regional consultation was held in 2004 in Asia (Hong Kong, China), the second in 2005 in Africa (Lusaka, Zambia). At both meetings the Forum received strong support and proposals were made for follow-up within the respective regions. This Europe consultation was the third and would be followed by one more, in 2007 in Latin America. The whole process was intended to lead to a global Forum event in the latter part of 2007.
In the discussion that followed questions were asked about the links of the Forum with the WCC and with the Conference of European Churches, the global Forum event, the involvement of African Instituted Churches, the continuation committee etc. Members of the committee said that while the idea was initiated by the WCC the Forum had evolved as an autonomous process, with the support from the WCC (for the secretariat in particular) and from a small number of other organizations and churches. The continuation committee is an autonomous body accountable to all the churches and organizations involved in the process. In the course of the years it has been expanded to become more representative of Pentecostal and Evangelical constituencies. With regard to the Conference of European Churches, Hubert van Beek explained that the CEC was invited and fully informed about the consultation but not officially represented because of a conflict of dates. He added that African Instituted Churches had participated in the 2002 and the Africa consultations. Concerning the global Forum event, Mel Robeck said that this was intended to be a culmination of the process that would bring together senior leaders and decision makers from the main Christian traditions, and that these would determine whether the Forum should continue and how. A participant from the Quaker tradition pointed out that they did not have such a thing as appointed decision makers. The importance of « bringing together » was underlined. Without that there are no relationships and no decisions. The need to make the Forum known more widely was also underlined (e.g. printed material, website etc).
Presence and witness of the churches in Europe
Descriptions were given of the following ‘church families’, focussing on their presence, witness and priorities in today’s Europe :
Catholic Church
Evangelical
Oriental Orthodox
Old-Catholic
Pentecostal
Protestant
Eastern Orthodox
Anglican
Each presentation was followed by a time for questions and discussion. The texts (or summaries) have been put together and made available in a separate paper.
Examples of new relationships
Norway
The Christian Council of Norway and the Council of Free Churches in Norway merged to become one body in May 2006. Ornulf Steen explained the background of this important development. The Norwegian Constitution of 1840 made the Lutheran Church the state church. In 1845 permission was granted to Norwegian citizens to be members of other churches. The Council of Free Churches was formed in 1903. In spite of this, non-Lutherans continued to be seen as second-rate citizens. This was not a helpful context for ecumenical relationships. Some relations existed between the Lutheran Church and other churches but never involving all denominations. Plans for the creation of a Christian Council began to take shape in the 1980s. Pentecostals were involved but withdrew before the CCN was established in 1992. All the other Free Churches joined and a few years later some Charismatic congregations expressed the wish to join also. A first step towards the merger came when the Council of Free Churches moved into the premises of the CCN. There was an attitude of listening and mutual affirmation. The main challenge was for the Pentecostals – and to a lesser extent the Seventh-day Adventists – to be together with the Catholic Church. Other difficulties were the fear of losing autonomy and relations with the WCC. The challenges the new body is facing are :
a) Moral issues
b) The Israel / Palestine issue
c) Church – State relations
d) What it means to be church.
Speaking as a Norwegian Pentecostal, Terje Hegertun said the merger was an ‘ecumenical miracle’. Pentecostals are sceptical about the ecumenical movement. Unity is less of a priority than mission and church growth. Yet there is a recognition that one cannot stay away forever and that unity can contribute to a better Christian life. Some events in the Pentecostal movement in Sweden convinced us Norwegian Pentecostals that we needed theological training and needed the others. We also listened to the younger generation who value unity as an integral part of their faith. Another factor was that the Lutheran Theological Seminary introduced Pentecostal courses in its curriculum. We are now discovering our commonalities with Catholics and Orthodox, e.g. on ethical issues and spirituality. There are still questions of how the merger will work, and a backlash could still happen. Olav Fykse Tveit explained that the Church of Norway had been in danger of self-sufficiency because it was unaware of confessional borders. Only after World War II had it learned to see itself as a church among other churches, first abroad through the ecumenical movement, later also at home. The Lutheran confession is its identity, but that confession is ecumenical in nature. He added that the main role of the new body was to witness to the unity of the member churches and to develop a new language that would speak to the younger generation.
In answer to questions Ornulf Steen said that the new body had retained the name Christian Council of Norway for its international relations. In Norway it was called The New CCN. A formal decision on the name will be taken in March 2007. The theological basis has remained the same. Asked about migrant communities in Norway he said that so far there had been little attention for migrant churches but that the Council had appointed someone to establish contacts with them.
Italy
The Federation of Protestant Churches in Italy and the Pentecostal Federation have begun to establish relationships. Laura Casorio said that it was so new that she and the representative of the Pentecostal Federation did not know each other before coming to this consultation. She briefly sketched the context. In Italy the Protestants are less than 1% of the population and almost unknown. Yet they existed long before Italy became one country. Contacts between Protestants and Pentecostals were first made in the 1920s. After World War II Italy adopted a new constitution with explicit reference to religious freedom. The Federation of Protestant Churches was formed in 1965. In 1984 some churches established their own official agreement with the state. A commission on state relations was set up with all the Protestant and Evangelical churches and groups and became the place where the Federation and Pentecostals began to work together, including the Assemblies of God, the Brethren and the Apostolic Church. In 1998 a theological dialogue between the Waldensian Church and the Pentecostal Federation was initiated, and later also a Baptist – Pentecostal dialogue. Contacts between the two Federations began to develop. A big step forward occurred when in 2005 the Pentecostal Federation applied for observer status within the Protestant Federation, and vice-versa. Full membership will require agreement on a common theological basis.
From the Pentecostal side it was said that in Italy all the minority churches have experienced persecution in the past. Today the Evangelicals are respected, but often ignored by the mass media. The Pentecostals have gained recognition because of their growth. They represent 80% of all the Protestants and Evangelicals. The dialogues with the Waldensians and the Baptists have been beneficial for them. The Pentecostals in Italy are comprised of the Pentecostal Federation which brings together about ten groups and is a member of the Pentecostal European Federation, the Assemblies of God and a number of Independent churches and groups. The Pentecostal Federation sees the relationships with the Protestant Federation as positive.
Asked about relations with the Catholic Church, Laura Casorio said that the Protestant Federation is engaged in a dialogue with the Catholic Church and that there is cooperation on social matters, e.g. immmigrants and refugees. Local ecumenical groups of Protestants and Catholics are very active.
France
Jean-Arnold de Clermont said that France is somewhere ‘halfway’ between Norway and Italy. Protestants make up 2% of the population. In the 19th century there were four official religions : Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and Reformed. Since 1905 there has been total freedom of religion. Officially there are no relations with the state and all churches (and other religious groups) are at the same level. But freedom brings with it the danger of competition. Hence the formation of the French Protestant Federation in 1905, bringing together the Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist and Free churches. After fifty years of competition between the Federation and the Pentecostal churches the conviction grew in the 1970s that they needed each other. In 2006 four Pentecostal groups (and the Seventh-day Adventists) entered the Protestant Federation. This had an enormous impact in the media. The Federation was accused of allying itself with the ‘Bush party’ in France. Another new development was the creation of the National Council of Evangelical Churches in France in which three groups came together : the Pentecostals and Evangelicals which are part of the Protestant Federation, the Federation of Evangelical Churches (which is based on a common confession), and the Assemblies of God. This became possible after Pentecostals and Evangelicals were able to work out a mutual understanding of each other.
Answering the question of whether Pentecostals were labeled ‘sects’ in France Jean-Arnold de Clermont said that the government had established a list of 172 new religious movements which are seen as dangerous. This did not include Pentecostal groups. He also explained that twenty years ago the Assemblies of God asked for contacts with the Protestant Federation but that the process was discontinued after they changed their mind in 2001. Asked about the Evangelical Alliance of France he said that it was a group of individuals, not churches.
Discussion
A rich discussion took place, nurtured by the sharing of the faith stories and the descriptions and examples. Adelbert Denaux suggested that a survey be done of the relationships between churches involved in the ecumenical movement and Evangelical and Pentecostal churches at the national level in Europe. His proposal was supported by the participants. He also brought up the issue of proselytism, on which several comments were made by others. Daniel Benga from Romania said that from the perspective of the Romanian Orthodox Church the 500,000 Pentecostals in his country were an illustration of proselytism, not mission. The Orthodox Church is itself in a process of renewal setting up many new churches and Romania should not be treated as terra missionis. The Pentecostals and the Seventh-day Adventists in Romania were competing with the Orthodox in very rapidly building new cathedrals. Several participants noted that the Catholic – Pentecostal dialogue had dealt extensively with the questions of proselytism and evangelism, and that the Catholic – World Evangelical Alliance dialogue had also discussed it. Jack Radano expanded on this saying that in a majority/minority situation all should respect religious freedom and that Christian groups have responsibility towards each other. Minority groups should recognize the signs of lively renewal in the majority church. The history of Christianity in Europe is one of divisions and wars. Now we have opportunities to create a new history. Speaking from a Pentecostal point of view, Terje Hegertun agreed that there are serious tensions in eastern Europe which made it necessary to talk to each other. But we should recognize that changes are taking place rapidly. Ecumenism should also be seen in the light of our call to bring the gospel, coming together for the sake of the church in the world to fulfil the Great Commission. Pointing to the ‘suffering witness’ of the churches in Eastern Europe during decades of communism, Constantine Miron said that missionaries to a country should be aware of the existence and history of local churches. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson mentioned the discussions on proselytism in the WCC without those labeled as proselytizers being present and said the Forum offered a place to talk about it with all around the table.
Also from the Pentecostal side, Matthias Wenk said it was important that the established churches recognize the Pentecostal churches as churches. Daniel Berkovic added that Pentecostalism manifests itself both as a movement that is also present within some of the mainline churches, and in the existence of churches or denominations. This call for recognition was echoed by Fidelia Onyuku-Opukiri on behalf of the African churches in Europe. Try to get to know us and open your heart she said to the mainline churches, including the Orthodox, you may come to see that you can learn from us. Alimamy Sesay asked what the Christians in Europe were doing about xenophobia.
Lars-Ivar Nilsson shared something about the situation in Sweden, where Pentecostalism began as a revival movement within the Lutheran Church. The leaders of the churches meet once or twice a year and experience real fellowship. The difficulties start when it comes to organizing the churches, e.g. in the Christian Council. Initially the Pentecostals stayed out because of the stances of the Council on controversial issues. They asked that it be a meeting place, not a decision making body. Now they are members. A Pentecostal leader and a Catholic bishop have together written a book on christology.
In relation to the existence of many Orthodox churches in the United Kingdom and more generally in Europe, Janet Scott asked about the link between church and national identity. Constantine Myron explained that in Germany the Orthodox churches have formed a Commission which represents them in the national Christian Council. There is a hope to become one Church in the future but that needs time, he added.
The issue of « believing but not belonging » was raised and commented on by several. George Vandervelde quoted Karl Rahner who had said that the future was with the voluntary church (free church). Illustrating the situation Sarah Rowland Jones said the Anglican churches in the UK were losing a lot of people, some to other churches, many to secularism. How do the established/mainline churches face this reality ? Arnold van Heusden felt that a new apologetic is called for, a new language and hermeneutics that could express the gospel in ways resonating with the complexities of society and especially with contemporary attitudes such as the ‘life feeling’ of young people. Those of us still belonging to a church should stop speaking negatively of the church, as we often tended to do. Free churches and established/mainline churches should learn to share all their gifts so that the whole church would be blessed (e.g. healing, speaking in tongues). Another way of interpreting the realities in Europe was expressed by Peter Fleetwood who spoke of the battle to destroy the Judeo-Christian heritage which made it urgent for the churches to come together.
The discussion also touched on questions of spirituality, theology and unity. Referring to the sharing of the faith journeys Joan Back said it had enabled all of us to experience a deep and real unity in Christ. Richard Howell suggested that we should focus on what was uniting us, e.g. common areas of spirituality. Magdalena Sevciková highlighted the importance of sacred places, worship, tradition and community. She noted that in the faith stories almost everybody had spoken of the place of family and friends in their lives. Jan-Gerd Heetderks added that the starting point of spirituality was not dogma or argument but the recognition of the other as brother or sister in Christ. Renewal would come from movement, not arguments. He asked how this experience of the Forum could happen in more limited, local situations.
Also raised were ethical issues (sexuality, abortion etc). June Becks said there were sharp differences in the migrant churches on these questions. Adelbert Denaux asked if we could speak with a common voice in the public sphere, together with the Pentecostal and Evangelical churches, in view of the prevailing liberal western theology. Janet Scott reminded the group that our concerns as churches are important but that God is ‘out there’ in the world. Are we answering God’s call. Are we where God is at work. Should the Forum not address issues such as justice, peace, climate change, the unity of humankind. Reacting to some of what had been said Daniel Berkovic suggested that besides being in dialogue with each other or with other faiths, churches should also be in dialogue with themselves and engage in critical self-examination. This could lessen many problems, e.g. the question of proselytism. He mentioned the Second Vatican Council as a good example of self-examination.
Other points mentioned in the discussion included terminology (believers church or free church could be a better term than ‘evangelical’) ; the possible implications of the Forum for the 3rd European Ecumenical Assembly in Sibiu, Romania, in September 2007 ; inter-religious relations ; ministry among the Roma and Sinti people. The question was also asked that if the Forum process led to the discernment that some new ecumenical structure was emerging would some other structures then have to disappear?
Is the time ripe ?
At this juncture of the meeting Wesley Granberg-Michaelson made a brief summary of the Global Christian Forum for those who had missed the introduction the previous day. He added a few thoughts, saying that the 20th century was marked by deep divisions between the ecumenical movement on the one hand and the evangelical and pentecostal movements on the other hand. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether the 21st century is God’s time to heal that division in the Body of Christ. How to discern that the time is ripe. There are some signs : the shift of the centre of gravity of Christianity from the North to the South, a new generation of leadership in both the North and the South, a renewed understanding of the wholeness of the gospel (Luke 4 : 18-19). The experience of the Forum so far and the plans shaping up for next year – the consultation in Latin America and the global gathering – enable us to affirm that it is indeed a timely initiative. The presence of the Catholics and the Orthodox is essential and their voices are indispensable. We may say that the Spirit is at work to bring about a new togetherness of the Christian family, for the sake of the witness to the world. The Forum is one of the most exciting developments on the ecclesial horizon but it remains fragile, with only a Continuation Committee and a small secretariat, and no funds of its own. We need your prayer and support.
Discussions in small groups
The following issues were identified for group discussions
1. Common witness in the public sphere
2. New ways of expressing the Christian faith in a secularized Europe
3. Proselytism, mission and evangelism
4. Majority / minority situations
5. Migration and Christian – Muslim dialogue.
Each group reported back in plenary and each report was followed by some discussion in plenary.
Group 1 - Common witness in the public sphere
"It is always better to say things together, than to say them separately"
Common voice
There are things on which we can present a high level of agreement in the public sphere. For some issues it is more difficult to have a common voice. Our divisions weaken our Christian witness to the world.
We agreed on the following principles:
-
churches want to have voice in public
-
religion is not just a private thing
-
dignity of life - life is the gift from the Creator
-
hospitability and openness towards migrants
-
our public voice does not mean that we impose our opinions on anyone ; we respect human rights, including freedom of opinion
-
need for a new language and apologetics- because many people in Europe know almost nothing about the Judeo-Christian tradition
-
peace, justice and reconciliation
How to achieve a common voice
In order to have a common voice of all Christians we recommend pursuing the Christian Forum process at the regional/national level, alongside to the National or Ecumenical Council of Churches and the National Evangelical Alliance or Fellowship and inviting all Christian churches and communities to participate in formulating common statements. We need each other. We realize that our Christianity and understanding of the truth is not complete without each other. The Global Christian Forum inspires us to see that we need to learn from each other. In learning from each other, we overcome anger and demonising the others and become ecumenical.
Difficulties
There are difficulties in speaking in public:
-
different statuses in church and state relationship
-
different historical settings
-
problems of authority and representation.
In the discussion it was noted that the purpose of the Global Christian Forum was first of all to get to know each other. Speaking with a common voice on some issues could be one of the results of better mutual understanding. On the other hand, at the regional Forum consultation in Africa in 2005 the participants were able to identify immediately several public issues on which they had a common mind. The same seemed to be the case in this Europe consultation. Peace-making was mentioned as an issue for a common voice of all Christians.
Group 2 - New ways of expressing the Christian faith in a secularized Europe
This group was set up following the presentation of Arnold van Heusden (director of Evangelical Alliance, Netherlands) on Evangelical(ism) as one of the five 'church families' in Europe. The key issue which emerged from that exposition and the subsequent discussion was the question of 'new apologetics' and 'new hermeneutics' in a post-modern and secularized Europe.
The following points were made in the group
i) the term 'apologetics':
we expressed the view that a different term should be used as there is a strong connotation of the word 'apologetics' with the notion of defending or 'proving' our faith, which might well place us immediately in a defensive position.
ii) the question of communication:
how do we communicate our Christian convictions and our faith to the milieu where we live. This brought us to the question what religious language we are using, which sometimes becomes a jargon comprehensible only to a 'faithful remnant', and often lacking in humility. This would then call for ...
iii) … a new language for the new realities:
at this point we recognized that language has two aspects of communication - 'verbal' and 'non-verbal'. We also recognized that we need more sensitivity to be enabled to hear what a speaker from a different Christian tradition actually wishes to communicate.
iv) bearing in mind different Christian traditions, we were challenged by the frequent desire for common positions and a 'common voice'. However there must also be room for ‘agreeing to disagree’ on certain matters..
v) we recognized that we may either feel compelled or invited to answer questions and issues which the society at large brings up, but that we also have the full liberty to bring to the forefront questions which have not yet arisen in the wider social or political milieu.
In comments to this report it was said that a common voice is not necessarily one voice. Diversity is OK but we should stick to our common faith and not speak against each other. Divisions on essential matters, e.g. ethical issues, weaken our witness. It was suggested that new language could come from encountering each other.
Group 3 - Proselytism, mission and evangelism
Everybody in the group affirmed the importance of the issue for Europe, especially the urgent need for clarification in Eastern Europe between Orthodox churches and Pentecostal churches and groups. The starting points of the members of the group concerning ecumenical dialogue differed greatly. Some had been involved in dialogue for decades, for others it was the first meeting of this kind in their lives. The group affirmed that theological research and dialogue should be taken into account for further discussions
The main focus of the discussion was proselytism, because this was the most controversial issue. The main questions were: who is a Christian? and: who is to be evangelized?
1) who is a Christian? In discussing this question a certain view from ‘above to the objects of mission’ prevailed. The following theological implications were seen to be crucial:
- of baptism and re-baptism
- of conversion
- of believing
- of belonging (to a church)
- of ecclesiology: diversity / plurality vs. division, the role of tradition and history, the understanding of territory.
On all these questions we agreed to disagree!
2) who is to be evangelized? In this part of the discussion there was more a view as churches “from one to the other”. The importance of the ethical and political implications of the question were underlined:
- how do we respect/understand human rights, especially the right of freedom of religion?
- how do we use our money in the mission field?
- how do we respect the history of the country we are working in?
- to whom are we responsible/accountable: to God, to ourselves, to our church, to the donors, the people of the mission field?
The group supported the idea of a code of conduct for mission activities in Christian countries. It supported the approach to evangelism of the Billy Graham Association: evangelism by foreign groups is acceptable if the local churches are asked beforehand and agree to be involved in the programme. The group affirmed that in these questions the dialogue could start with practical questions and then agreement would be easier.
One of the comments to this report was that the theological and ethical/social/political dimensions are inter-connected. If Billy Graham respects the local church it is because he considers them Christian. It was also said that there remains nevertheless a distinction : the theological issues are one aspect of the matter and practical cooperation another. The question was asked why the focus is always on proselytism whereas we could look together at what God is doing in the world and learn so much from each other about revitalizing our own church communities. This led to a comment that we should not be naïve and should listen to what the ‘target people’ of our actions themselves have to say.
Group 4 - Majority / minority situations
The group identified several aspects of this dual concept of ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ according to the experience of the participants:
- nationwide / local experience of being church
- established churches / free churches
- state churches / or not
- privileged churches / or not
In the discussion the following points were made:
-
churches are here to talk to each other
-
all the churches are bringing a “new message”: the message coming from Jesus seen as the Heart of Faith
-
the Global Forum should talk about the gifts received by each church from other churches
-
the Continuation Committee and the churches are encouraged:
- to facilitate the process of dialogue and getting to know each other better
- to facilitate the theological dialogue and to promote theological training for future generations of pastors and ministers
- to promote a code of conduct between the churches (respect, accept, affirm each other)
-
there is a need to create / develop a language for dialogue among churches
-
churches should build spaces of trust in order to work together, e.g. through diaconal work
-
churches should create and develop spaces for dialogue and understanding.
Some examples of existing agreements among local churches were given that could reflect the idea of a code of conduct: sharing of church buildings, people moving from one church to another, speaking for one another. The comment was also made that accepting one another does not always mean to agree on everything. For instance all the churches agree that evangelism is one of their tasks, but can we agree that aggressive evangelism is not good?
Group 5 - Migration and Christian – Muslim dialogue
The group noted that migration is a complex reality in Europe and that the situation differs from country to country. Reliable statistics and information about migrant populations are difficult to obtain. In eastern Europe the biggest group are the Roma / Sinti, who number about 12 million. Since the fall of communism they are often excluded from education and employment. In western Europe the influx of immigrants since the 1960s has had a significant impact on religious and social life. Resentment against foreigners is growing and and there is an increasing fear of Islam, the religion of many first generation immigrants. Migrants experience in various ways social, economic and racial discrimination. For some of them, especially in western Europe, this discrimination is related to the colonial legacy of their country of residence. Integration is often imposed in the form of assimilation, whereas the group felt that integration should rather be seen in terms of participation. The group asked itself the question whether the impact of migration is the same in countries with a history of colonization and countries that have not had colonies.
With regard to the role of the churches in relation to migration and migrants the group offered the following considerations
-
the churches should give attention to the questions of culture and religion, ethics and moral issues, ‘north’ and ‘south’ christianity, excluvism versus pluralism, etc.
-
the churches should be open to multicultural worship services and multicultural leadership
-
churches should be spaces of learning to live together ; one of the services they can render is to organize language courses, because language is one of the main obstacles to participation and integration
-
many churches in Europe have a history of mission to former colonies or other countries in the ‘south’ ; they react with confusion and uncertainty to the new phenomenon of mission from the ‘south’ to the ‘north’ by Christian migrant communities as well as by Muslims.
There was a variety of views in the group on the question of Christian – Muslim relations and dialogue. These intra-religious differences in attitudes and approaches towards inter-religious relationships, among Christians as well as Muslims, in the European churches and in migrant communities need to be further explored. The group concluded that whether white or coloured, Christian or Muslim, all still have negative attitudes towards each other. Platforms like the Global Christian Forum are instruments for helping find common ground for dialogue and for learning not to act out of fear.
It was suggested that one of the aims of Christian – Muslim dialogue could be to help them know Jesus better, starting from the Muslim understanding of Jesus. A comment was made about the political dimension of dialogue with Muslims in terms of reconciliation. For the witness of the churches, promoting peace and reconciliation is as important as the search for unity.
A ‘code of conduct’ ?
At the close of the group reports some further exchanges took place on the idea of a ‘code of conduct’ and the notion of ‘agreeing to disagree’. Fidelia Onyuku-Opukiri said that according to her experience in England the important thing was to keep going together and not to give up. Ornulf Steen added that a lesson from Norway was to affirm one another. We can agree to disagree said George Vandervelde because our agreement – the foundation of the faith, Jesus Christ – is so much bigger than our differences. Adelbert Denaux gave the example of the Federation of Protestant Churches in Belgium. To be a member a church must agree with a code of conduct. This was the result of a self-reflection of the churches not to be sectarian. Klaus-Peter Voss referred to the Charta Oecmenica of the Conference of European Churches and the Council of European Bishops’ Conferences which could be an inspiration for all the churches to live with one another. In the view of Silja Joneleit-Oesch a code of conduct could be a good way to approach also the theological issues. Daniel Berkovic asked whether the group that had discussed proselytism had any perspectives to offer. Or was the only conclusion to divorce ? To this Igor Vyzhanov responded by saying that we are living together and cannot divorce. He said that the Charta Oecumenica was still controversial for some and was not accepted by the Russian Orthodox Church. We are at the beginning of a long journey, he concluded.
The Global Forum Gathering
The Continuation Committee invited input from the participants about the plans for the Global Forum Gathering in 2007. Most of the comments made were in the form of questions :
- will Evangelicals and Pentecostals make up 50% of the attendance at the global meeting as is the case in the regional consultations ?
- how will the process of the regional consultations be related to the global gathering ?
- what will be the youth participation ?
- is it not better to continue the regional process rather than holding a big global event ?
- could the third European Ecumenical Assembly in Sibiu in September 2007 affect the participation from Europe ?
- how can the sharing of faith journeys and the regional interaction happen in a large gathering with several hundreds participants ?
- what will happen after 2007 ?
Wesley Granberg-Michaelson said that the committee did not yet have all the answers. Concerning the composition of the global gathering, the Evangelicals and Pentecostals should be assured to be at equal footing with the others because they had either been marginalized or chosen to be at the margin. All should feel fully represented. With regard to regional / global there will be a certain continuity (there will be participants who have been in previous Forum consultations) but the leadership level will be higher. The regional process will also continue in some way because at each regional consultation there has been the wish to carry on with it in the region.
|
