213 - Ecumenism: Postconfessional? Consciously Contextual?

Ecumenism: Postconfessional? Consciously Contextual?
By Teresa Berger

When I first came to the (Southern) United States in the early 1980s to teach ecumenical theology, I considered myself well prepared for the task: I had been trained at Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, and Roman Catholic divinity schools in England, Germany, and French-speaking Switzerland. As a Roman Catholic from Germany, I had written my dissertation on a revival movement in the Church of England in the last century. Obviously, my ecumenical vision was fresh and sharp. When asked, therefore, soon after my arrival in North Carolina, to speak to local pastors about ecumenism, I accepted without hesitation. Imagine my surprise when, at the end of my talk, one of the pastors got up and explained that in his Methodist congregation, there were no problems with ecumenical relations with other churches as long as this meant other white denominations, be they Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Moravian, Disciples of Christ, or anything else. The problems of his congregation came from the demands of ecumenism in relation to neighboring African American churches, even Methodist African American churches. And did I have any words of wisdom for him? I did not, of course.¹ My ecumenical vision had been sharply focused on an ecumenism that saw the divisions between the churches as a confessional problem (I came from one of the homelands of the Protestant Reformation, after all). My vision of ecumenism, therefore, centered on the struggle for unity by focusing on denominational divisions. Intraecclesial racial divisions simply had never been a part of the picture for me. What I realized painfully that day, though,

Teresa Berger is Associate Professor of Ecumenical Theology at The Divinity School of Duke University and author of a number of books, including Theology in Hymns: A Study of the Relationship of Doxology and Theology according to "A Collection of Hymns for the Use of the People Called Methodist" (1780) (1995).

¹ I wish I had had available to me at that time Jeffrey Gross article "Eradicating Racism: A Central Agenda for the Faith and Order Movement," Ecumenical Review 47 (1995), pp. 42-51.

214 - Ecumenism: Postconfessional? Consciously Contextual?

was that ecumenism is always a contextual struggle, and that my European ecumenical vision would simply not be adequate in rural North Carolina. Unless the ecumenical vision could be formed as a consciously contextual vision, it would not help the concrete struggles against a multitude of divisions (of which the confessional is only one) hurting the churches.

What I have here called my "European ecumenical vision" was, of course, largely identical with the vision of the classical ecumenical movement itself. For this movement, which so profoundly marked the life of the churches in the twentieth century, the "unity of the church" was at the very heart of its message. Denominational divisions between the churches were recognized as sinful, as something that the ecumenical movements in accordance with God's will for the church-was seeking to overcome: The method by which these sinful divisions were to be overcome was, that of the struggle for (theological) consensus among the churches. The bilateral and multilateral ecumenical dialogues among the churches stand as the best witness to that ecumenical vision.

As the churches enter the third millennium, we can be thankful for the great awakening of consciousness of the sinfulness of ecclesial division, even if we now recognize that this initial awakening was limited. We only need to think of the photographs from the first general Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Amsterdam in 1948 to confront these limitations. The Assembly was basically made up of white, European and North American, middle-aged, largely Protestant, ordained males. What people saw and celebrated at that Assembly, however, was not this uniformity,) but the confessional diversity from which the men had come. It seemed like a vision of the new and coming unity of the church that people of such diverse confessional backgrounds would covenant to struggle together for church unity. When we look at these pictures fifty years later and compare them with pictures from the latest Assembly of the World Council of Churches, the differences are marked: The last Assembly in Canberra, Australia in 1991 was attended by representatives from over three hundred churches from more than one hundred countries. Thirty-five percent of the delegates were women, forty-six percent lay, and eleven percent youth. One hundred thirty-two delegates came from Africa, one hundred forty-one from Asia, thirteen from the Caribbean, twenty-six from Latin America, sixty-seven from the Middle East, and twenty-eight from the Pacific. Behind this change obviously lie changes in the theological vision of the unity of the church. Since the heydays of the classical ecumenical movement in the 1960s, new divisions have become visible, which in turn have demanded new ecumenical visions of unity.

DECENT THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIAL DEVELOPMENTS

I see two key elements that are giving birth to new ways of conceiving or division and unity in the church at the end of the twentieth century.² There

² Cf. Yacob Tesfai, "Ecumenism and `the South': The Irruption of the `Third World' and Its Impact on the Ecumenical Movement," Journal of Ecumenical Studies 31 (1994), pp. 332-344; and the perceptive response by Jack E. Nelson, pp. 349-353.

215 - Ecumenism: Postconfessional? Consciously Contextual?

is, first of all, the irruption of myriads of consciously contextual theologies into theological and ecumenical discourse: black theology, feminist theology, Latin American liberation theology, Asian Minjung and Dalith theologies, womanist and mujerista theologies, and lesbian and gay liberation theology, to name just a few of the better known. I was reminded of the ecumenical impact of these consciously contextual theologies this summer when a recent dissertation landed on my desk. It was written by a German Lutheran, Karl H. Federschmidt, about a Taiwanese theologian, Choan-Seng Song, and the Asian ecumenical background of his consciously contextual theology.³ Konrad Raiser, the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, wrote the foreword to the book. The breadth of ecumenism in Federschmidt's dissertation confirms for me that ecumenical theology has moved beyond primarily looking at confessional divisions to a different way of construing this theology, namely, as consciously contextual, because socially located. With consciously contextual theologies come new theological vocabularies and a rethinking of traditional theological concepts, including those centering on the unity of the church.

The emergence of myriads of consciously contextual theologies is happening at a time when there is also a noticeable shift of ecclesial weight from churches of the first to churches of the two-thirds world. This, I would suggest, is the: second key element that is engendering new ways of conceiving of division and unity in the churches at the end of the twentieth century. A colleague of mine, with whom I serve on a local ecumenical

"Issues like race, gender, class, and sexual preference can no longer be interpreted as nontheological factors in the divisions hurting the churches."

commission, recently summed up this shift by claiming that the average Anglican today is a twenty-eight-year-old Kenyan woman. If this is indeed true, I rejoice for the Anglican communion. Other churches project similar trends: By the turn of the century and the millennium, two-thirds of all Christians and four-fifths of humanity will live in the two-thirds world. More than 50 percent of Roman Catholics will be Latin American. This-and the statistics could be multiplied-indicates that the center of gravity of the churches' life has shifted from the North Atlantic to the two-thirds world. This shift has tremendous implications for the ecumenical vision: The historic confessional differences between the churches, which the classical ecumenical movement addressed, are not "homemade" in the two-thirds world. They were imported there together with a Christianity often implicated in colonialism. In other words, traditional confessional differences are not indigenous to Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Many

³ Karl H. Federschmidt, Theologie aus asiatischen Quellen: Der theologische Weg Choan-Seng Songs vor dem Hintergrund der asiatischen ökumenischen Diskussion (Munster: LIT Verlag, 1994).

216 - Ecumenism: Postconfessional? Consciously Contextual?

indigenous Christian leaders in those areas have, therefore, refused to let their Christian life and witness be hampered by the confessional differences imported from Europe and North America. (Interestingly, what we now call the two-thirds world is exactly where the twentieth-century ecumenical movement started. The great Edinburgh conference of 1910 was a meeting of missionary societies concerned about the effects of confessional differences in the mission fields, particularly of Africa and Asia.)

At the same time that confessional divisions have lost their weight in the two-thirds world, divisions other than confessional ones have become obvious in the churches of the first world, particularly through communities historically marginalized in these churches. With feminist theology, for example, attention has been drawn to the asymmetrically gendered reality of much of church life (and to the silencing of women's voices, even in the ecumenical movement).⁴ The painful divisions for feminist theology were no longer between Presbyterians and Roman Catholics, for example, but between patriarchy and attempts at women's liberation within both these communities. By now, feminist theology itself has been critiqued and enriched by feminist discourse from African American (womanist) and Latina (mujerista) positions that have named divisions among women themselves as part of their very raison d'être. In other words, divisions and unity have come to be identified and are continuously being identified anew along very different lines than confessional ones. For first-world churches) similar observations could be made in relation to black theology⁵ and to lesbian and gay liberation theologies.⁶ In all cases, denominational divisions are not at the center of attention, although the struggle to overcome divisions and to attain communion clearly is, even when the discourse is not necessarily couched in traditional ecumenese.

The issues these new consciously contextual theologies raise (both in the first and in the two-thirds world) are, nevertheless, crucial ecumenical issues. These theologies all point to divisions within the churches, divisions that, in the long run, have the potential to create separate churches. Historically, this has been the case, for example, with some of the African American churches in the United States and with African Independent churches in Africa. Racism led to the need for new churches-and to

⁴ Cf. Melanie A. May, Bonds of Unity: Women, Theology and the Worldwide Church (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).

⁵ CE James H. Cone, "Black Ecumenism and the Liberation Struggle," in Speaking the Truth: Ecumenism, Liberation, and Black Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), pp. 142-154; Mary R. Sawyer, Black Ecumenism: Implementing the Demands of Justice (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1994).

⁶ Cf., for example, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, "Heterosexism: A Challenge to Ecumenical Solidarity," in Women and Church: The Challenge of Ecumenical Solidarity in an Age of Alienation, edited by Melanie A. May (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; New York: Friendship 1991), pp. 382; and Janet E. Pierce "Outside the Gate: The Challenge of the Universal Fellowship';" in Women and Church, edited by May, pp. 49-54.

217 - Ecumenism: Postconfessional? Consciously Contextual?

lasting confessional divisions. We might well be witnessing analogous developments, for example, with Women-Church and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches. When established churches do not struggle to overcome intraecclesial divisions, new confessional fragmentation is the result.

At this point, it seems important to stress that issues like race, gender, class, and sexual preference can no longer be interpreted as nontheological factors in the divisions hurting the churches. On the contrary, these factors will have to be acknowledged as some of theology's most formative elements. The consciously contextual theologies help in claiming as much.

There are, of course, other factors, in addition to the two I have highlighted so far, that have contributed to a shift in ecumenical vision. I am thinking, for example, of the erosion of denominational identity in the first world. Especially in the United States, confessional identity and dogmatic convictions are giving way to other considerations in church

"If the ecumenical vision is to remain alive among the churches into the next century, it must face all the divisions that threaten the oikoumene, the whole household of life."

affiliation. To highlight the problem from just one angle: There are roughly 250 different lands of Christian churches in the United States. The yellow pages of the phone book of the city I live in list (between entries for "Christmas Lights and Decorations" on the one end and "Cigar, Cigarette & Tobacco Dealers" on the other!) about forty denominational affiliations to choose from. A consumer attitude seems to govern the choice of church affiliation (that is, it is not a question of dogmatic and confessional "truths" any more but of what "meets my current needs"). No wonder, then, that we are also witnessing a crisis of local and regional ecumenism. In the sixties, the ecumenical vision was a vibrant part of ecclesial life in North Atlantic churches. By now, dozens of local councils of churches have ceased to exist, denominational (that is, financial) support is weakening, and there is resignation over many key initiatives and uncertainty over future tasks.

To add to flue confusion, we are seeing new confessional rifts open, or, more accurately, ethnocentric confessionalism reemerging (see the war in the Balkans and, more specifically, the uncertainty in parts of the ecumenical movement, for example, over the position of the Serbian Orthodox Church in it).⁷ At the same time, we do, of course, see some major and longstanding ecumenical rifts healing (for example, in churches previously supportive of apartheid in South Africa).

⁷ See "Ethnicity and Nationalism: A Challenge to the Churches," Ecumenical Review 47 (1995), pp. 225-231.

218 - Ecumenism: Postconfessional? Consciously Contextual?

All these developments suggest that the initial motor of the ecumenical movement-overcoming confessional and denominational divisions between the churches-might not in and by itself be able to sustain the ecumenical journey into the third millennium. Denominational divisions have lost their defining edge in the lives of many churches, while deep seated nonconfessional divisions have become visible (divisions between rich and poor, women and men, black and white, white women and Hispanic women, lesbians and heterosexuals, and so on). In light of this situation, I want to suggest that the two key trends I described above-the emergence of myriads of consciously contextual theologies and the shift of the ecclesial center of gravity to the two-thirds world-will be the crucible in which the ecumenism of the third millennium will be formed and will ultimately flourish.

AN ECUMENICAL VISION FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM

My thesis is that ecumenism at the beginning of the third millennium will haves a much broader focus than was possible for a primarily confessional ecumenism. At the same time, this "postconfessional ecumenism" should embrace and not exclude the struggle for unity among different Christian confessions. This is, after all, a struggle deeply embedded in the very beginnings of the movement. Although the nature of confessional identity and its defining strength for many churches have dramatically changed since the beginnings of the ecumenical movement, confessional identity remains one of the many divisions hurting our churches.

Moreover, one could claim that the basic problem the ecumenical movement has addressed since its inception remains. There are divisions within and among the churches that mar and often seem to invalidate the church's message of the good news of reconciliation, which is its raison d'être. The beginning of the twentieth century gifted us with a heightened awareness of the confessional divisions that- afflict the body of Christ. Toward the end of the twentieth century, we are being gifted with and challenged by a heightened awareness of manifold other divisions within the body of Christ. If the ecumenical vision is to remain alive among the churches (into the next century, it must face all the divisions that threaten the oikoumene, the whole household of life.⁸ Ecumenism will, therefore, have to be consciously contextual in the future, taking into account the very different, always contextually defined divisions threatening specific churches or communities within churches. To use another image: Ecumenism will have to be truly multilingual in the future. It will have to be able, for example, 'to speak the language of women's liberation but not only that of white feminists. It must also be able to articulate a vision of reconciliation for white; African American, and mujerista women, for Palestinian as well

⁸ Konrad Raiser suggests the image of the household of life rather than the traditional ecumenical focus on the "unity of the church" as the new paradigm for ecumenical reflection and action (Ecumenism in Transition: A Paradigm Shift in the Ecumenical Movement? [Geneva: WCC, 1991 ], pp. 79-111).

219 - Ecumenism: Postconfessional? Consciously Contextual?

as for Korean women. The ecumenism of the future will have to speak the language of justice, peace, and the integrity of creation (the great themes of the conciliar process initiated after the World Council of Churches' Vancouver Assembly). At the same time, it will have to be able to speak the language of the classical struggle for doctrinal consensus. It will, therefore, have to be able to speak about the divisions in the churches between rich and poor but also about the communion in the eucharist at the same time. Can such a multilingual ecumenical movement be brought into existence? I think we are witnessing its birth pangs right now, and two of the midwives assisting in the delivery are the consciously contextual theologies and the shift in the center of the churches' life to the two-thirds world.