So, what is distinctive about the Global Christian Forum ? The GCF has been extremely successful bringing together Christians including those from traditions which were and remain sceptical about ecumenism. This is true not only of the Limuru meeting of 2007 but also of four earlier regional meetings in Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America. It is also true of an earlier meeting in Pasadena, which was taken to cover North America.
First and most important is a rejection of the traditional mainstream Protestant approach to ecumenism, known as full visible unity . Whilst the successes of this approach are widely recognised and despite the possibility this approach will result in more Protestant churches uniting, there is a large majority of Christians who do not see it as a priority or desirable. In Britain we have known this since the failure of the English Covenant in the early 1980s, followed by the Swanwick Agreement , which opened ecumenism up to the Roman Catholics, across England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, but closed the possibility of full visible unity as a result. The Catholics are not alone in rejecting full visible unity and many of the new Pentecostal and Evangelical churches reject this approach too.
The GCF has no model to replace full visible unity but the sense is that new opportunities or new paradigms will open up as the churches continue to dialogue.
Linked to this is the rejection of ecumenical organisations. The GCF is not an organisation. It is a series of meetings and churches show their support by attending. There has to be a small number of staff to organise the meetings but beyond that there is no organisation empowered to deliver the objectives of the Forum. This is a step further than the Swanwick Agreement in Britain. The current ecumenical instruments replaced the old British Council of Churches. The latter was similar to the World Council of Churches and acted on behalf of its member churches. The new ecumenical instruments support the churches, who make decisions in their own councils but collaboratively. The GCF has no such structures at all.
Finally, the meetings are run participatively. The Limuru meeting on its first day met in groups of 30 people to share their testimonies. Whilst there were a few plenary sessions, the main work was through conversations. For example, the first of the proposals from the Limuru meetings reads as follows:
The meeting affirmed the value of the Forum as an open space for developing new relationships and continuing conversations, and identifying common concerns, recognising that any resulting joint actions will be worked out through the participating churches and organisations. (Page 119 of 'Revisioning Christian Unity' .)
It is interesting that they use the phrase 'open space' which is also used in 'open space technology' a well known participative method. I have written of these methods at some length because I have long believed they are the future for ecumenical conversations. I will return to this theme in the future.
Comments