Bishop Michael Putney - Ecumenism in Australia today

Bishop Michael Putney
Ecumenism in Australia today

In the past 20 years, there have been a number of major events which have shaped the contemporary ecumenical movement in Australia. The first of these was the formation of the Uniting Church in Australia, in 1977. Its very title indicates that it did not wish to settle down to becoming just another denomination. Rather it believed itself to be called by God to be a catalyst for further coming together of Christian churches in Australia. This commitment to dialogue and to drawing churches together does not necessarily mean that Uniting Church ecumenists have in mind the same kind of union which came about when the Congregational Union of Australia, the Methodist Church of Australasia, and the Presbyterian Church of Australia united. They now consider all the models of church union which have emerged in recent decades. The Uniting Church has retained its membership of the World Methodist Council and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches as well, so there have been Uniting Church participants representing those bodies in ecumenical dialogues on the international scene. The Uniting Church has always been, and presumably will continue to be, a catalyst for ecumenical collaboration.

Another major ecumenical event in recent years was the formation of the National Council of Churches of Australia in 1994. This Council is significant, not only because of the inclusion of the Roman Catholic Church for the first time, but also because of its new constitution and its giving a new impetus to ecumenical relations on the national level. These relations have continued to deepen, and around Australia many rejoiced that at the forum this year the Lutheran Church of Australia became a full member. This same Lutheran Church achieved its own internal union within Australia only in 1965.

A similar event of some significance, especially for Queensland, was the formation of Queensland Churches Together in 1992 which involved the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church of Australia (Queensland District) for the first time. Since 1992, all remaining Roman Catholic dioceses and archdioceses around Australia have become members of their State Councils.

On the occasion of the formation of the Australian Council of Churches, all the reports of bilateral conversations between churches in Australia were published in one volume (Raymond K. Williamson, ed., Stages on the Way. Documents from the Bilateral conversations between the Churches in Australia. Melbourne: JBCE, 1994). Dialogue between the Anglican Church and the Churches of Christ began in 1983, with the Lutheran Church in 1972, and with the Uniting Church in Australia in 1979. The Uniting Church itself entered into dialogue with the Churches of Christ in 1978, with the Lutheran Church in 1979, with the Greek Orthodox Church in 1981, and with the Roman Catholic Church in 1977. A Lutheran / Roman Catholic Dialogue began in 1977. These dialogues have done much to draw the Christian Churches together in Australia.

The holding of the Seventh Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Canberra in 1991 was also a significant stimulus to ecumenical collaboration in Australia. At a theological students’ course on ecumenism held in Canberra prior to the World Council of Churches Assembly, Rev. David Gill, the present General-Secretary of the Council of Churches in Australia, drew the theological students’ attention to a number of distinctive features of the ecumenical movement in Australia. The first was the tyranny of distance in Australia which has led to an enhanced role for state ecumenical bodies in relation to the National Council of Churches. The second was the fact that eight of the 13 members of the then Australian Council of Churches were Orthodox which reflects the multi-culturalism of Australian society. He also drew attention to the impact of the Assembly on the life of the Australian Churches (David Gill, "The Australian Council of Churches", in Denise C. Sullivan, ed., Living Ecumenism. Christian Unity for a New Millennium (Melbourne: LJBCE, 1995) pp. 270-276). The public spectacle, the news-coverage, the call to prayer, the visitors’ programme, parish visits by delegates and so on, provided a real inspiration and catalyst for ecumenical reflection and collaboration in Australia.

Another event or series of events in Australia was and is the regular gatherings of National Heads of Churches, which began in 1985, and of State Heads of Churches around the country, some of which began even earlier than that. The structure and membership of these gatherings vary from state to state, but the collaboration and real partnership which they inaugurate is beginning to be taken for granted.

This litany of special moments and encouraging events ought not to lead us to form a too rosy picture of the ecumenical scene in Australia. There are a number of factors with which we still must deal. These are: the impact on Australian culture upon ecumenism, tentativeness about common witness, and the new divisions cutting across the churches, but also dividing the churches, one from another.

One could point to at least three influences of Australian culture on the ecumenical movement. Firstly, Australians are very often fairly pragmatic and easy-going. They do not appreciate public conflict or lack of harmony over matters they consider fairly private or "no-one else’s business". Very often they include among these matters a person’s spirituality or religious beliefs. This means that they have an automatic sympathy for the ecumenical movement because it serves to facilitate the points of intersection between members of different churches on civic occasions or on occasions of communal social response. Governments at all levels have rejoiced in the churches becoming ecumenically engaged because it has made it possible to have ecumenical services on civic occasions. Communities have been glad that at times of communal celebration or grief the churches have been able to serve them together. For many, theological, doctrinal, liturgical, and spiritual differences pale into insignificance in comparison with the massive gain for society of churches working together and being able to collaborate. There is almost a pressure on churches to be ecumenical in Australian society for the sake of social harmony.

This phenomenon has very different consequences. It is obviously a great bonus that committed ecumenists in Australia have the support of society for their own labours to bring Christian churches into a collaborative relationship. Moreover, on the local level, parishes, congregations and communities around the country have a natural foundation of good will for ecumenical efforts because of this Australian sentiment which one might call "natural" ecumenism. However, it is not clear that this phenomenon ought be considered totally a gain. Perhaps it is truly appropriate to call much of this a natural phenomenon. It partly arises out of the Australian mentality of avoiding conflict over private matters, such as religion. This means that very often the result can be more one of non-denominational collaboration than of a truly ecumenical relationship. Full ecumenical collaboration brings into the relationship not just what is shared between the parties, but also those points over which they differ and have sometimes been in conflict. Sometimes Australian society would seem to prefer that we do not bring those matters into our relationship and that we remain on the level of a basic Christian good-will and mutual acceptance of each other.

While this still would remain a positive influence or a positive foundation for the ecumenical movement, it does not take that movement any great distance until the relationships are mature enough to carry into them, not just what is shared, but what is not shared or what is even opposed. This latter, more mature, relationship is not natural. It is only achieved through the grace of Jesus Christ. It is the fellowship of believers who share the life of Christ but yet, while retaining that fellowship in Christ, are prepared to acknowledge and deal with the fact that they differ from each other even about very important matters. To be able to hold their relationship together despite those differences is to experience the ecumenical fruit of the grace of Jesus Christ. It is important that our churches do not settle for the former non-denominational fellowship and believe that they have gone the full distance of ecumenical relationships.

A second feature of Australian culture which has a significant effect upon the ecumenical movement is the relativism sometimes found in contemporary Australian society. As a "post-modern" culture which sometimes has little sympathy for institutions, or for larger traditions, or for any claims of universal truth, Australian culture can easily view as left-overs from a dogmatic past those who maintain that they cannot yet take more radical steps towards Christian unity because of unresolved differences over the truth of the gospel. This is especially true of young Australians.

When tolerance becomes the favoured virtue in a society, there are not only great gains in the area of harmonious relationships, there can also be some losses in the area of commitment to the quest for truth, and fidelity to the truth once attained. In other words, the reluctance of some in the churches to be inhibited in any way by the theological differences between the churches is not simply a sign of the impatience of the Holy Spirit and a "sense of the faithful" which has moved beyond the tardy, slow working dialogues of church leaders. It can also be the impatience of people who no longer believe that it is possible or worthwhile to affirm any truth beyond the variety of stances which individuals have and which ought to be respected in a context of mutual tolerance.

A third feature of Australian culture which impacts on the ecumenical movement is the growing secularism in Australian society. This can have a very mixed effect on the ecumenical movement. Obviously the erosion of church allegiance and certainly of church attendance as evidenced in the 1996 Census and the 1997 Church Life Survey is a cause for real concern. At the same time as churches confront this context in which they are called to preach and live the gospel, they can discover that other churches are their colleagues and partners in a shared struggle to keep alive the flame of faith and to pass it on to a society no longer ready to receive it.

This has the potential to lead to a profound spiritual fellowship as each church community digs deep within its own spiritual tradition to find its profounder sources of life and hope, while it struggles to survive and to grow strong in a society which tends to marginalise it and which can consider its traditions mildly amusing at best — for these sources of hope are often shared with other Christians. This truly missionary context could, in fact, be the greatest catalyst for ecumenical collaboration and even for Christian unity, if the churches could but rise to the occasion and recognise that they no longer need be victims of our society, but indeed could enter into it and transform it for Christ. Then, hopefully, they might come to the realisation that there is no point in trying to do this alone, and that they need to discover more and more ways in which to present themselves as one Christian voice to an unlistening Australian society. However, the whole question of common witness is approached only very tentatively by Australian Churches.

In 1982 the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches produced a report entitled, Common Witness, with the following central paragraph:

When he prayed that all be one so the world might believe (Jn 17:21), Jesus made a clear connection between the unity of the Church and the acceptance of the Gospel. Unhappily Christians are still divided in their churches and the testimony they give to the Gospel is thus weakened. There are, however, even now many signs of the initial unity that already exists among all followers of Christ and indications that it is developing in important ways. What we have in common, and the hope that is in us, enable us to be bold in proclaiming the Gospel and trustful that the world will receive it. Common witness is the essential calling of the Church and in an especial way it responds to the spirit of this ecumenical age in the Church’s life. It expresses our actual unity and increases our service to God’s word, strengthening the churches both in proclaiming the Gospel and in seeking for the fulness of unity (30) ("Common Witness. Joint Working Group between the roman Catholic Church and the WCC, 1982", in Michael Kinnamon and Brien E. Cope, eds., The Ecumenical Movement. An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices (Geneva: WCC, 1997) p. 386).

The second last sentence is very significant: "Common witness is the essential calling of the Church and in an especial way it responds to the spirit of this ecumenical age in the Church’s life". In describing what common witness might involve, the text emphasised two different dimensions. Firstly: "Through proclaiming the cross and resurrection of Christ, they affirm (i.e. those engaged in common witness) that God wills the salvation of his people in all dimensions of their being, eternal and earthly". Secondly, it recognised: "(Common witness) means Christian involvement in matters of social justice in the name of the poor and the oppressed".

Right throughout the history of the World Council of Churches there have been tensions between the different movements which brought it into being. For example, there is a tension between the Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation (JPIC) stream/movement/programme and the Faith and Order or Christian Unity movement/stream/programme. In their earlier forms, these two movements were present and participated in the formation of the World Council of Churches 50 years ago. However, it was only in 1961 that the International Missionary Council became part of the World Council of Churches. Those who are involved in the Faith and Order stream have continually and rightly argued for its importance, indeed its necessity, in the World Council of Churches and the larger ecumenical movement. However, whatever marginalisation has occurred for Faith and Order or the quest for Christian unity, such marginalisation is nothing in comparison with the marginalisation of the missionary movement within the larger ecumenical movement and within the World Council of Churches. The missionary movement has always been "the poor relation".

Many ecumenists seem to be either focussed on the world and its need for justice, peace and the protection of the environment, or on the churches and their need to come together in Christian unity. One cannot deny that working for justice, peace and the integrity of creation is integral to the mission of the church and clearly the unity between the churches is crucial to its mission and the central goal of the ecumenical movement. However, the foundational missionary dynamic of wishing to proclaim Jesus Christ to the world very seldom comes to the forefront in ecumenical programmes or even, perhaps, in the heart of many ecumenists. Everyone easily points to the Johannine text containing Jesus’ prayer that we would be one so that the world might believe that it is the Father who sent him, but we are too easily side-tracked into affirming only the first part of his prayer: "that they/we may be one"; or unconsciously concluding it only with: "so that the world will exist in justice, peace and protective of the integrity of creation", rather than with "that the world may believe".

Last year, the fourth phase of the International Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and some representatives or members of classical Pentecostal Churches came to a conclusion. The topic for the phase, from 1990 to 1997, was Evangelisation, Proselytism and Common Witness. It is a very interesting document because, as many would know, in parts of Latin America there can sometimes be great tensions between the Roman Catholic Church and Pentecostal Churches because of the rapid growth of the latter at the expense of the former. In paragraph 118 of the Report, a kind of definition of ‘common witness’ emerges:

Common witness means standing together and sharing together in witness to our common faith. Common witness can be experienced through joint participation in worship, in prayer, in the performance of good works in Jesus’ name and especially in evangelization. True common witness is not engaged in for any narrow, strategic denominational benefit of a particular community. Rather, it is concerned solely for the glory of God, for the good of the whole church and the good of humankind ("Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness", Information Service 97 (1998/I-II) 52).

There is no suggestion in the report, in fact the contrary, that such common witness between Roman Catholics and Pentecostals would be easy. Later in No. 122 the report indicates that when it speaks of common witness it is not suggesting that there should be any compromise involved in making this possible. On the contrary, "Common witness is not a call to indifference or to uniformity" it says. The report clearly affirms that common witness does not prevent individuals, communities or churches from witnessing to their own distinctive heritage and, indeed, witnessing separately on matters about which they disagree. "However", as it says, "this can be done without being contentious, with mutual love and respect".

This document stands as a testimony to the fertility of the ecumenical movement through the generous loving activity of the Holy Spirit. It also stands as a challenge to all Christian churches. We are very often willing to bear common witness with other churches on issues of justice, but sometimes less willing to bear common witness to the gift of salvation in Jesus Christ. Both forms of witness are essential and integrally related. To offer Jesus Christ to a society is to offer the way of life which he came to initiate in our world and that means to offer justice, peace and care for the environment.

But common witness does mean offering Jesus Christ. Have we perhaps become just a little reticent about this? Is one reason for such reticence the fact that we have entered into dialogue with our culture and with other World Religions? If reticence is a result of such dialogue, we have misunderstood the nature of dialogue. Authentic dialogue presupposes genuine witness. There is no value in dialoguing with "the other" whoever that may be, if we are not truly ourselves; and to be truly ourselves is to be fully Christian. In our case it means being truly convinced that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life.

We need to go much further than we already have as Christian churches in our dialogue with World Religions. We must continue to have enormous respect for the gifts of our culture and the signs of the Spirit that are there before we even utter one word of the gospel. At the same time, we must never forget that we carry within ourselves and in our communities an enormous treasure which is the knowledge and love of God revealed to us in Jesus Christ, and we must be willing to offer this gift, the greatest of all, to our society — and to do it together with other Christian Churches.

If we are so willing, and presumably many are, the question arises of how we might deal with those matters about which we disagree. There is already a common faith which all could proclaim and to which all could bear witness which has become obvious in our ecumenical dialogues, both bi-lateral and multi-lateral. For example, there is the marvellous contribution of the WCC Faith and Order Commission project: "Towards the Common Expression of the Apostolic Faith Today". This study has explored our common faith as expressed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and has thereby laid a rich and broad foundation for common witness by a very wide range of Christian churches.

Some Evangelical and Pentecostal Churches might not see the need for even all that has been discovered in this very important study. They would be content for churches to come together around a simple message of salvation in Jesus Christ. Some of these would not consider many of the different beliefs and practices of churches outside of this core as affecting the essentials or the fundamentals of the gospel.

On the other hand, other Christian Churches, including the Catholic Church, would want to affirm the essential interconnectedness of the various truths of salvation as found in the scriptures and proclaimed in the credal formulas of the Church through the ages. While we too would begin with a simple message of salvation and also believe that this was a non-negotiable essential core, proclaiming the fullness of the gospel for us would lead deeper and deeper into the full faith of the church through the ages as we have come to understand it. So there would be other essentials for us, less central but still integrally part of the gospel or the Apostolic Tradition or the Word of God as we understand it. We would not want any partners involved in common witness to suggest that other truths of the faith which we hold dear are peripheral or even questionable. We would want any common witness to draw people back to and not away from the church of their baptism, if such people have already been baptised but have drifted from the church. Such matters would need to be addressed with sensitivity before common witness could take place in an effective way.

Evangelisation, or evangelism, with all the challenges involved has to be an integral part of the common witness of Christian churches. But again it is not all of it. Integral to bearing witness to or living the gospel is the way in which we live and the kind of world we are called to work for by the grace of God. To proclaim Jesus and not also to be willing to proclaim reconciliation with Indigenous Australians, in the Australian context, would be to proclaim a Jesus who is not the Jesus of the gospels. At the same time, to proclaim justice and peace and the integrity of creation but not Jesus, is to offer only the fruits and not the source of the new life our world needs so desperately.

A final issue with which we must deal in Australia is the new divisions which are cutting across our churches, but which are also dividing the churches one from another. This has always been a perennial problem in the ecumenical movement. Some issues cut through all the churches, particularly political ones. The best ecumenical response in the past has always been to try to share wisdom about the issues between the churches and, where possible, to tackle them together. Increasingly, Australian churches are confronting together the social questions which arise for all of us such as reconciliation with Indigenous Australians, racism and multi-culturalism, unemployment, industrial relations, divisions within society, etc.

However, some of these issues with which all churches are dealing have the potential for creating new divisions between the churches because of the difference in their response to the questions. A good example of this would be the issue of homosexuality which is confronting every Christian church at the moment around the world just as it is being addressed by all societies and cultures. Another example would be the new bioethical questions arising every day. Some churches respond to the questions raised by their homosexual members by welcoming practising homosexuals into the ordained ministry and blessing homosexual unions. This raises real concerns for many other churches and certainly the Catholic Church which would believe such a practice was incompatible with the Christian moral tradition.

While doctrinal issues may be the more fundamental issues dividing the Christian world communions, ethical or moral issues can become equal causes of polarisation between the Christian churches. If they do so, there is likely to be an increased intensity in the division between churches, because they touch the very life-style of our members. What is at stake very often in these matters, particularly when dealing with questions of personal morality, is the relationship between the Christian moral tradition and contemporary culture. There would seem to be a rather urgent need for Christian churches to begin to dialogue about this question and its implications for issues such as that of homosexuality or bioethical questions lest we find ourselves dividing over a new issue at a time when we have come such a great distance in resolving the divisions caused by old issues.

The 1990 General Meeting of the Australian Council of Churches, the forerunner of this body, outlined the following vision for Australian ecumenism:

Our vision is for ecumenism to be an integral part of the life of the Australian churches and for us together to experience God’s continual renewal and transformation. We yearn to see God’s pilgrim people responsive to the Spirit’s directing and willing to move into new paths and untried territory, knowing that God has not left us without signposts and pointers for the way ahead.

The prayer of Christ "that they may all be one" constantly challenges any sense of complacency we may have about the way we are and draws us to confession and repentance, to seek healing for our divisions and to express our God-given unity in common worship and in cooperation in evangelism and mission. Our vision for Australian ecumenism is faith seeking understanding as we ask the question: "what kind of unity are we seeking and how is it to be expressed?" Since the ACC was formed we have grown in knowledge and appreciation of each other’s traditions and insights. We long to see this develop and to deepen with mutual trust and acceptance of each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Even though much has been achieved, I think that much of that vision still remains ahead of Christians, and so of Catholics, in Australia.