The Special Commission on Orthodox Participation
in the World Council of Churches:
Frequently asked questions

  • Why a Special Commission?
  • Why no Special Commission on the participation of other member churches or church families?
  • Is the Special Commission only about the Orthodox?
  • What do the Orthodox seek from the WCC?
  • How did the Special Commission set its agenda?
  • Why is ecclesiology so fundamental to the work of the Special Commission?
  • What is consensus decision-making and why was it recommended by the Special Commission?
  • What does the Special Commission say about the WCC’s treatment of social and ethical issues?
  • Will consensus decision-making stifle the Council’s prophetic voice?
  • Do the recommendations of the Special Commission mean there will no longer be "ecumenical worship"?
  • Why is the term "common prayer" being suggested to replace "ecumenical worship"?
  • What do the recommendations on worship mean, and to whom do they apply?
  • Do the worship recommendations forbid women from taking leadership roles?
  • Will the new category of “churches in association with the WCC” weaken the fellowship?
  • What have been the reactions to the Special Commission so far?
  • What will happen now?
  • Why a Special Commission?

    Since the early 20th century, a remarkably consistent feature of the modern ecumenical movement has been the presence but also the unease of the Orthodox churches. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, which still refrains from full membership in the main conciliar ecumenical institutions, the Orthodox have participated since the beginning. Yet at nearly every meeting of global significance up until the early 1990s, the Orthodox felt compelled to issue separate statements, indicating serious reservations, doctrinal and otherwise. Their concerns themselves, although experienced more or less acutely, have been consistent over the decades. For a variety of reasons, Orthodox dissatisfaction with aspects of the WCC, and intra-Orthodox tensions concerning membership in a global fellowship of churches, came to a crisis point in the late 1990s, just before the WCC's eighth assembly in December 19981. The Special Commission arose in direct response to that crisis. It sought not merely to assuage the concerns of the moment, but to address the long-standing issues in a more sustained and profound way.

    Why no Special Commission on the participation of other member churches or church families?

    In principle, there is no reason why, if the need develops, a special commission could not be created around the concerns brought to the Council by other member churches or groupings of churches. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that the Orthodox got a Special Commission because they voiced the loudest complaint. Rather, they expressed a chronic experience of unease - with increasing frequency, pointedness, and clarity. And the work of the Special Commission has shown that it is not only about the Orthodox churches (see below).

    Is the Special Commission only about the Orthodox?

    Because the Special Commission was specifically created as a response to Orthodox concerns, all eyes and ears were initially focused on its Orthodox members. But very soon after its work began, it was clearly perceived that the issues raised would affect more than just the Orthodox churches. It was evident that many of the concerns they expressed were felt within other churches around the table. This realization came as a pleasant surprise, although there was some hesitation on the part of some Orthodox to relinquish their “exclusive ownership” of these concerns!

    In the effort to find common solutions to the concerns raised, the WCC’s decade-long “Common Understanding and Vision (CUV)” process - which sought to make the churches rather than the Council itself the main actors - proved to be a precious source of ideas on how to move ahead. The caution and satisfaction expressed by other member churches as much as by the Orthodox may indicate that the Commission achieved a certain balance; that no one party emerged as either “victor” or “loser”. Indeed, the hopeful conviction is that the Commission’s work will result in a victory for the entire fellowship – even if it takes some time for these fruits to manifest themselves.

    What do the Orthodox seek from the WCC?

    In the broadest terms, the Orthodox want to feel confident that they being taken seriously within the WCC. For them, the ethos and de facto theology of the ecumenical movement always seemed essentially a Protestant undertaking, with Protestant theological presuppositions about unity, and Protestant (or Western secular) decision-making methods. They have had to wrestle with serious ecclesiological reservations about belonging to a global “fellowship of churches” (see "Why is ecclesiology so fundamental…" below). Seeing the Council as a body whose theological and moral/ethical bent is decidedly on the liberal side, they have been frustrated by the perception that conservative positions seem to be the ones requiring justification. The Commission’s work has made it increasingly obvious that this latter perception is felt, across denominational lines, within many churches. Indeed, it keeps conservative Evangelicals and Pentecostals, not to mention Roman Catholics, at arm’s length.

    The Orthodox seek to make a real difference within the Council. That wish is not born out of a desire for “power”. They were participants in the ecumenical movement from its beginning, often with reservations, suspicion, and fear of reprisal from anti-ecumenists within their own ranks; but they have come seeking real encounter between estranged Christians, hoping both to witness to the glory of Orthodox theology and life, and also to learn from other Christians.

    How did the Special Commission set its agenda?

    Originally, the Commission divided its work between structural issues (the organization of the WCC as well as structural models), theological issues, and issues related to the Council's “ethos and style of life”. The work done by subcommittees in these areas – a rich trove of essays and reports, all of which are available on the WCC website – led the Commission ultimately to focus on the five areas presented in the report:

    Ecclesiology, for reasons explained below, serves as the theological framework. This, in turn, leads to many of the practical concerns.

    Social and ethical issues have been a lightning rod for the suspicion that the WCC is a liberal Protestant organization - a suspicion that needed to be addressed seriously.

    The “ethos” of the ecumenical endeavor is nowhere more apparent than in the way in which we pray together in the context of the ecumenical encounter.

    The way in which decisions are taken in the WCC is reflected in its priorities, programmes and, as a result, in its very life and witness to the world.

    The question of what it means to be a “member” of the WCC emerges both from ecclesiological questions – what it means for a church to be a member of a council of churches –, and practical questions – can my church reasonably belong to this fellowship, given our current situation (size, anti-ecumenical pressure, political tension, etc.).

    Why is ecclesiology so fundamental to the work of the Special Commission?

    As the report itself notes (see Section B, III), there are two very basic ways for a church to understand its relationship to the Church – the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church: either we identify our church with the Church (as do the Orthodox, and some others), or we see our church as a part, component, or branch of the wider, universal Church. According to the latter view, the Council can reasonably be seen as a kind of model for the universal church. And many Christians experience the WCC in this way – when they are at ecumenical events, or at ecumenical worship services, they are gathered as the Universal Church. That perception of the Council, and that vision of church unity, is foreign to Orthodox theology.

    How we perceive our churches’ relationship to the Church has a profound effect on everything, including the nature of the Council itself and the fellowship it represents, the way we pray together, how we conceive “membership” and take decisions in the Council, and what authority it has in the churches.

    What is consensus decision-making and why was it recommended by the Special Commission?

    Decisions taken in the Council by its governing bodies – except on theological matters – used to be taken by simple majority. If 51% of the room voted for a motion, it would be carried, even if that left 49% of the room dissatisfied. In addition, many churches felt that they were unfairly or inaccurately represented in WCC governing bodies. For example, the Orthodox keenly felt the significant disproportion between the number of Orthodox member churches (around 20 out of 342 total members) and the number of Christians that they actually represent (around a third of the Council’s total). One proposed solution was to raise the percent of Orthodox delegates to meetings. But rather than engage in a “numbers game,” which would inevitably involve other similarly disadvantaged churches, the consensus method ensures that such numbers don’t matter anymore. Most simply put, it ensures that issues are no longer decided by majority vote, but rather that a motion is carried when there is common agreement2.

    The WCC Central Committee has agreed to spend the period up to the next general assembly learning this methodology and applying it in practice. The Council will then be better equipped to decide on its applicability in the longer term.

    What does the Special Commission say about the WCC’s treatment of social and ethical issues?

    It is significant that the first sentiment expressed by the report about the Council’s treatment of social and ethical issues is heartfelt gratitude for the role it has played in society. Yet the Commission was formed in part due to disquiet about the way the WCC treats such issues. There is a lingering sense that matters reach the Council’s agenda that don't belong there, and that statements are made as if “from the WCC” that don't reflect the positions of all the member churches. Rather than place strictures on what goes on that agenda, the Special Commission places its hopes precisely on the consensus method – at all stages of the decision-making process. This is a way of assuring that everyone is “on board” with the deliberations and statements made on behalf of the Council. The consensus method at its best helps build trust, and therefore fosters a “safe space” for the discussion of any issue, even the most seemingly difficult and divisive.

    Will consensus decision-making stifle the Council’s prophetic voice?

    It might seem that if no decision is made until all agree with it, WCC work will slow to a standstill, “prophetic” programmes will no longer be initiated, and no challenges to the churches and the world raised. But churches and regional ecumenical organizations which have adopted the consensus method say that their respective voices have ultimately been strengthened, not weakened through this methodology. While they may move more slowly in some respects, take fewer decisions or issue fewer statements, the ones they make have the weight, authority and voice of the member churches behind them. Given how ambivalent some churches feel about decisions made on the basis of majority vote, the significance of this cannot be overstated.

    Furthermore, the consensus methodology does not stifle even the most challenging voices: there is careful provision for letting all voices be heard as well as for allowing coalitions to form, in whose name certain statements can in fact be made. The key in consensus is clarity: if the whole Council is behind something, then the whole Council is behind it. If some are for and some against, you name it as such. The hope is that the Council will thereby increase its credibility worldwide.

    Do the recommendations of the Special Commission mean there will no longer be "ecumenical worship"?

    One of the most valued aspects of the WCC for many has been the experience of "ecumenical worship" at WCC assemblies, Central Committee meetings, and other large-profile meetings held under WCC auspices. The recommendations from the Special Commission ensure that such ecumenical services continue but suggest ways in which there can be greater clarity for the term "ecumenical worship" and the status of the liturgy.

    Why is the term "common prayer" being suggested to replace "ecumenical worship"?

    The term "ecumenical worship" which is used very widely among the English-speaking Protestant churches has created difficulties when translated into an Orthodox setting and the respective languages. Worship, in an Orthodox setting, refers quite naturally to the liturgy which always includes the celebration of the Eucharist.

    "Ecumenical worship", in addition, gives the impression that the ecumenical movement has reached the point where there is a common liturgy. While many in the Protestant churches have felt that the "Lima Liturgy" had the authority of an ecumenical liturgy and therefore enabled the member churches of the WCC to celebrate the Eucharist together, in fact, the "Lima liturgy" has not been officially adopted by any church, and the WCC cannot issue its own liturgy.

    Thus the term "common prayer" is suggested to avoid these various misunderstandings, although this term itself may create its own difficulties when translated into other languages, this time on the Protestant side.

    What do the recommendations on worship mean, and to whom do they apply?

    The recommended framework on worship applies to WCC gatherings such as assemblies, Central Committee meetings, and other large-profile meetings held under WCC auspices. It is not intended to be "universally applicable within the ecumenical movement" but instead aims primarily at ecclesiological clarity in WCC gatherings, and at enabling a setting where the gathered members can pray together in good conscience. WCC worship services have always been divided between those which blend various traditions, and those which are “confessional” in character – i.e., offered by one church tradition. The proposed framework seeks simply to name what is going on – confessional on the one hand, or interconfessional on the other. It also seeks to make clear that interconfessional worship is not the worship of an interconfessional church.

    The framework also refers to the need to develop sensitivity and understanding for the way in which particular forms of worship, hymns, symbols and language could lead to misunderstandings and create barriers for participation and exclude some who should in fact be fully included. It is at this point that the report refers to problems concerning inclusive language as well as the fact that the ordinationa of women is not yet accepted in all member churches of the WCC, not even among the Protestant churches.

    Do the worship recommendations forbid women from taking leadership roles?

    In no way does the proposed framework forbid women – ordained or not – from taking leadership roles. Rather, it attempts to defuse the question of women's ordination, which divides Protestants among themselves as well as Orthodox and Roman Catholics. Thus in the case of “interconfessional” prayer (Appendix A, paragraph 30), ordained status is down-played altogether, for women and men alike, in order not to give signals of ecclesial identity. So anyone can take part, and leadership should be open to women and men, ordained and lay, young and old - i.e. the whole people of God.

    When a prayer service is offered “confessionally,” the confession's practice and tradition is followed regarding the ordination of women. Those preparing worship are asked to “avoid taking a confrontational stance” on this or any potentially divisive issue, since the purpose of praying together is not to confront one another. How the idea of “confrontational stance” is interpreted is left entirely up to the persons who prepare worship services.

    Will the new category of “churches in association with the WCC” weaken the fellowship?

    This new category of association gives churches the option of applying for a status in between full- and non-membership. Its intention is two-fold: (a) to provide a kind of a “safety valve” to churches which are experiencing extreme difficulties with their membership; and (b) to offer an interim place from which churches or groups which are not at present members can explore a closer, full-member relationship to the WCC. The addition of this new category can be seen as a pastoral measure, bearing in mind that for many, full membership in the Council is not presently possible. The hope is that the category of “churches in association” will broaden and deepen the fellowship.

    What have been the reactions to the Special Commission so far?

    Some reactions to the Special Commission’s report, especially from non-Orthodox members of the Council, indicate a persisting sense that the Commission was only about and for the Orthodox, and was thus an “Orthodox victory”. Many Orthodox, on the other hand, have felt that the results are so subtle as to imply little change at all – and nothing that is obviously in “an Orthodox direction”. But many from all sides have reacted to the report with relief, and even with joy that a positive spirit and continued ecumenical commitment has been developed around potentially divisive issues.

    But the greatest challenge is that there is not enough reaction to the Special Commission, whether favourable or unfavourable. This is partly due to the fact that the WCC is currently undergoing a significant financial crisis. For many, the Special Commission pales in importance compared to the multi-million Swiss Franc shortfall and the concomitant need to restructure and downsize. The hope is that, somehow, these two processes can together over the coming years produce a World Council of Churches that is more responsive, more clear, and more credible to the world than ever before.

    What will happen now?

    The work accomplished so far by the Special Commission constitutes an extremely important step in the discussions that have been going on in the WCC for years, but is far from bringing the member churches to the end of their common journey. The decisions of the Central Committee on the Final Report of the Special Commission require specific follow-up, but there are other challenges and opportunities for the whole fellowship.

    In the area of consensus decision-making, new rules have to be drafted for submission to member churches and for a final decision at the next assembly in 2006. The Central Committee will use the period up to the assembly as a trial period, with the remaining two Central Committee meetings using consensus methodology. The recommendations on theological criteria for membership and the new way of relating to the WCC will now have to be translated into constitutional language, again for submission to member churches and for final decision at the next assembly.

    As part of the recommendations of the Final Report, the Central Committee has established a "Permanent Committee on Consensus and Collaboration" as an advisory body in the concerns arising out of the Special Commission report, such as to further consider the ecclesiological nature of worship and clarify both the spirit and some of the practical solutions proposed by the “Framework”.

    Also, Faith and Order was urged to focus on the ecclesiological questions raised by the Special Commission and make use of all the positive elements in the Report referring to mutual recognition of baptism.

    Finally, member churches – especially Orthodox member churches --and ecumenical partners are invited to deepen the findings of the Special Commission, draw the adequate lessons from this constructive exercise, and consider their participation in the “fellowship of churches” under new light and new perspectives.

    Other questions? Contact us
    Back to main Special Commission page