A Warc-south initiative?

Russel Botman, Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa ¹

The Warc-Saarc consultation on Reformed faith and economic justice, held in Kitwe, Zambia, in October 1995, "painfully" concluded that the African experience of global economic forces can no longer be seen as merely an ethical problem. It has become a theological problem, causing strained loyalties: either God or mammon. "The gospel to the poor is at stake in the very mechanism of the global economy today." Simultaneously, the Kitwe consultation requested Warc's executive to make allowance for an encounter, in a limited pre-conference at Debrecen, of churches from the South to consider the challenge of faith raised by the sacrifice of humanity on the altar of the global economy.

African churches appreciate Warc's serious endeavour to study "the faith questions" presented by today's unjust global economy. At the Warc European area council in Edinburgh, in September 1995, Milan Opocensky rightly contended that one should ask when "faith questions" become "confessional issues". When the latter happens, he suggested, then the question should be addressed within the framework of the criteria of a status confessionis. However, this step must not be taken in haste.

Ulrich Möller revisits the issue ("Confessing our Faith in the Context of Economic Justice", Reformed World, volume 46, number 3, September 1996). He correctly points out that Africa is not the first to call for considering the issue of economic injustice in the context of a status confessionis. Ulrich Duchrow's publications made this call already in the late eighties.

Möller wisely suggests that a process of confessing (a processus confessionis) comes before a status confessionis is declarable. "If ecclesiological verdicts are used to designate differences at too early a stage…" he writes, "the openness of all those involved to embark on a path of dialogue so as to recognize and confess the truth together is impaired."

To say that a status confessionis is not yet "declarable" is not to say that it does not exist. Therefore, Möller's viewpoint is not a fundamental rejection of the Kitwe findings. What it does, rightly, is to take the experience of status confessionis declarations in the ecumenical movement as instructive on the way towards the consideration of such a serious step.

The difference between Kitwe and Möller is a difference in approach. Möller approached the problem from the perspective of effectiveness, while Kitwe only considered the issue in the light of faithfulness. I want to suggest that there is basically no qualitative conflict between the two approaches. They actually should be combined. Understanding the "act of faithfulness" is not enough if it is to become an effective act. The history of status confessionis in the Lutheran World Federation teaches us that a declared status confessionis can be totally ineffective, can even be systematically reduced or undone, if it is not well-founded in a communicative process of confession.

Ulrich Möller's article reflects only on one part of the Kitwe recommendation to the Warc executive, namely that the declaration of a status confessionis on economic injustice should be considered. This critique is directed at the agenda, not the constituency. Kitwe suggests that "a pre-conference on economic justice of member churches from countries of the southern hemisphere" be held during the 23rd general council in Debrecen. It is this point that becomes very important in the light of Möller's wise suggestion that Warc should do no more than embark on a processus confessionis. This raises a number of questions. Who should lead the process? When and how should the agenda of the process be established? Will it ever become a two-thirds-world agenda?

It is not obvious that member churches from the two-thirds-world will have a consensus on the matter. Even they need a preliminary process to clarify the analytical tools, items for the agenda, the direction, as well as the inclusivity. This pre-process is of utmost importance if Warc is interested in empowering the first line of the subjects of economic injustice. This will secure the authenticity of the processus confessionis. Churches of the north will know what they are called to respond to and they will engage in a much more structured process than is possible otherwise. Obviously, the north has a growing number of people suffering severely under the forces of globalization. The pre-process should not be exclusively "southern" to the extent that these voices are not heard. The pre-process should echo the "cry of the people" being sacrificed in the interest of mammon. This process should not hamper communication or impair openness but it should focus on the subjectification of churches from the south.

How can Debrecen pave the way for this eventual processus confessionis? Is it possible to establish the pre-process? The Kitwe statement has its weaknesses, it could have been much more self-critical, but its heart is in the right place. Kitwe is merely a Southern African position. It feels the need for communication with other African churches as well as churches of the south. Consensus needs to grow in the south. Is it not time for a Warc-initiated (and managed) south process? A Warc-south economic justice focus may be the most empowering initiative the 23rd general council can establish for the years beyond 2000.

Instead of being the voice of the voiceless, a Warc-south initiative will give a voice to the voiceless which is also their own.

Notes