Editorial.

VanElderen, Marlin

Editorial

Long before either "ecumenism" or "ethics" was part of my working vocabulary, I was aware that divisions among churches were linked to differences over what is or is not deemed permissible behaviour for Christians. To be sure, the locus of the divisions I knew best was a narrow band on the US Protestant spectrum; and even in that community many of the turbulent controversies of forty years ago now seem minor if not trivial (though the denominations in question remain apart).

In fact, the tensions (most having to do with questions of personal life-style) did not so much involve divergent positions on this or that ethical question as a sort of general feeling on the one side of the denominational boundary that those on the other side were too casual about the moral discipline to be expected of church members. The latter in turn saw their position as tolerance, not laxity, and were fond of quoting New Testament texts about Christian freedom. After all, did not Calvin (himself seldom accused of permissiveness) warn that you are on a slippery slope once you start making religious obligations out of "indifferent things" (adiaphora)?

If any man should consider daintier food unlawful, in the end he will not be

at peace before

God when he eats either black bread or common victuals while it occurs to

him that he could

sustain his body on even coarser foods. If he boggles at sweet wine, he will

not with clear

conscience drink even flat wine, and finally he will not dare touch water if

sweeter and

cleaner than other water (Institutes, III.xix.7).

The readiness to separate oneself or the inclination to remain separate from other Christians on ethical grounds has manifested itself in recent years around such evidently more substantive issues as racism, war and the "right to life". Perhaps because of convergences achieved by theologians on doctrinal disputes, perhaps because dogmatic attachment to theological orthodoxy and indeed interest in classical theological issues have waned, perhaps because many people believe that what counts are actions, not words, ethical disagreements have come into renewed prominence for their church-dividing potential.

For some years, the implication of such differences for the search for church unity has been on the agenda of the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches. The result of this work is published in this issue (pp. 143-154): a study document with ten guidelines. Accompanying it are articles written for the discussion that led to the drafting of the text.

While the ecumenically negative side of this question has been underscored (the JWG's 1990 report introduces the discussion under the heading "Ethical Issues as New Sources of Potential Divisions"), an ecumenically interesting recent phenomenon is the taking of common ethical positions by leaders of Christian bodies otherwise deeply divided from each other. Tracy Early described a recent case in an early-February dispatch in Ecumenical News International:

Church opposition to gambling in the United States... has led to the

formation of one of the

broadest ecumenical alliances ever seen in the nation. The campaign against

gambling has

brought together representatives of the Christian Coalition, which is led by

the conservative

television evangelist Pat Robertson, and the National Council of Churches...

Representatives of both organizations appeared together... at the opening of

the Washington office of

the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling (NCALG).

Such coalition-building probably proves the old adage that "politics makes strange bedfellows" more than it reflects a shared recognition that (in the words of the JWG document) "the fact of our belonging together in Christ is more fundamental than the fact of our moral differences". But is it too much to hope that one of the fruits of such contact -- in addition to the "common witness" which the JWG document holds up -- might be a growing habit of consultation "in a spirit of mutual understanding and respect", thus extending the dialogue beyond the immediate political goals?

Not directly linked to the JWG process are two other contributions in this issue to the ecumenical ethical discussion: one on nonviolent resistance and one on "Ethics, Medical Ethics and HIV/AIDS". The latter comes out of a WCC study process on the new challenges posed by this pandemic to the churches worldwide. Originally prepared for a meeting of the WCC AIDS consultative group, it complements three theological and ecclesiological papers published in The Ecumenical Review last year (Vol. 47, no. 3, July 1995, pp.352-84).

Two documents and two articles in this issue offer perspectives from Orthodox churches on the study "Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the WCC". Responses from several other Christian traditions appeared in The Ecumenical Review for October 1994 (Vol. 46, no. 4).

The JWG set its document on ethics in the context of the broader discussion of "new Christian ways of rendering common witness in society at large". How common witness relates to "proselytism" (a burning issue for Orthodox churches, as is evident in all four of the above-mentioned pieces) is addressed in another new text from the JWG, also published in this issue (pp.212-221).

Finally, after an absence of some years, a section entitled "Ecumenical Diary" (pp.251-254) reappears in this issue. We hope readers find this selection of recent WCC-related activities useful.