REC Home*** Theological Forum 

 

Theological Forum Issue

Vol. XXVII, No. 4, December 1999

 

Millennium Visions

Richard L. van Houten

The Reformed Ecumenical Council and I were born in the same year, 1946. I could say I am a month older, since I was born in July and the REC first met in August. On the other hand, the council (or synod, as we then called it) got a lot more done in its first week than I did. Although I am sure our editor did not know this when he invited me to write about my vision for the REC in the next millennium, he was inviting an older figure to comment.

As I prepared to comment on a whole millennium, I found it hard to look very far ahead. Persevering is hard for organizations. When I prepared for the REC's fiftieth anniversary in 1996, I found that only 2 percent of the organizations started in 1946 lasted until 1996. Moreover, I will not live too far into the next millennium, although I expect to get to it, whether it starts in just a few weeks, or a year and a few weeks. I think, however, the REC will live a little longer. How much longer, I do not know, but I can guess that when the year 3000 rolls around, there will be no REC. We will end before that.]

Just look back over the last 1000 years. Although the church had one major splitùthe Nestorians, now known as the Oriental Orthodox, had nestled in Persia and points eastùthe major split between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions had not yet occurred. The church was mainly one. While there were several renewal movements in the first half of the millennium, the next major split took place only halfway through this millennium.

Since then, the pace of division has accelerated. There are now thousands of denominations. In the Reformed family alone, there are at least 750, and probably more.

The ecumenical movement has arisen in response to that reality. It has been a movement in the hearts of good men and women who have seen that a divided church is not the way Christ's body should be. They have sought to stem the tide, but in a variety of ways. Ecumenical institutions were devices that pushed against this "growth by division." Sometimes, the movement led to united churches, while in other cases it has led to more goodwill among divided churches.

Of course, even those who led the major schisms have known that division was against God's will, but they have usually believed that errors are so serious that those they disagreed with were not even part of Christ's body. Otherwise, why would they split? Because they are tired of trouble? Because they don't like some leaders? No, the reasons were at a deeper level; they came from consciences troubled by things they saw in Scriptures, things the church of their day seemed to ignore or violate.

To imagine that all of the thousands of divisions of the Church are legitimately rooted in the truth of Christ is an impossible task. We are all skeptical about the need for all the divisions in the Church. In fact, I suppose it is our human nature that the only division we can really defend is the one for the church that we ourselves belong to. Many have doubts even about that. In my own church, the Christian Reformed Church in North America, this is clear. About 1 percent of our membership flows in and out of the denomination every year. Our members join other Reformed and Presbyterian churches, and a few become Mennonites, Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Pentecostals or Episcopalians. Some of their members become CRCNA members. We do not look around at the others, trying to identify the marks of a false church among them. Instead, we acknowledge our differences, appreciating others while valuing the best elements in our own tradition, hoping that these will contribute to the whole church's well being.

Given that Christians of all stripes are growing in their perception that denominational differences are relative, can we expect denominations to disappear? Will we, for example, all go back to Rome? Will the next millennium be a reverse image of the past one, the gradual reunifying of the world church into one body? Something is appealing about that image. For example, I am proud that the Church has a prominent, visible spokesperson when the Pope speaks out against abortion. When the REC speaks against abortion, not much happens, but people listen to the Pope. Unfortunately, when the Pope speaks about obedience, apostolic succession, or indulgences, then we are in different worlds. So, I could only imagine going "back to Rome" if Rome changes dramatically. However, besides the pope in a radically changed papal office, I can imagine no other candidate on the scene to whom I, my children, or my colleagues in the REC might pledge allegiance and obedience.

Therefore, going back to one world organization is unlikely. History will not reverse itself. So where might we go? What is possible in the next millennium and what role might the REC play in those possibilities? To help us with this question, I think we need to consider some social trends and Christian principles.

What are the major issues/trends for the next millennium? At the end of this century, we can name world population, wealth creation and redistribution, environmental boundaries, and globalization of communication as areas with great impact. They are also areas that we can do something about. Disease, wars, tyranny and natural disasters will also be with us, but those are generic ills of humanity. We have had those in this millennium, and they will still be around in the fourth millennium, if this world is here. We fight them, but this is a battle that we will not win before the return of Christ. Maybe we could say the same about wealth disparities, but I think the current system with its gross imbalances belongs in the first group of problems, because it is closely linked with the others there.

People are writing books on these problems. They are huge, and I can only draw the sketchiest outlines here. When we look at the first group of trends or problems, some questions arise. Will the Sahara Desert move south to envelop all of Africa? Will global warming wipe out major civilization centers, turning Canada and Siberia into the world's most habitable places? Will the world become so overpopulated that we cannot feed ourselves? Will population pressure make the gap between rich and poor even greater, and force wars upon us? Will the people of India all migrate to Europe? Over a thousand years, any of these could happen, or things much worse that we have not yet begun to imagine.

Globalization is a phenomenon closely related to our present economic systems. We benefit from rapid communications. Even a little organization such as the REC can do more with less, because we can use the tools of the computer and e-mail. About two-thirds of the world, however, does not see globalization as wonderful, but as oppressive. They can see what is going on, but have no realistic chance of joining in. They have a window on that world, but not a door. Most of the members of REC churches are on the outside looking in.

Globalization has one important side effect for the REC and the whole ecumenical movement. It forces decentralization. Centrally organized world organizations are in trouble. They still need a head office, and a director, but their staff and offices can be all over the world. Organizations increasingly use consultants and outsiders to accomplish tasks for them. Local churches, at least in North America, are eager to establish direct relationships with churches abroad, and are frequently bypassing the intermediate networks of mission agencies. This trend is the major reason why my intuition tells me a single world church organization will not return in the next millennium. Lines between traditions will blur, especially as the traditions learn from one another. Some will essentially merge and there will be realignments, but a single global church entity will not emerge.

Now where will the Reformed Ecumenical Council fit in this world? Our basic vision today is this: The REC is an organization for Promoting Unity, Sharing our Common Heritage, and Stimulating the Proclamation of Christ's Lordship among Reformed Churches Worldwide. Now that is an open-ended vision. As long as the Reformed tradition remains distinctive, an organization with this vision will have work to do.

However, if the REC is successful at working out this vision, it will have to change. When you accomplish your goal, you stop and reassess. Several organizations are promoting unity among the Reformed churches. As we move toward more unity, one result will be that REC may evolve, along with similar organizations, into something else. That would be one "end" of the REC.
Sharing the heritage is a vision that addresses several areas. It means sharing among ourselves, as well as with others. It has a theological and ecclesiastical dimension, namely, learning from each other about how to understand God's Word and his demands for our lives. We must think together about God's demands for us, to help us remain faithful and obedient. It also has a diaconal dimension. Our churches cross the divide between rich and poor. We are bound to share across that divide. Still, we are not the only way to organize sharing among Reformed churches, and the REC could evolve into another kind of partnership of churches for diaconal ministries. That partnership would likely become something else, and that would be the "end" of the REC.

These "ends" are abstract organizational questions. Where else could our future lead? Today there are immediate personal benefits to REC membership. Church leaders meet each other. We want to stimulate each other in our ministries. This means personal contact, and that is one of the most rewarding areas for me as an REC staff member. The joys of sharing in difficulties, in agonizing with others over hard choices, in passing on the word that they need help, and in celebrating milestones and accomplishmentsùthese personal rewards are one of the ways an international organization like the REC can build up Christ's body. The REC could continue a long time with this kind of ministry. If wise leaders find wise successors, the REC could continue growing as an instrument of stimulation and service.

History, however, teaches us that organizations rarely continue generation after generation on this basis. It is more likely that this organization will falter, and someone else will step in to do this job. It would feel like pride to imagine that the REC would still be a service and support organization in A.D. 2999. Instead, it likely that other organizational forms where mutual service is supported will move in and out of existence, as the Church ministers within itself and to others in a variety of ways we cannot imagine today. This, too, would be an "end" of the REC.

We may see our imagined "ends" as forward movement. We will have reached our destination, where we will either stop or set out for a new place. We can also think of them as an evolution, or as an end as in a relay race. We hand off the baton to someone else, and watch from the sidelines whether our team goes on to win. Of course, the good part of belonging to the Church of Christ is that we know Christ has already won the race for us, although we still have to struggle to run faster than those running against us.

There is another global movement that many Christians talk about, which is hard to get our arms around. Most of the world's Christians live outside Europe and North America. The center of gravity for the Church has moved south. This is true already for the REC. Whether we count member churches or individual Christians, Africa is our center. Asia is growing, while our membership in Europe and North America is declining. If I try to think what that will mean over a millennium, I cannot see how things will change. How will the administrative, financial and technical resources now available to Christians in Europe and North America balance off against the mass of people in the Christian Church outside? We just went through a multi-year process in the REC to ask whether our office should move to Africa. Our Interim (executive) Committee has said no, it is not time yet. Our assembly still has to debate this question, and even if they agree with the Interim Committee's recommendation, the question will return. For the REC the next millennium will see new leadership and new cultural styles as our center of gravity makes its weight felt.

Usually, our "vision" is a little shorter than a millennium. We are not concerned much about what will happen in 500 years or even 200 years. We poor human beings, who rarely last more than a century on this earth, are more comfortable with a shorter time horizon, say 25 years or less. So, what could the REC be like in 2025? Let me spin out a few dreams for you.

1. In A.D. 2025 the REC will have a membership of 150 Reformed churches, representing 30 million Christians. Its office will be somewhere in Africa, with auxiliary staff in the United States, Indonesia, Korea and Latin America.

2. The REC will have a Leadership Development Institute, where its members will offer joint training for all kinds of ministries, and where members will help members in planning and development. Resources for youth work and Christian nurture will be available to all.

3. The REC will have several mediation teams, with experience at peacemaking and healing divisions. These teams will be available for trouble spots both within and outside the REC community. People will think "REC[onciliation]" when they think REC.

4. The REC and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches will have merged several of their functions, especially where Reformed churches are interacting with other Christian traditions. The continuing REC value of "doing everything with biblical and confessional integrity" will be its major contribution to these processes.

5. The REC will have a Mission Resource Index, where we identify funds and personnel needs. Partnerships will regularly evolve to meet those needs.

6. The REC will have a nearly instant global network for information sharing within its membership. When one part of the body is hurting, the rest will know soon. The REC will find avenues of response, both within and outside its membership.

7. The REC will be a resource for its members in dealing with people of other faiths. There will be networks of information especially about Islam and subjectivism or secularism.

Even as I look back on what I have just written, I wonder how it will be possible. It will only happen if our members think these are necessary and worthy goals, and that the REC is the best place for them to develop. Even if only a few of these roles develop for the REC, the council will have a worthy role to play in the future of the Church and the unfolding of God's Kingdom.