The Responsibility of the Communion of Protestant Churches in Europe for Society Today

Empowering minority churches

The fellowship or communion that emerged from the Leuenberg Agreement was quite novel in the way it focused on the many small Protestant diaspora churches in Europe and along the River Plate in Latin America.8 These minority and diaspora churches needed visibility and voice. From the standpoint of church politics, this was a bit of a nightmare for the large Protestant churches in places such as Scandinavia, Switzerland, and Germany. These churches were worried about their own influence, given the large number of smaller churches, which had more sway than their geographical and financial weakness might justify (Leuenberg Agreement §45).

However, such networking proved to be possible, not least because of the development of regional cooperation. This regional work that crossed borders also received political support in Western Europe because of the common goal of overcoming wartime enmity. One model for this, for example, is the Conference of Churches on the Rhine, which was founded in 1961 with the aim to promote reconciliation on both sides of the Rhine. Its work quickly became linked with the concerns of Leuenberg, although it only officially became a regional group of CPCE in 2008. For many years, the small Reformed churches of the Mediterranean received support – in close connection with the CPCE – from the Conférence des Églises protestantes des pays latins d'Europe (CEPPLE), founded in 1950 by Pastor Marc Boegner, then a president of the World Council of Churches. CEPPLE officially became the Southern Europe Group of CPCE in 2012.

Along with theological and financial support, diaconal work has undoubtedly been one of the most fruitful ways in which CPCE has been able to realize itself. The Gustav-Adolf-Werk, a German Lutheran institution supporting minority churches, sustained this commitment through its programmes and with publications on the lives of these churches. Further programmes were developed after 2009 in cooperation with the Association of Protestant Diaspora Works in Europe (AGDE).

A diaspora in transition

Our understanding of what we mean when speaking of a diaspora has changed greatly over the past 50 years. The term “diaspora” now refers not only to the “small” minority churches in the south of Europe, but also to the “historical,” well-established churches whose relevance has been declining in their own cultures and contexts, and whose members increasingly represent a diaspora in their own societies. As a result, it no longer makes sense to speak of the Volkskirche – a majority church of the people – as we once did.

Waves of migration to Europe have brought many committed believers into the churches. Among the Waldensians in Italy and in the big cities of France, for example, they account for more than half of Protestants. This migration has brought a new dynamism to the Protestant minorities – but arguably new challenges as well, at the levels both of the church and of politics and culture. Hospitality has not been a popular or positive goal in society. Even within the churches, there was discussion of how far diversity can go without straining coexistence too much. Pseudo-truths, twisted arguments, and populism have led to increasing acceptance of xenophobic slogans, even among the faithful.

Thus, the CPCE today faces the challenge of a threefold situation of diaspora: being a Christian minority in secular society; being churches that have become marginalized compared to evangelical churches that undertake more active missionary work and whose worship is more emotional; and as a minority within a minority, compared to the migrant believers and their fidelity to the church.

The CPCE recognized the need to undertake detailed studies of diaspora in different situations as a response to political and cultural concerns. After meetings in 2013 and 2015, the CPCE general assembly in Basel in 2018 received the study document, “Theology of Diaspora.”9 Here, “diaspora” is used as a relational term rather than as a term with the negative connotations of “minority” or “dispersion.” Nevertheless, diaspora remains associated with ambivalence. On the one hand, diasporas are concerned about being invisible; but on the other, they can take pride in their own identity, often leading to resistance to getting involved in ecumenical unions with other churches. This more multi-faceted spectrum of analysis has allowed churches to offer specific intercultural education in their contexts, as well as to examine how very different concepts of identity and community can help promote mutual solidarity.

Our achievement: A solid theological foundation

The “differentiating consensus” has become a trademark of the Leuenberg Agreement and offers a great ecumenical potential in many other dialogues. The agreement assumes that churches have changed over the course of history and are able to distinguish the “fundamental witness” of their confessions of faith from their “historically conditioned thought forms” (Leuenberg Agreement §5). As often stressed by André Birmelé, Theodor Dieter, and the Institute for Ecumenical Research in Strasbourg, among others, the point is not to say that no differences exist between the different confessions, but to analyze the relationship between their differences and to recognize that they are not (any longer) “church dividing” but express the same basic truth. Such a consensus, which today we describe as “differentiating” rather than “differentiated,” deliberately affirms and accommodates diversity (Leuenberg Agreement §28). For, as the Leuenberg Agreement carefully documents (§§6–28), years of dialogue have been able to clarify controversial questions such that the basic truth of the message of justification and the right understanding of the gospel can be discerned in the other churches.

The next step is to lift former condemnations. Even if these remain in the confessional texts of the churches, they are now “inapplicable to the doctrinal position of these churches.” Although the condemnations the Reformers pronounced are not considered irrelevant, they are “no longer an obstacle to church fellowship” (Leuenberg Agreement §26–27).

Countering the concern that such a consensus might serve to confirm the status quo of the separated churches, the Leuenberg Agreement affirms that church fellowship becomes a “reality” that leads churches and congregations to “deepen and strengthen the fellowship they have found together” (Leuenberg Agreement §35). Consensus is therefore not only “declared” but also “realized,” and it becomes a reality. The common understanding of the gospel that sustains the fellowship must be continually “deepened,” “examined in the light of the witness of Holy Scripture,” and “continually made relevant” (Leuenberg Agreement §38). It should take shape in common worship, witness, and service (Leuenberg Agreement §30–38).

According to Reformation ecclesiology, for church communion, its Christological foundation and its visible manifestation in word and sacrament is “sufficient” (satis est) for the visible manifestation of the true church. Differences in other aspects of church life, such as ministries or ethical orientations, are thus not considered to be church-dividing.

The reality of the years following the agreement, however, has demonstrated that what is correct theologically is not necessarily lived out ecclesiologically. Churches make their own decisions in their own socio-cultural contexts. This does not contradict the Leuenberg Agreement, but often creates complications in cross-border cooperation. Being linked in Europe does not yet mean that the decisions we make together are binding for us all. When it comes to more effectively influencing the future of Europe, the light structure of the CPCE – intended by those who created it – is increasingly criticized as a “weakness.” Following the 2001 CPCE general assembly, the churches, concerned about the how binding their fellowship is and their socio-political visibility, promoted reception in structural forms as well. In Budapest (2006), the CPCE introduced several changes to enable a more effective common decision-making capacity. However, the idea of a Europe-wide CPCE synod has already been rejected twice, despite the positive experiences of common synods in some countries.

The CPCE general assembly in Basel (2018) underlined the CPCE's commitment to the goal of “church communion” and dared to state that the CPCE is “a catholic church.”10 It said it was desirable that there should be, in addition to the CPCE's statutes, a “Charta of church communion,” yet to be developed.11 For a long time, the CPCE has been trying to make a “common voice heard in Europe,” especially when it comes to ethical and socio-political questions. It has created some strategic posts for networking with political bodies: for example, in Brussels, in cooperation with the Conference of European Churches (CEC) as well as through the office of the representative of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD); and in Strasbourg, through a position at the Conference of Churches on the Rhine to accompany the Council of Europe. But the nuances in the positions taken by Protestants means that it is still difficult for a “common voice” to be heard, as we can find a common voice only in continuing the discussion.

Entrenched socio-cultural identities

So far, theological discussions and processes of reconciliation have not been able to get to the roots of social, political, and historical divisions. It is only recently that patterns of theology, church, people, race, and nation have been acknowledged openly as being important in how identifies are formed.12 The link between identity and history has been a very delicate issue, since many churches value this link as a source of pride and memory, as documented in the studies Protestant in Europe (2003) and Theology for Europe (2006).13 Many churches have not been able to put the legacy of their own history – such as the memory of their martyrs – into a wider perceptive, which has been a barrier to working with other churches.

In this respect, the CPCE has undertaken pioneering work for the whole ecumenical movement. The CPCE and the Gustav-Adolf-Werk with CEC undertook the programme on “Healing of Memories” on a trial basis in 2003 in Romania and found a surprisingly wide response from all the churches. The CPCE and the Council of Churches in Baden-Württemberg together examined experiences of the Second World War in a documentation volume of “Church History on the Upper Rhine” (2013).14 Subsequently, recalling history together, dealing with entrenched identities, and seeking ways of reconciliation became useful in other ecumenical contexts, including regional and international dialogues with Anabaptists, which led to mutual forgiveness and new projects in common.15 This methodology will be needed in the future to deal with the existential and socio-political consequences of wars and persecutions. Having a critical memory, documenting the past together, requesting forgiveness, and seeking justice for victims will be indispensable for future generations in Europe and worldwide.

The potential and inspiration of dialogues with other churches

The Leuenberg Agreement underlined its desire to contribute to wider ecumenism, and it has managed to do this especially in the inspiration it has offered in the methodology of differentiating consensus. This has been a model for other statements, notably in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation (1999), which has now also been signed or affirmed worldwide by Anglican, Reformed, and Methodist churches.17

However, the CPCE's position that the consensus on the doctrine of justification should be the criterion for all other dimensions of theology and church life has not proved convincing to others. Even within the CPCE, we still need to break down the wall between those churches that stress the role of ministry, tradition, and an episcope closer to the Anglican view and those churches that demarcated themselves from the Counter-Reformation. The Church of Norway was the first of the Scandinavian churches to sign the Leuenberg Agreement, but only after undertaking a study on the church (1994) that tried to clarify ecclesiological discussions using the hermeneutical logic of the Leuenberg Agreement.18 Since then the Lutheran, Reformed, and Methodist churches of Denmark, as well as the Lutheran Church in Iceland, have also signed the Leuenberg Agreement.

Most Methodist churches of Europe have belonged to the CPCE since 1998. There have also been several agreements between Anglican churches and Lutheran and Reformed churches in Europe: the Meissen Agreement (1988) between the Church of England and the EKD, which groups Lutheran, Reformed, and United regional churches; the Porvoo Common Statement (1992), between Anglican and Lutheran churches in Britain and Ireland, the Nordic region, Ibieria, and the Baltic countries; and the Reuilly Common Statement (1997) between Anglican churches in Britain and Ireland and Lutheran and Reformed churches in France. Despite this, however, Anglican churches have not signed the pan-European Leuenberg Agreement, but rather have agreed only to a Memorandum of Affirmation and Commitment (2012).19

Inspiration for other contexts

The Leuenberg Agreement has also proved fruitful in other contexts, such as in North America, with the Lutheran–Reformed Formula of Agreement in the USA in 2000, the Lutheran–Anglican/Episcopal joint declaration “Called to Common Mission” in the USA in 1999, and the Lutheran–Anglican “Waterloo Declaration” in Canada in 2001.20 In the Middle East, the 2006 “Amman Declaration” on the “Agreement of Full Mutual Recognition of Lutheran and Reformed Churches in the Middle East and North Africa” not only declared and realized church communion between 15 Reformed and one Lutheran church, but also declared the intention of the churches to be a “prophetic voice” for justice and human rights in interreligious dialogue.21

In dialogues with non-Reformation churches, the CPCE has so far been unable to reach a joint declaration except for the Charta Oecumenica signed in 2001 by Orthodox and other member churches of the Conference of European Churches. CPCE continues to work with the Catholic Church on ecclesiology and the model of church communion.22 This international work is an important experiment and methodology, especially on questions related to values and ethics.

We need also to emphasize how important and ground-breaking international assemblies have been in the European context, even between churches that do not yet share forms of communion. Thus, the dialogues with Orthodox churches were already “political” and need to be seen as political in the context of the period before and after the political changes of 1989. They created new contacts and helped to anticipate the opening of borders. This was seen, for example, in the three European Ecumenical Assemblies in Basel in 1989, in Graz in 1997, and in Sibiu in 2007, which were symbols of political change, reconciliation, and peace.

The challenge of ethical issues and their implications

Such symbolic ecumenical acts could not sweep other issues under the table. Churches experience the same debates and divisions as society, such as about bioethics, sexual ethics, medical developments, and economic issues. We are constantly reminded of the importance of the cultural context for ethical perspectives, especially around questions such as sexuality, family, and politics. The positions churches take do not follow denominational lines as much as the common interests and alliances that influence discussions in society.

This became clear, for example, in the results of the CPCE's dialogue with the European Baptist Federation. The dialogue on baptism and the church led to a text and finally to an agreement on cooperation between the churches.23 Political and cultural influences seemed far away in the discussion of these issues. However, a clear East–West difference emerged in the reception of the results of the dialogue. While reaching an understanding with Baptist churches in the West was possible, it was more difficult when it came to Baptists in the East because of their need to defend their confessional identity, especially within the Orthodox world, which thinks territorially and does not recognize these churches.

Questions of ethics and values become even more acute in contexts where other religions or independent thinkers are present. For the first time in the history of the Leuenberg Agreement, the CPCE's general assembly in Florence in 2012 agreed an outline for a study process on the “Plurality of Religions.”24 The study that resulted rightly points to a completely new social reality in Europe resulting from the ever-more evident plurality of cultures and religions, as well as the new challenge of religious ideas being taken over and transformed and becoming “hybrid ideas.”25 While the study referred specifically to interreligious hybridization, in the secularized social realities in many parts of Western Europe, hybridization has more to do with esoteric and personally constructed spirituality than with other religions. The “plurality” that results is not so much religious plurality as the coexistence of multiple forms of spirituality that have consequences for the life of the churches. The example of hospital chaplaincy in some countries, such as Switzerland, is instructive in this context. Chaplaincy – described as “spiritual care” – is organized less and less along denominational lines, and increasingly focuses on the “spiritual health” of individuals who are treated with the help of a care team taken as a whole. In such a changed framework, questions such as those related to euthanasia and the financing of palliative care are dealt with from a completely different perspective.

Churches as laboratories of the methodology of reconciliation

The CPCE's relevance is seen not only in how the churches take things forward and critique themselves, but also in their experiences of reconciliation. Despite their theological solidarity, the churches of the CPCE at first experienced a fear of the “other.” Trust and respect for the fellowship as a whole was nurtured through a shared worship life and regional initiatives. This trust between the churches will help them to accompany people who are traumatized by war over several generations.

The Leuenberg Agreement can play a positive role through adapting its methodology to specific contexts:

Reformation theology as public theology

Until now, Reformation theology could rely on the fact that Christian influence still had a living role within European culture. Today, however, churches must shape their public mission in such a way that their message is not only heard, but is also interesting enough to win over fellow human beings. Churches need to have a “prophetic” influence and thus engage in advocacy for justice and democracy. The CPCE understands that continued presence in society comes through various forms of media and education, but is unsure how this remains possible in changed circumstances.

The study “Theology of Diaspora,” received by the CPCE Assembly in Basel in 2018, included a chapter on churches in the public sphere and public theology, underlining the contribution of churches to democracy: “Churches affirm a free democratic public for the sake of their public mission of proclamation; but they can promote and support a functioning democratic public [space] through their public action.”26 But how can a public theology contribute in a society where Christianity is becoming a minority? This is possible only in the form of critical and self-critical reflection on crises and problems.27 The study proposes seven forms: public statements, symbolic actions, cultural activities, church educational activity, church journalism, economic behaviour, and forums for public debate.28

While such approaches make sense, this is predominantly in contexts in which Christian culture is still known and lived out. What form of public theology is still capable of being understood today? The study assumes that, despite the separation of church and state, cooperation in some fields is possible and that the church is “present” in the public sphere and “does not act in secret.”29 In reality, this is much more difficult in some countries than in others, either because, in some countries, public theology must be camouflaged to be taken seriously at all, or is no longer seen as credible or seen as too politicized.

What we certainly need is a theology capable of expressing itself boldly and with evangelical resistance.