S U R V E Y of current evidence of ecumenism ... - ARGE Oekumene

What came out of the Budapest Questionnaire?Dr Karl Adolf Bauer reports2Just 190 forms from eight countries were completed and returned to Budapest. These wereevaluated by members of an Ecumenical Institute. During the conference these evaluationswere the subject of discussions in six workshops which met in language groups. Oneworkshop considered the question of the future of ecumenism on the basis of the results of thequestionnaire. On August 9, 2oo3 in a plenary session organised specifically for this purpose,the reports of the workshops were presented and offered for discussion.The following is a resumé of the most important results of the reports together with themost significant remarks from the discussion. Where necessary differences conditioned byregional considerations are specifically highlighted.1. On the level of individual countries, regular meetings between bishops/churchleaders or those responsible in the governing body of the various churches are firmlyestablished. Nevertheless, it was made clear that local ecumenism everywhere is, to a greatdegree, dependent on the readiness of the clergy to engage in ecumenical co-operation.Even achange of bishop or local clergy can have an appreciable effect on regional or localecumenism, both positive and negative! Where clergy communicate spiritually with oneanother this usually has immediate, positive effects on the ecumenical cooperation ofcongregations of the different denominations and their members.2. The ecumenical situation in a country or region is usually influenced by thenumerical balance between the churches. Above all, smaller churches (particularly the 'freechurches') can easily be overshadowed and even dominated by the majority or mainlinechurches. This demands of the latter a particular sensitivity in their dealings with minoritychurches.3. In individual countries, congregations of different denominations have regulatedtheir ecumenical cooperation with a contract-like covenanted partnership of congregations, inwhich it is laid down what they do together and what they still do separately.4. Meanwhile, in almost all countries there are -even if only occasionally at presentchurchesand parish community centres built and used in common. In their building,ecumenical aspects played a role side by side with economic motives.5. Secular society expects cooperation between the churches and hardly pays attentionany longer to doctrinal differences. Clearly contemporary secular society is more impressedby what binds Christians of different churches together than what still divides them.6. At the level of local ecumenism, the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity ismentioned in the responses as by far the greatest 'bond of unity' between the differentchurches and congregations. Correspondingly, in most responses, prayer is mentioned as theonly answer to the question of what can be done to move the Christian unity process forward.After that, with slight variations in order, there follow replies such as: official and unofficialmeetings with members of different churches; membership of an ecumenical group; commonsocial and charitable work; common services and/or participation in the services of otherchurches; study of agreed texts or other theological publications.-[Taking into account theopinion of the IEF-group in Bratislava too, the order changed between 'prayer' and 'meetings'in the first and second places. -Remark of the editor.]In reports on the questionnaire from the workshops and in the plenary discussion at theconference, clear signs of ecumenical problems emerged:1. From Eastern Europe it was reported that the majority of believers were reservedabout, or even opposed to or disapproving of ecumenism -an attitude which has its effect onchurch leaders and clergy and is understandable against the background of decades ofobstruction and persecution by the Communist regime as an expression of a struggle for theirown endangered identity. In this connection Romanian members of IEF were critical of the