Experiencing Ecumenism in an International Theological Exchange Programme

Abstract

Many students in the field of Christian theology during their studies will engage with fellow students who belong to other denominations. Others study at a seminary of their own denomination and will not have many interdenominational encounters. Kinnamon states that if the United States is an example for the rest of the world, most seminaries do not emphasize ecumenism within their academic curricula.11 Michael Kinnamon, “New Contours of Ecumenism: Challenges to the Next Generation,” Ecumenical Review 66:1 (2014), 17. Although many students will have interdenominational encounters during their studies, there is little emphasis on how to engage constructively in ecumenism. In his addressing of the Kirchentag in 2003, Konrad Raiser, former general secretary of the World Council of Churches (WCC), stated, “Ecumenism – the fellowship of Christian churches as a sign of hope for the world – is not a building project whose state we can describe in a neutral and objective way, but a living process with which we must engage if we want to understand and appreciate it.”22 Konrad Raiser, “The Way of Ecumenism: Gratitude and Commitment,” Ecumenical Review 70:1 (2018), 36. In this line of reasoning, one should not aim to teach students primarily theoretical knowledge about the ecumenical movement, but rather have them engaged in the movement, in order to make students understand ecumenism. Although institutionalized teaching is still the dominant paradigm of education, other forms of teaching and learning have become more accepted. Already in 1957, the WCC ordered that ecumenical education should include practical involvement.33 Dietrich Werner, “Magna Charta on Ecumenical Formation in Theological Education in the 21st Century: 10 Key Convictions,” International Review of Mission 98:1 (2009), 163. One way practical involvement could work for teaching ecumenism is through the concept of a community of learners. Within this concept, learning does not stop when students leave the classroom, but they continue learning in interaction with their fellow students. This implicit form of learning helps them to explore their own opinions and viewpoints. They learn from each other and teach each other in an informal way.44 Anton Havnes, “Peer-Mediated Learning beyond the Curriculum,” Studies in Higher Education, 33:2 (2008), 193–94. Exchange programmes, especially those in which students live together for a longer period of time, can provide these circumstances for a community of learners. Learning about ecumenism in community and praxis in the form of an exchange programme can be approached in many ways. Several institutes offer short-term training programmes on ecumenical leadership; and universities and seminaries offer opportunities to study abroad and organize summer and winter schools on ecumenical and interreligious dialogue, for example at the Catholic Centro Pro Unione in Rome.55 See the Centro Pro Unione website, https://www.prounione.it/en/formation/summer-school-rome. There, a three-week course is organized in which students learn about ecumenism from a Catholic perspective. Students start with daily morning prayer, after which they attend lectures. In the afternoons, participants go on field visits or attend more lectures. The lectures in the programme provide the students with a historical overview of ecumenism, while the field visits and the group process as a community of learners provide practical ecumenical experience. The Ecumenical Institute in Bossey is an example of such an exchange programme, providing an opportunity for students to become engaged ecumenists by living and learning. At this institute, students and researchers from different denominations meet and study together. During their studies, students attend classes on theories of ecumenism, missiology, and social ethics. Furthermore, they encounter the praxis of ecumenism through field visits, but also through living and sharing together with students from other denominations. Students are encouraged to work for a better world and toward the visible unity of churches.66 “Study at Bossey,” Ecumenical Institute at Château de Bossey, https://www.institute.oikoumene.org/en/study-at-bossey. Such examples of exchange programmes that seek to integrate both theory and praxis can be found at other institutes as well. It is through these experiences that students can overcome “the tension between institution and movement,” as brought up by Raiser.77 Raiser, “Way of Ecumenism,” 36. Although many articles discuss the tension or gap between theory and praxis, few discuss how this gap can be bridged and how, for instance, ecumenical and intercultural exchange programmes can contribute to this. Therefore, this article will discuss the experiences of students in such an ecumenical exchange programme, called Bridging Gaps, on contextual theology. Characteristic of the Bridging Gaps programme is its focus on contextual theology, as one of the crucial aspects for ecumenical theological education in the 21st century.88 Werner, “Magna Charta,” 161–62. Contextual theology was identified by the Magna Charta on Ecumenical Formation in Theological Education in the 21st century – introduced by the WCC in 2008 as guidelines for ecumenical theological education. In focusing on contextual theology, the Bridging Gaps programme aims to facilitate a space in which participants can conduct societally relevant theological research on challenges in their own contexts, can learn about each other’s contexts, and are exposed to the Dutch context. The unique aspect of Bridging Gaps is that it aims to create awareness of how culture and context shape theology, and, in this way, to bridge the gaps between contexts of participants and the Dutch context(s). Participants in the Bridging Gaps programme form an intercultural and interdenominational community of learners in the city of Amsterdam. Furthermore, the programme aims to equip the participants to become leaders in their society and churches to work toward a more humane world. This article seeks to portray how participation in such a programme influences the students’ attitudes toward believers of different denominations or faiths during the programme and in the long term. In 1994, the Theological Faculty of the Vrije Universiteit (VU) in Amsterdam – supported by Kerk in Actie (previously ICCO), a non-governmental organization (NGO) of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PKN) – started an exchange programme for theology students from Latin America. Now, 25 years later, the programme has become an exchange programme for students from Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Eastern Europe. The Protestant Theological University (PThU) has become co-organizer of the programme. For many students, the programme is their first time going abroad and their first encounter with other international students. Over the past 25 years, approximately 250 students have participated in the programme, belonging to a range of different denominations: from Greek Catholic to Mennonite, from Anglican to Reformed, and from Unitarian to Eastern Orthodox. The programme aims not only to facilitate the participants’ engagement with other cultures and denominations but also to include other academic staff and students of theology at the VU and PThU, as well as church members, in this experience. This is accomplished by the participants’ involvement in different courses, their personal research, and the church visits. Students are furthermore invited to participate in other parts of the Bridging Gaps programme and to engage with the participants in non-academic settings. With the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the exchange programme coming up, we carried out research on the impact of the programme. All former participants received an invitation to fill out a questionnaire about their experience with the programme and their development after participating in Bridging Gaps regarding their (academic) career and involvement in church and society. The questionnaire was answered by 106 respondents who are current residents of countries in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Not all respondents answered the entire questionnaire; some of them skipped questions or did not complete the questionnaire. Approximately 60 respondents answered the questions that are central to this article. The years of participation of respondents who took part in the research range from 1999 to 2019. The age of participants ranges between 25 and 65 years old. The results were dealt with anonymously.99 The questionnaire was created and distributed via the online tool Qualtrics. The results of the questionnaire have been stored in an online cloud of the VU. These results are only accessible to the authors of this study. In order to show how the Bridging Gaps programme facilitates experiences of ecumenism and how this influences the participants’ attitudes in the long term, we adopt a paradigm of ecumenism that emphasizes charity, as introduced by Thomas Hughson SJ. We follow Hughson’s framework to analyze and to structure the empirical data. Furthermore, additional authors were used as conversation partners to position the research in a broader field. Hughson has proposed a new focus on visible unity for the ecumenical movement. He argues that the concept of hope that has been embraced by the ecumenical movement can create the impression that the goal of ecumenism is a step-by-step progression toward visible unity. He then argues that an eschatological view on ecumenism needs to be revisited so that unity does not become an end in itself but aims at cooperation toward the kingdom. This new focus calls for an ecumenism of charity, according to Hughson.1010 Thomas Hughson SJ, “The Holy Spirit and Ecumenism: A Shift from Hope to Charity,” in Hope in the Ecumenical Future, ed. Mark D. Chapman (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 27–29. He states, “The hypothesis, again, holds that the indwelling Holy Spirit has given rise to the (4) ecumenical movement through (3) beneficent enlightenment by (2) charity (1) effected by the Spirit. This substitutes charity for hope as the motive and perspective internal to ecumenical commitment.”1111 Ibid., 32. Thus, Hughson proposes that charity, as a gift of the Holy Spirit, can lead to enlightenment and commitment to the ecumenical movement. What would this hypothesis look like in practice? Hughson proposes love for one’s neighbour in other local congregations but also in other churches around the world as a new approach in ecumenism which goes back to the roots of the ecumenical movement. According to Hughson, “The first work of the Spirit in ecumenism has been opening Christians in divided churches to appreciation of each other’s reality and of the extent of faith and order that all have in common.”1212 Ibid., 40. He argues that this mode of perceptive appreciation emerges from concrete experiences in engagement with other churches. The realization that there are elements in other churches that we can appreciate and that we can love is what Hughson describes as charity. This results in an attitude of openness for and appreciative perception of the values of others.1313 Ibid., 40–42. Hughson further notes that these experiences often happen at the grassroots level, which leads to ecumenical attitudes of the recipients but does not result in formal commitment to the ecumenical movement per se, such as becoming active in a local ecumenical council of churches. The results of the experience of appreciation for the other is rather a way of living. Church members become open to unity, to overcoming divisions, but do not necessarily make use of the formal ecumenical channels to do this,1414 Ibid., 42. which also corresponds with the claims made by Raiser and Kinnamon in the introduction of this article. Nevertheless, the emphasis on love of one’s neighbour – or as Hughson phrases it, “being-in-love with the specifics of other churches”1515 Ibid., 43. – leads to “perceptive appreciation” and a “hermeneutic of openness” to other churches. In an intercultural community of learners, students get the chance to encounter such experiences of appreciation for the first time. Following Hughson, these experiences can then lead to constructive ecumenism. Does the Bridging Gaps programme facilitate these experiences and does it indeed lead to constructive ecumenical commitment? The responses to the questionnaire can be divided into different categories that can also be found in Hughson’s description of ecumenism of charity as an attitude of love toward other churches that creates a cycle of appreciation and openness. (1) Believers have a concrete experience in engagement with (believers from) other churches; (2) they gain appreciation or love for aspects of other churches; (3) they become more open to others; and (4) they develop ecumenical and intercultural attitudes. Bridging Gaps can be identified as a (first) encounter with people of other churches, and, as the results will show, respondents expressed going through a similar process during the programme. In the following four sections, we will discuss the separate aspects of Hughson’s description in light of the answers by respondents to the questionnaire. The students of Bridging Gaps take part in an intensive study programme that aims to bridge several gaps. Apart from the encounter with people from other denominations, they are also given the opportunity to engage with people from other contexts. In her description of World Christianity, Kirsteen Kim notes that today’s ecumenism calls for a joined movement not only of different denominations but also of different cultures. Belonging to the same denomination does not necessarily imply shared dogmas or traditions, for the influence of culture on a local denomination should not be underestimated. There are possibly large differences between churches of the same denomination in different parts of the world. Therefore, the intercultural component also needs to be taken into account in the ecumenical movement. It calls for building toward visible unity not only among denominations, but also among Christians who are situated all over the world.1616 Kirsteen Kim, Joining in with the Spirit: Connecting World Church and Local Mission (London: SCM, 2012), 275. To begin with, the Bridging Gaps participants expressed that they feel that it is necessary to be exposed to different cultures and different denominations in order to participate in World Christianity. One former participant explained: “I thought this was wonderful, because in this global village in which we live today, theologians can’t afford to be narrow minded.” They decided to participate in the programme because they considered it necessary for their theological formation. As noted before, the programme is designed in such a way that the students share their viewpoints and information about their context with each other in their classes. Furthermore, they discuss theological challenges that are currently important to their context. Along with discussing these topics of contextual theology in class, these discussions also take place in the informal settings, for instance, in their shared kitchen. In the words of a former participant, “The experience of having so many people from different places and each with their own personal, theological, historical perspectives and experiences, being able to share, living this time with each other and learning, sharing the same table, trying foods from each country was incredible.” Thus, the programme offers an encounter with people from other contexts, namely with the fellow participants, with students and staff of the VU/PThU, and with churches in the Netherlands. For the former participants, this has been an experience of immersion into an intercultural and interdenominational environment. Through the different experiences the programme facilitates, the students learned about each other’s cultures and churches and about the Dutch culture and churches. Together, they formed a community of learners; a safe space where they could learn from and with each other. Such intensive encounters among people with different worldviews and cultures can easily lead to conflicts, especially regarding certain issues. This is explicitly addressed during the programme in order to facilitate a safe space, which will be further elaborated upon below. The encounter with others provides an opportunity to appreciate elements of the other. Respondents shared that the encounter with the other led to more tolerance and respect, which encouraged them to look for common ground. In these encounters with people from other churches and cultures, the students learned to appreciate features of the other’s perspectives. One aspect of this appreciation was the discovery of commonalities. The former participants expressed that they were surprised by the commonalities in the diverse group. Along with belonging to the same religion, they experienced that they face quite similar challenges in their different contexts. This builds a connection between the participants. They stated that the aspects they have in common were bigger than the differences they experienced. Besides shared views or shared challenges, the students naturally also encountered viewpoints that differed greatly from their own convictions or context. As one of the respondents expressed: “For a moment I thought that cultural differences would separate us; however, within the group of people at the university, these cultural differences helped us to get to know each other better and create bridges of dialogue.” The sharing of perspectives, although they may be conflicting, enriched the worldviews of the participants. They express that they now see the world with different eyes. They no longer judge others for making different choices or for practising religion differently, but depart from an appreciative perspective. Even though their own religious position may not have changed, they learned that they can appreciate the other nonetheless. As one respondent expressed about cultural differences, “Before my experience in Bridging Gaps, I tried to understand cultural differences, but later I learnt that there are so many differences that I will not be able to understand but rather recognize that there are differences and that these can be bridges to unite cultures.” The appreciation of aspects of the other was made possible because there was an opportunity to listen to and learn about the other. Also, people who come from culturally diverse countries – who already have experience with living in a culturally diverse context – stated that their engagement with and appreciation of people from different cultures increased because the programme offers such a unique opportunity to listen and learn. It broadened their appreciation for different theologies, as the participants no longer lived segregated from people with different backgrounds and could not escape interacting with the other. The intercultural and interdenominational encounter sparked some reflections on the role of culture and context with the former participants: “The programme raised my awareness that ‘equality’ does not mean ‘sameness’ and about the relativity of cultural norms.” The realization of how context influences one’s thinking and Bible reading paves the way to be more open to others. These experiences of perceptive appreciation created an open attitude toward the other. Once the participants found appreciation for aspects of the other’s tradition, they have developed a certain openness to people from other backgrounds. This concerns matters of denomination and/or religion, and matters of culture. Hughson describes this as a consequence of the appreciation for the other, discussed above. After the first encounter with the other, and the experience of becoming aware and appreciative of the other’s viewpoints, people start to actively show their love for the other. This created a sense of convivencia, a sense of trust where Christians “recognise God in the face and the religion of the other and where there is priority of the shared experience of life over theological systematisation.”1717 Werner Ustorf, “The Cultural Origin of ‘Intercultural Theology,’” Mission Studies 25:2 (2008), 239. One of the respondents describes this as follows: “The group accepted and showed me love and concern, in spite of my shortcomings. So I want to accept others and love them too.” Thus, the loving attitude also works in reciprocity. After appreciating (parts of) the other’s tradition follows the step of proactively loving the other. The openness that follows up on the appreciation of the other made people sometimes change their attitudes toward certain ideas. It might be easy to decline a certain idea or conviction, yet to actually have to engage and live together with the embodiment of this conviction creates a different understanding. More than academically learning together, convivencia is created by the physical encounter with other contexts that Bridging Gaps provides. Once people got to know the other and had the opportunity to live together with the other, their opinions were transformed. The programme introduced them to the ecumenical movement and helped them overcome prejudices toward others. Not only do the participants describe a form of appreciation for the other’s tradition, they also argue that some of their prejudices regarding other cultures or denominations have changed. Participants meet people with different viewpoints regarding specific issues in relation to the Christian tradition, such as gender justice, racial justice, and LGBTQI+ rights. Prejudices in this regard can also be broken down, which the respondents especially experienced around LGBTQI+ people. One respondent expressed that she “can’t reject fellow humans just because we do not share the same opinion.” That the experiences in Bridging Gaps can lead to ecumenical and also interreligious spirits is elaborated in the fourth aspect of the ecumenism for charity. The experiences during the programme led the participants to work with an ecumenical and intercultural attitude in their lives after Bridging Gaps. Hughson describes a difference between grassroots ecumenism and institutionalized ecumenism. Many people at the grassroots level want to overcome differences between Christians by merely sharing in experiences. However, this often does not lead to a dedicated and thought-through commitment. Leaders and ecumenists experience difficulties, because these grassroots experiences will not fulfil their potential to contribute to Christian unity or a shared ecumenical movement. While church members want to meet in ecumenism, leaders and ecumenists plead for more education on ecumenism. The ideal would be an interaction between institutional ecumenism and grassroots interest.1818 Hughson, “Holy Spirit and Ecumenism,” 38. Kinnamon argues that “the connection between ecumenism at the global or national level and ecumenism at the local level needs to be strengthened.”1919 Kinnamon, “New Contours of Ecumenism,” 17. Bridging Gaps offers participants the opportunity to experience denominational and intercultural differences at a grassroots level. The participants meet each other, share in each other’s interests, and show an openness to Christian unity, as one respondent states: “I have been more motivated to have ecumenical spirits, tolerance for others who have different opinions, and to respect each other.” At the same time, many of the former participants have become church leaders or are in other ways involved in ecumenism at a theological level. While the participants shared in grassroots ecumenism, they have taken their experiences with them to an institutional level. The experiences in grassroots ecumenism proved valuable for their theological understanding of the ecumenical movement, which they learned about in their larger theological education. A former participant, now a lecturer in hermeneutics at a university, stated, “I use concepts of intercultural hermeneutics learned (and experienced alive!) during my Bridging Gaps programme. In two words: invaluable experience.” Finally, participants shared that they step outside their boundaries of their own denominations in their work. They work together with people from other denominations or at academic departments from other traditions. Next to this bridge between grassroots experience and theological understanding of the ecumenical movement, Hughson argues that the appreciation for aspects of other churches can lead to ecumenical attitudes in general. As noted, many of the respondents supported this statement by showing their interest in the ecumenical movement after the Bridging Gaps programme. This leads some of the respondents to engage in the ecumenical movement in new ways. They felt empowered to be part of these diverse circles and started, for example, new initiatives (with societal impact): “I started an exchange programme for young volunteers from Germany to visit the center where I was working for them to learn from each other on culture, life skills, as well as religious focusing on attending to the church.” “The confidence I got from the programme. Bridging Gaps opened doors of opportunities for me to be involved in the ecumenical and international movement.” “After the Bridging Gaps programme I have the confidence to apply for so many international programmes.” Although Hughson describes many positive aspects regarding the ecumenical movement, it is important to note that an ecumenical and intercultural attitude does not come without struggle. Some respondents also shared the challenges they experienced in the programme. One respondent stated that it was “challenging to embrace the difference between one and another, but in the end, it made me a more understanding person.” Another former participant shared that what was challenging was not the encounter with others, but how to proceed with their learnings back home. Back home they experienced reluctance from their community to be open to other denominations. This shows the gap between ecumenical levels and attitudes in different contexts. Furthermore, it shows that both within the programme and upon return to their home country, ecumenical and intercultural exchange leads to friction. The embodied experience of participating in such a programme can be hard to express in words, especially in the different contexts that participants inhabit. Yet, this also pleads for ecumenical exchange programmes, because it means that the experience is difficult to find elsewhere. This study discussed how an ecumenical exchange programme can facilitate the different aspects of the ecumenism of charity as introduced by Hughson. The long-term influence of the Bridging Gaps programme on such an ecumenism is laid out step by step in the results section. Around 60 respondents provided information for this study on the effect of the programme. The responses created a good overview of the difference the experience of an ecumenical and intercultural programme can make on one’s attitude. Respondents shared that the exchange programme offered an opportunity to meet and engage with people from denominations whom they would otherwise never meet. The Bridging Gaps programme brings people from different backgrounds together to form an ecumenical and intercultural community of learners. By doing so, the programme facilitates the first step of ecumenism of charity, namely an encounter with the other. Although it is easy to facilitate this encounter, it is up to the participants to engage with and appreciate the other. Respondents demonstrated that they were enriched by the encounter with the other. During the programme, participants learned from each other’s different contexts, influenced by their own cultures and denominations. This gave them the opportunity to recognize the differences between the contexts and to gain appreciation for the other. However, more than a mere recognition of the differences, participants showed the willingness to bridge these differences. By getting to know the other, respondents stated that they have become more open to different viewpoints and have sometimes even changed their attitudes. This research solely included a questionnaire after people’s participation in the programme. For future research, it would be interesting to carry out a longitudinal study in order to be able to measure the change participants describe before, during, and after being part of the programme. As a relatively modest programme, it may be too utopian to state that such programmes can be a bridge between grassroots ecumenism and institutional ecumenism. Yet, the programme raised the ecumenical spirit of participants and created the space for them to become active in international and ecumenical circles. Research on more or bigger exchange programmes could create a better representation of ecumenical exchange programmes. The Bridging Gaps programme is just one example of what an intercultural and interdenominational experience can arouse. Naturally, the programme also brings forth challenges, such as the implementation of the ecumenical and intercultural experience back in one’s own context. Still, many participants describe the programme as a positive influence on their career. They have implemented their renewed attitudes to people from other churches and cultures, rooted in the experience of the Bridging Gaps programme, in their professions and church life. Kirsten van der Ham is a research master’s student in Theology and Religious Studies at the Faculty of Religion and Theology at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Catharina Margaretha (Geke)van Vliet is a research master’s student in Theology and Religious Studies at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and a Master of Divinity student at the Mennonite Seminary in Amsterdam. Both are staff members of the Bridging Gaps programme.