Is participation something active or something passive?

Looking into the detailed programme of the Assembly, written in the delegates’ handbook, you can find that at the end of the week there shall be an Assembly message with the general outcomes, with objectives the European churches want to achieve in the next years and with plans for some concrete action. Naturally, such a message should be developed in a democratic way. According to Colin Williams, the General Secretary of CEC, this will happen: The process leading to the message will be “as democratic as possible”.

The handbook where all necessary information is written down (unfortunately not available on the internet) gives another picture:

1. The Assembly has no rules of procedure. Written rules are already common in commissions with 10 members to guarantee an outcome. But how to manage an Assembly with more than 2.000 members? How is it possible to agree on a Assembly message, if nobody knows, in which way? It’s a mystery. OK, it’s not that easy. It’s impossible that every delegate can express his position on the stage. It’s impossible to satisfy every delegate and to consider every individual argument. But: If there is the aim to incorporate delegates contributions, we should know, in which way.

2. The only thing we know is that there will be a message committee. That’s all. All other important information are unknown: Who are the members of the committee? Are there some delegates within? May we elect the members, or may we at least elect some additional members? If we had this information, we could prepare some committee candidates, or we could address to the members some contributions. But we cannot.
My conclusion: The whole process is behind a veil of ignorance. Intransparency rules, and not transparency as one of the main conditions for participation.

3. On Saturday evening one part of the programme (approximately 15 minutes) will be the “Presentation of the Assembly Message”. No decision, no voting, no affirmation. In combination with missing rules of procedure, there is only one possible conclusion. The delegates will not be asked about the final version of the message. This prognosis is even strengthened by the information, we got at the Assembly office: “There’s no voting, because there will be no decision.” But if we cannot vote – who are the decision makers? A small circle of people will decide on the contents of the message. Nevertheless, the message will be presented as a position of the whole assembly.

What is then participation? Is it about sitting there and listening speeches, lectures, greetings, addresses, and in the end they present you the result? Or is it far more? That was my main question when I saw the detailed programme.

In the foreword of the Assembly’s handbook, Metropolitan Gennadios of Sassima and Bishop Vincenzo Paglia describe participation as “sharing, experiencing and enjoying the Assembly ecumenically”. Contributions of delegates or open discussions don’t find their place in this definition. Is the EEA3 then only a show which was already scripted before?

No, it won't, because this depends on the efforts of the delegates with an interest in higher partipation. I think that there are a couple of possibilities:
- Asking for more time of open discussion
- Asking for an election of the members of the message committee
- Asking for a voting on the Assembly message
- If there is no way to express the position within the programme, finding other places for opinion making and discussion (as for example this blog)
- Not waiting, but starting now to act
- ...

I’m sure, this will be a very interesting and spirited assembly.