Neulich beim Frühstück

Bei mir im Hotel sind auch einige deutsche Delegierte. Beim Frühstück hört man dann ja mal bei den Gesprächen an den Nachbartischen zu: "Die Jugenddelegierten sind auch nicht mehr das, was sie mal waren. Sie sind so professionell, gar nicht mehr wie richtige Jugendliche." Aha.

Also, was erwartet diese Person? Rastagelockte, palituchtragende junge Leute, die mit ihrer Gitarre schräge Musik machen? Angepasste Leute, die nur machen, was man ihnen sagt? Leute, die überhaupt nicht auffallen, schon garnicht durch ihre inhaltlichen Inputs? Auf jeden Fall hieße fehlende Professionalität, wir würden wahrscheinlich überhaupt nichts erreichen. Man freut sich über die "Jugendfolklore" und behauptet, die Jugend habe sich sehr gut beteiligt. Na prima, dazu sind wir jungen Leute (bzw. eigentlich jüngeren) echt nicht da, das wäre nur Verschwendung unserer Lebenszeit...und wir wollen im Alter unserer Tischnachbarn nicht genauso resigniert sein :-)

PS: Gruß an alle Landeskirchenräte...

How many delegates are in Sibiu?

I just discovered an interesting information in a news release of the World Council of Churches dealing with yesterday's speech of Samuel Kobia: Kobia was addressing some 2500 delegates and other official participants from most European church traditions attending the opening session of the Third European Ecumenical Assembly, which he termed as the "single largest regular gathering of Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant church leaders in the world".
You can read the whole news release here.

“Wehe wenn sie losgelassen”

Der erste Vormittag war sehr spannend: Nach dem Gottesdienst gab es Reden, Grußworte und sonstige Auftritte von Personen. Alle mussten ihre Zeit kräftig überziehen, weil es soviel zu sagen gab (Kommentar einer jungen Delegierten: “Wehe, wenn sie losgelassen.”) – die Plenumsdiskussion fiel dafür ins Wasser. Keiner konnte etwas beitragen. Dabei hatten wir jungen Leute extra einen etwas provokativen Beitrag vorbereitet.

Neues lieferten die Beiträge eigentlich nicht, hatten wir alles schonmal gehört. Es kam nichts groß heraus. Dafür hat aber die Presse wieder was zu schreiben: Kardinal Kasper hat wieder die katholische Position betont, dass man ein eigenes Kirchenverständnis habe, aber trotzdem an der Ökumene interessiert sei, Metropolit Kirill (Internet spinnt, Link folgt) betonte die (russisch-)orthodoxe Kritik an der Postmoderne und dem in vielen Ländern vorherrschenden “Säkularismus”, dem man die aus der Wahrheit entspringenden christlichen Werte entgegensetzen müsse, und der deutsche Bischof Wolfgang Huber betonte das evangelische Interesse an der Ökumene und vergaß auch nicht zu erwähnen, dass bald 500 Jahre Reformation gefeiert werden.

Die Befürchtung, dass es nur wenig Partizipation geben würde, hat sich voll bestätigt. Wichtig Kirchenleute reden, die Delegierten sollen halt zuhören. Man kam sich eher als Dekoration vor.

Man hat den Eindruck: Hier gibt es nur Monologe, nicht jedoch einen Dialog oder Auseinandersetzungen um heiße Themen

Wenigstens eine kleine Sache haben wir erreicht: Wir (das heißt, ein paar junge Delegierte) treffen uns morgen mit dem Komitee, das die Abschlussbotschaft ausarbeitet. Ihnen wollen wir ein paar unserer Vorstellungen mitgeben. Dazu treffen wir uns gleich zur Vorbereitung. Mal sehn, wie’s wird. Bis dann.

Some more reflections on the Opening Plenary

I share Antti's disappointment with not having anyone of underrepresented youth delegates in the Drafting Committee. And I would add my disappointment with the process of presenting the whole Committee at the very end of the plenary when not so many delegates were there, nobody wanted to react and comment on the proposals. And judging the reaction of the delegates present, I would say that there was not anything like a consensus on the proposed candidates...
I understand that the Opening Plenary was too packed for caring about such issues, but dealing with them in such a rushy way doesn't make delegates feel respected. To the feeling that there are not so many people caring about what the delegates think contributed also the way of addressing the questions written on the papers during the speeches of the three venerable speakers: everyone could write whatever she/he wanted but there was no time and no speaker to be addressed with the question. Thus, it was quite hard not to have a feeling of not being heard...
And I would add one more thought about the content, not just the form, of the Opening Plenary. The majority of speakers mentioned current European problems and challenges we have been facing. I guess, vast majority of us can agree on them. However, when it came to proposing some ways of solving them, silence... Oh, that would be unfair: better to say - vague phrases about light of Christ shining upon all of us...
Anyway, after some criticism, I still feel optimistic about future continuation of the assembly and finding some concrete solutions for the problems and actions to take after our returns to local realities ;-)

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.