communicative action, approach to ecumenical

8/8/2019 Communicative Action, Approach to Ecumenical

1/18

COMMUNICATIVE ACTION

AS AN APPROACH TO

ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE

Erin MicheLc Brigham

Erin Michtle.Brigham, a number ofthe Roman Catholic Church,i a do ctoral dtud ent injytemtic andphdoMphlcaL theologyat the G radu ate T heological Union in Berkeley,

C alifo rnia. T hefociu of heracademic w ork i) o necclejiologyand ecumenical dialogue.

Contemporary ecumenists such as Konrad Raiser, Oscar Cullman andMichael Kinnamon have observeda "crisis" in the ecumenical movement.During the years shortly folio-wing the groundbreaking publicationof"Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry" (BEM) in 1982, there wasa period of

"stagnation if not resignation",' an observable "ecumenical impatience",^an "impoverishment" in vision.'' Those who have w^itnessed the churches'decline in ecumeniccd enthusiasm have noticeda lack of shared vision oran unclear goal in the ecumenical movement. The central committee ofthe World Council of Churches (WCC) echoed these concernsin the1997 "Common Understanding and Vision" (CUV) document, stressingthe urgency for the World Council of Churches to articulatea self-under-standing that Avill promote ecumenical growth in the 21st century."*

In this paper, I argue that ecumenical enthusiasm can be rekindledthrough a reconstruction of unity that reflects the reality of a pluralisticcontext. One of my guiding assumptions is that the lack of consensus onthe goal of ecumenism presents an opportunity to realize the principles ofthe 1950 Toronto statement. This foundational declaration of the WorldCouncil of Churches' ecclesiological neutrality is an acknowledgement of

' Konrad Raiser, EcwTienitm in Transition: a Paradigm Shift in theEcumenical Movement? WCC Publications,Geneva, 1991,p. 1.

^ Oscar Cullman, U nity T hrough Diver.Hly: I t .t Fou ndation, anda Contribution to theDiicu.i.iion Concerning t


2/18

Erin Michle Brigham COMMUNICATIVE ACTIONS AS AN APPROA CHTO E C U M E N I C A L D I A L O G U E

diverse ecclesial self-understandings. Draftedin the era of ecumenicalentiiusiasnn, it highlights the need for churches to discover unity through

an honest exchange of their diverse ecciesiologies w^lthout conformingtoa preconceived model of w ha t the visible church will be. The principles othis statement, I suggest, are suitable for the contemporary pluralisticcontex t that we face and should be highlighted in the re-conception of thgoal of ecumenism.

I wîll construct an approach to ecumenical dialogue by using JrgenHabermas' theory of communicative action as a methodology. As a

philosopher and critical theorist, Habermas addresses the pluralism of thW estern world in the 20th century, a context which he describesas post-metaphysical. Through his framework of communicative rationahty,heoffers a convincing way to talk about the possibility of communicatingacross difference and sharinga common truth that does not rely on meta-physical axioms.

The theory of communicative action is helpful in addressing ecumenicaldialogue particularly in the way in which it distinguishes between actionoriented towards understanding and action oriented towârds other goalsAs a goal-oriented action, the ecumenical movement can benefit fromH aberm as' insightson the limited unifying potentialof this tjipe of inter-action. Drawing upon Habermas' theoryof communicative action, Iargu e tha t the way in wh ich the goal of the ecumenical m ovement is articulated will influence the shape of the ecumenical dialogueitself. A modelof visible unity, if predetermined, does not allow for the dominance-freediscourse required for the achievement of mutual understanding amongthe churches. Using communicative action asa methodology for ecumeni-cal dialogue invites churches to developa vision of unity discursively and,throug h the process ofth at discourse, alsoto coordinate their actions anddeepen their level of doctrinal consensus.

I approach this endeavour in three wâys. First,I w ill pre se nt a trajectoryof understandings that have informedthe goal of ecumenism throughoutthe 20th century. Starting with the Toronto statementof 1950, I will showhow the beginnings of ecclesiological neutrality shifted to focus on amodel of organic unity This model developedat New Delhi requiresa


3/18

T H E E C O N O M I C A L R E V I E W Volume 60 Number 5 July 2008

unity remains a favoured model for the W orld C ouncil of C hurch es. T heconsideration of alternative models and the greater recognition of diversi-

ty broadened the W C C 's understanding of unity, contributing to theambiguity of the current ecumenical climate.

N ext, I will describe features of H abe rm as' theory of comm unicativeaction that will serve as the methodology for contemporary ecumenicaldialogue. First, I will highlight H abe rm as' distinction between comm u-nicative action and strategic action. T hen, Iw ill explore types of discourseand the types of validity claims tha t these discourses raise. T his topic wîll

raise the question of H abe rm as' unde rstandin g of consensus and univer-sality.

In the final section of the paper, I will apply H ab erm as ' theo ry of comm u-nicative action to ecumenical dialogue. T he implications of this a pproachwill affirm the princip les of the T oron to statem ent on ecclesiologicaldiversity, w^hich are particularly suitable for the ecumenical context today.Furthermore, applying communicative action to ecumenical dialogue wîll

make the following claims that may foster ecumenical optimism and com-mitment. First, the goal of ecumenical dialogue cannot be imposed uponany chu rch. T he na ture of visible unity m ust be realized discursively.Second, consensus serves as a regulating principle of the dialogueitself.W e should not be discouraged if the ideal of visible unity is not an imme-diate reality because unity is realized in the process, not just the endresult.

C ontextT his brief survey of how th e goal of visible unity has been und ersto od andarticulated in the context of the ecumenical movement is by no meansexhaustive.^ M y intention is to illustrate the development a nd decline ofthe W C C 's preference for the model of organic unity. I begin by examin-ing the significance of the T oronto statem ent of 1950, only two yea rs afterthe formation of the W C C . I suggest that the third assembly of the W C

at N ew De lhi marks a shift aw ay from the principles of the T oronto state-ment towards a more clearly defined model of ecclesial unity that wôuld


4/18

Erm Michle Brigham C O M M U N I C AT IV E A C T I O N S AS AN AJ-PROACH TO E C U M E N I C A L D I A L O G U E

be influential for subsequent developments. The latter part of the 20tKcentury presents another shift, from privilegingthe model of organic

unity to the recognition of multiple models. Examiningthe historical tra-jectory of statements on visible unity allows us better to understand therise and decline of ecumenical enthusiasm thathas been observed in ourcontext.

Prior to the New Delhi assembly of 1961, the WCC avoided offering aprecise definition of unity. This can be observed in the tone set b3^ theWCC central committee at Toronto in 1950, wliich explicitly states that"membership m the World Council does not imply the acceptance of aspecific doctrine concerningthe nature of unity."^ This is grounded in theecclesiological neutralityof the WCC, which is affirmed at Toronto. Thestatement declares, "Thereare room and space in the World Council forthe ecclesiology of every Church which is ready to participate in the ecu-menical conversation..."^ It continues, stating that "no Church is obligedto change its ecclesiology as a consequence of membership in the WorldCouncil".^

The central committee of the WCC is able to refrain from making a pro-nouncement on the nature of the church because it recognizes that eachmember church has its ow^n ecclesial se lf-un ders tand ing . Theyare carefulto explain that the World Council of Churches is not a church itself. TheToronto statement clearly affirms that"the World Council of Churches isnot and must never become a Super-Church".^ The implications of this

statement are significant. The nature of the church is not prejudged.Therefore, the World Council of Churches can accommodate diverseecclesiologies, from the highly structured ecclesiologyof the Orthodoxand Roman Catholic churchesto the free-church model of Quakers andPentecostals. The meaning of visible unity is not presupposed by theW C C and the council itself does not claim the authority to resolve thequestion on the nature of the unity we seek.

^ Word Council of Churches Central Committeeat Toronto, "The Ecclosiological Significanceof the WorldCouncil of Churches" in Lukas Vischer ed A Documentary Hiitory ofthe Faith an d Order Mofemenl l927-I96j


5/18

T H E E C O N O M I C A L R E V I E W Volume 60 Number J July 2008

T he third assembly of the W C C at N ew Delhi met in 1961, only eleveyea rs after th e T oronto statemen t. T he appro ach to the natu re of visible

un ity differed significantly from the central comm ittee at T oron to. I nsteadof avoiding a pronouncement on the nature of the unity sought by theW C C , they offered a definition of organic unity which framed (more thanthe T oronto statement) the 20th cen tury deb ates on the goal of ecumeni-cal dialogue. T he N ew D elhi statement on unity is widely regarded as thetouchston e for the W orld C ouncil of C hu rche s' position on visible unityM ichael Kinnam on argu es that the 1961 definition of unity "set the ton e"for the twentieth cen tury ecumenical m ovem ent.'" Similarly, H ard ingM eyer describes it as the"magna carta of the twentieth century ecumeni-cal m ovem ent"." A ccording to M eyer, the N ew Delhi statement laid outboth "the nature of unity" and "its constitutive elements", thus offering afoundational definition upon which all subsequent concepts of unitybuild.'2

T he N ew Delhi statement is ground breaking in the ecumenical m ovementin its specificity in exp ressing the n atu re of its goal. T he assembly report,

after two deliberative sessions and amendments, produced the followingstatement on unity:

W e believe that the unity which is both God's will and his gift to his C hurchis being made visible as all in each place who are baptized into Jesus C hristand confess him as L ord and Saviour are brought by the H oly Spirit intoone fully committed fellowship, holding the apostolic faith, preaching theone Gospel, breaking the one bread, joining in common prayer, and havinga corporate life reaching out in witness and service to all and who at the

same time are united w ith the whole C hristian fellowship in all places andall ages in such ways that ministry and members are accepted by all and thatall can act and speak together as occasion requires for the tasks to whichGod calls his people.'^

N ew Delhi specifically outlined the unders tandin g of visible unity. T hena ture of the unity described b y N ew Delhi is one of locally visible, fullycom mitted fellowship. T his is expressed in the key w ord s, "all in each

' M ichael Kinnamon,Truth and Community:Dimr,)ity and j Limitj in the EcumenicalMovement, E^rdmans, Grand


6/18

Erin Miehele Brigham COMMU NICATIVE A CTIONS AS AN AI-PROACHTO E C U M E N I C A L D I A L O G U E

place'. Visible unity, according to this model, isan expression of a sharedlife by people who occupy a common place. The goal of unity in each

place aims to overcome divisions that are experiencedin the real-life con-texts of Christians living together in various localities. This understand-ing of unity "in each place" is expressedin the model of organic union.Asthe model connotes, organic union may be likened toa living organism ,inwhich all parts function together to support and sustain the life oi thewhole. Organic unity means unityat the most foundational basis,m eachlocality. It requires a high level of commonality (although not uniformity)as to be described as one church, includinga common authoritative min-istry that can speak and act on behalfof the whole church.' ' '

New Delhi's vision of unity makes high demands on the churches in termsof adjusting one's confessional identity. Organic union, Melanie May sug-gests, requires a "death and rebirth of churches as we know them".'*Like'wise, Michael Kinnamon pointsout this tension between organicunity and confessional diversity, stating, "There seems little doubt that thedominant opinion of the WCC,at least through the New Delhi assembly,

was that church unity and confessional identity are fundamentallyopposed".'^ Although the model of organic union has since been chal-lenged by those who argue for the legitimacy of confessional diversity.New Delhi did set the tonefor discussions on visible unityin many ways.This is evident in the way in which the subsequent statements on unityexplicitly express their continuity with New Delhi.

The fourth assembly of the World Council of Churches in Uppsala in

1968 developed the them e of catholicity. Th is theme allowed the assem bl)to emphasize the universality of the church. The assembly declared itscon tinuity w^ith N ew Delhi, affirming its m andate to m anifest u nity to "alin each place". The Uppsala assembly builds upon New Delhi, stilting:

So to the emphasis on "all in each place" we would now adda fresh under-standing of the unity of all Christians in all places. This calls the churches inall places to realize that they belong together and are called to act togetherIn a time when human interdependence is so evident,it is the more imper-


7/18

T H E E C O N O M I C A L R J E V I E W Volume 60 Number j July2008

tive to make visible the bonds which unite C hristians in universal fellowship.17

T he U ppsala repo rt provided the imp etus for the fifth assembly inN airob i (1975) to emphasize the concept of conciliarity. C onciliarity pro-vides a tangible and efficacious realization of catholicity. It is the way inwhich churches can act together in each place and make their bond visi-ble to the world. T he N airobi repo rt affirms the N ew^ Delhi statemen t onunity and explicitly declares that conciliarity is meant to complement, notreplace, organic unity. T hey carefully refute suggestions that conciliarity

may be an alternative m odel to organic unity. R ather, conciliar fellowshipis presented as a complement to organic union. T he N airobi assemblystates:

T he term, "conciliar fellowship" has been frequently misunderstood. I t doesnot look towards a conception of unity different from that full organic unitysketched in the N ew Delhi statement, but is rather a further elaboration ofit. T he term is intended to describe an aspect of the life of the one undivid-ed C hurch at all levels ... T rue conciliar fellowship presupposes the unity ofthe C hurch.'

T he seventh assembly at C anbe rra (1991) highlighted the biblical themeo koinonia as a model for union . T his model presents the ch urch as a com-munion of com munions ^vhich is modelled on the life of the T rinity. T hemodel reflects the ecclesiological studies of Fa ith and O rd er tha t led up tothe Fifth W orld C onference of Faith and O rd er in Santiago deC ompostela, Spain (1993). T he conferencedescrihed koinonia as rooted inthe life of the T rinity, inseparable from par ticipa tion in com munity life,and expressed in witness and service to the world.'^ T he Faith and O rde rcommission s report stresses thatkoinonia is not a new model of unity. Itis the foundation of all of the existing models of unity but it does notreplace any of them.^^ T he re port does no t make a specific reference to themodel of organic unity, bu t at no point is it challenged. T his could reflect

" W orld C ouncil of C hurches,The Uppjala Report 1968: OfficialReport of the Fourth Ai.ienibiy of the World Council ofChurches, W C C , C eneva , 1968, p . l7 .


8/18

Erin MichcU Brigham COMMUNICATIVE ACTIONS AS AN APPROACH TOE C UM E NI C AL D I A L O G U E

the awareness of multiple models of union that emerged in the past fewdecades, w^hich challenged the model of organic union.

The ninth and most recent assembly in Porte Alegre (2006) quotes thCanberra assembly in affirming the modelo koinonia as the visible unitywe seek. Porto Alegre invites churches to discern how they may enter intfuller koinonia with each other, stressing that the unity sought will be "oneness in rich diversity".^' In addition to the previously mentioned features of unity, including catholicity and conciliarity, Porto Alegre invitethe churches to embrace "mutual accountability" as a characteristic o

ecclesial unity. Mutual accountability requires churches to recognize theneed for each other. Furthermore, it suggests that "Each church musbecome aware of all that is provisional in its life and have the courage tacknowledge this to other churches".^^ The ninth assembly carefullaffirmed ecclesial diversity, while acknowledging the provisional character of denominational differences.

From N ew D elhi to Po rto Alegre, one can observe a significant broad ening in the W C C s und erstand ing of visible unity. The vision of organiunion pres ented at Ne'w D elhi engendered a great deal ot enthusiasm fa certain kind of visible unity. As the century progressed however, alternative models emerged, placing organic unity alongside other visions. Thmultiplicity of visions of the ecumenical goal reflects diverse theologicapproaches to ecumenism. Perhaps the shift away from certainty in thnature of the ecumenical goal has contributed to the ecumenical crisis twhich Raiser refers. I argue, ho-wever, in hg ht of the princip les of comm u

nicative action, that the loss of certainty in the goal may benefit the ecumenical movement.

MethodologyThe scope of this paper does not allow for a comprehensive analysis oJ rg en H ab erm as' complex and interdisciplinary thou ght. The aim of thsection is to introduce the theory of communicative action to the extenthat it will facilitate understanding of my application of its principles t

21 World Council of Churches 9th Assembly Porto Alegre 2006 "Called to be One Church" fro


9/18

T H E ECONOMICALREVIEW Volume 60 Number 3 July 2008

ecumenical dialogue. In order to accomplish this, I will address the fol-lowing themes: how^ Habermas develops communicative rationality,how

he distinguishes between strategic and comm unicative action, how hedif-ferentiates types of discourse and consensus.

In a post-modern context, Habermas standsout as one of the "last greatrationalists \^^ In an intellectual era largely defined by its rejection ofEnlightenment themes, Habermas argues thatthe project of modernity isincomplete. He advocates for a critical retrieval of the modern emphasison reason. Recognizingthe problems wîththe Enlightenment useof sub-

ject-centred reason, Habermas arguesfor a paradigm shift towardsaninter-subjective understanding of rationality. This can be accomplished,he argues, through a change of philosophical framewôrks. Habermas'rationality isto be understoo d in the paradigm of language rathe r thantheparadigm of consciousness. The model of reason that emerges in the par-adigm of consciousness which dominated Western philosophy fromDescartes to Kant, Habermas argues,is characterized by the relationshipbetween subject and object. Within this framework, the rational subject

gains access to truth through its ability to grasp reasonable objects.Rationality, in this model, is located either in the realm of subjects orobjects, failing to acknowledge the w ay in which we come to knowledgeinter-subjectively. '^'^

This model of reason, Habermas argues, which locates truthin the sub-ject or the object necessarily falls into either positivismor relativism. Thisdichotomy can be overcome only through the paradigm of language,which locates knowledge in the social realm of inter-subjectivity.Habermas seeks to reinterpret the modern understanding of reason fromwîthin the framework of language in his development of communicativerationality. Habermas suggests that communicative rationality avoidsthepitfalls of relativism and positivism, providing a helpful framework foraddressing our post-metaphysical age. On one hand, the framework ofcommunicative rationality acknow^ledges that truthis historically locatedand open to critique. On the other hand, it affirms the rational character


10/18

Erin Michle Brigham COMMU NICATIVE ACT IONS AS AN APPROAC HTO E C U M E N I C A L D I A L O C U E

of knowledge, opening the possibilityfor reaching a shared truth throughinter-subjective understanding.^^

Communicative rationality provides the foundationfor Habermas 'of communicative action. The theory analyzes how we coordinatethoughts and actions through the way in which we use language.Ultimately, Habermas wants to describe the formal pragmatics of lan-guage. That is to say, he seeks to demonstrate, in his theory of commu-nicative action, that thereis a universal rational structure behind humancommunication. The universal aspect of language is not found on a

semantic level, Habermas points out. Rather,it is our hum an ability to uselanguage, or our communicative competence that is universal .Communicative competence is not about putting sentences togetheraccording to the grammatical laws of our particular language. Rather,itrefers to our ability to do something effectively in the act of saying some-thing. Habermas uses the speech act theory of John Austin and J o h nSearle to reinforce this principle. Speech act theo ry distinguishes betweenthree aspects of communication: locutionary (saying something), perlocu-

tionary (having an effect on the hearer through saying something)andillocutionary (doing somethingby saying something).^^ Habermasis par-ticularly interested in the illocutionary aspect of speech acts; namely, w ha twe are doing through w^hatwe are

Using the distinction between perlocutionaiy and illocutionary acts,Habermas argues that communicationis primarily aimed tow^ards under-standing. The illocutionary aimsof a speech act are evident to both par-

ticipants in communication because they are built into the structureof thespeech act itself. Conversely, the perlocutionaiy aimsof a speech act arelocated in the intention of the speaker. They can be unknow^nto the hear-er. The success of illocutionary acts is measured by the degree of under-standing that they facilitate between speakerand hearer. The success ofthe perlocution cannot be measured in the speech act itself and are sec-ondary to the illocutionaiy success of understanding.^'' From this obser-vation, Habermas concludes that the fundamental goal behind language-


11/18

T H E E C O N O M I C A L R E V I E W Volume60 Number3 July 2008

use is mu tual und erstandin g. A ll other goals are secon dary and "parasitic"to language oriented towards mutual understanding.^^ So an individual

may use communication for a purpose other than the facilitation of mutu-al und erstand ing bu t this is secondary to the primary function of comm u-nication itself.

T his reflection prov ides the foundation for H ab erm as ' definition of com-municative action. C om municative action is "the type of interaction inwhich all participants harmonize their individual plans of action with oneanother and pursue their illocutionary aims without reservation".^^ So,

perlocutionary aims, w^hich come from the intention of individual partici-pants and are not harmonized wîth the other intentions of other partici-pants in the communicative encounter, do not make up communicativeaction. H aberm as defines such acts, which are aimed toward s individualsuccess rather than mutual understanding, as strategic.^" Strategic aimscan interfere wîth the process of communicative action because, as sug-gested in H abe rm as' definition, comm unicative action req uires that allintentions of the participants must be harmonized. If one or more partic-ipant holds an undisclosed aim, then the other participants are not free toenter into the conversation wîthout reservation.

The binding force of communicative action, that which motivates partici-pants to coordinate their actions together, must lie in the rational force ofthe illocutions themselves. This is unlike strategic action, w^hich must relyon non-rational means of cohesion (a participant cannot rationally engagein the speech act if he or she is not a^vare of all perlocutionary aims).H aberm as describes the rationally binding structure of communicativeaction in his description of validity claims. H e identifies d ifferent validityclaims that are built into speech acts themselves including truth, rightnessand truthfulness.^' Distinctions between speech acts are understood interms of their illocutionary function (constatives, regulatives and expres-sives) and the reality to wh ich they refer (objective, subjective and social).Together, these elements make up the organizational structure ofH ab erm as' theory of comm unicative action.


12/18


13/18


pants enter freely into agreement by assenting to the most rational argu-ment. H e admitted tha t the ideal speech situation is "often counterfactu-

al" but that it serves as a regulating principle for the discursive process.^În his most rece nt v^ôrks, H aberm as presents a revision of his earlier the-ory of tru th. N ow, he offers a more realist rath er tha n idealist notion oftruth, which emphasizes the importance of the observable world as themeasure of truth rather than an ideal speech situation.^''

C onstructive proposal

In his theory of comm unicative action, H abe rm as articulates a w ay tounderstand how people coordinate their ideas and actions through com-munication. In a sense, ecumenical dialogue highlights the same thing:how the churches coordinate ideas and actions through communication.T herefore, I wo uld like to dem onstrate how the theory of comm unicativeaction supports and challenges the developments in contemporary under-standings of ecumenism. I suggest that the theory of communicativeaction may be applied both as an analytical tool and as a constructiveapp roach to ecumenical d ialogue. A s a tool of analysis, it sheds light onsome of the assumptions behind the goal and nature of ecumenical dia-logue that have been articulated throughout the history of the ecumenicalmovem ent. A s a constructive approach , comm unicative action p resen tsprinciples for ecumenical dialogue in the contemporary pluralistic contextof the 21st century.

M y application of H abe rm as' methodology to ecumenical dialogue isorganized under twô sections. In the first section, "what kind of unity", Iwill analyze the various understandings of the goal of ecumenical dia-logue, exploring how models of unity have been presented in the contextof 20th century ecumenism. Using H ab erm as ' distinction between com-municative action and strategic action, I will suggest that using a pre-established model of unity can pre-suppose the goal of ecumenical dia-logue and actually be a hindrance to the unifying process of dialogue. Inthe second section, "what kind of dialogue", I will use H ab erm as' types ofdiscourse and levels of consensus to develop an understanding of how


14/18

Erin Michle Brigham COMMUNICATIVE A C T I O N S A SA N A I ' P R O A C HT O E C U M E N I C A L D I A L O C U I

ecumenical dialogue can facilitate unity in difference.In this section, \ willargue that the process of dialogue can be unifying in itself and thatcon-

sensus can serve as a regulative ideal but it does not have to be realizedfor the success of ecumenism.

What kind of unity: Reflectionson the goalEarlier I asserted that the lackof certainty can be an cisset for ecumenicaldialogue from the perspective ofthe theoryof communicative action. Thisassertion is grounded in H ab erm as' distinction between com municativeand strategic action.The goal of communicative action is mutual under-standing, which Habermas findsto be built into the very telod of commu-nication. Conversely, strategic action follows additional goals thatareadded by individual participantsand are not necessarily agreed uponbyall communicators. In making this distinction, Habermas demonstrateshow the goalsof communication shape the w^ayin which it is approac hed.

From this perspective,if the World Council of Churches elevatesa par-ticular model of unity prior to consensus on the model from all pai tici-

pants, it pre-supposes a goal prior to mutual understanding.I would liketo suggest that sucha presupposition of organic unity as the goal of ecu-menical dialogue is not compatible with communicative action. The theo-ry of communicative action stressesthe need for each participant to bewilling to enter into the dialogue without coercionin regard to the goal.Since the model of organic unity doesnot resonate with each church,itcannot serve as a shared goal.

The theory of communicative action would locatethe nature of visibleunity as a topic of the dialogue in order to reach mutual understanding-prior to defining it in terms of the goal of the dialogue. This principlerequires openness from the churches and neutrality on the part of theWorld Council of Churches in regard to the nature of the unity we seek.Churches mustbe able freely to exchange understandingsof visible unitywithout directing their encounters towardsthe preferred modelof organ-ic unity. The role ofthe World Councilof Churches, in this sense, would

be to facilitate such a free exchange through maintaining ecclesiologicalneutrality.


15/18


edging the ecclesial status of other ch urches . T he statemen t also g uaran -teed the ecclesial neutrality of the W orld C ouncil of C hurch es, d eclaring

that it does not favour a particular ecclesiology nor does it claim to havethe status of super-church. T he principles of comm unicative action w ouldresonate with the T oronto statement that "mem bership in the W orldC ouncil does not imply the acceptance of a specific d octrine concerningthe na ture of unity."^* T his s tatem ent resists stra tegic action by re_)ectingthe imposition of a particular ecumenical goal onto the churches. It invitesa free exchange of ideas on the nature of visible unity; hence, it aims forunderstanding prior to any secondary goals in the dialogue.

I argue that the contemporary ecumenical context is particularly con-ducive to supporting the principles of comm unicative action. R ather thanunderstanding the current ambiguity in terms of crisis, I suggest that it isan opp ortunity to reclaim the foundational principles of the T oronto state-men t. T he decline of certainty a bo ut the n atu re of visible unity allows usto affirm the plurality of legitimate models and enter into the process ofcoming to mutual understanding.

W hat kind of dialogue: R eflections on the processA s previously mentioned, m utual understan ding , the goal of comm unica-tive action is achieved through the free assent to rationally justifiablevalidity claims. T his process is mad e explicit throu gh discourse, in wh ichthe validity claims are brought forward and assessed on the basis of theirrational force. Un ders tand ing , in H ab erm as' view, implies a level of con-

sensus on the validity claims raised in the discourse. H owever, asH ab erm as' develops his discourse theory, particularly in his wo rk onethics and political theory, he presents different types of discourses thatrender m ore complex the notion of consensus. H aberm as differentiatesbetween truth claims in reference to the empirical world and authenticityclaims in reference to one's ethical-existential or ethical-pohtical projects.In H ab erm as' view, the claim to authenticity does not necessitate u niver-sal consensus in the same way that empirical or moral validity claims do.

H abe rm as' discourse theory invites us to ask wh at type of discourse mostsuitably describes ecum enical dialogue. T his question is significant


16/18

Erin Michle Brigham COMMUNICATIVE ACTIONS ASAN APPROACH TO ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE

because the type of discourse shapes the kind of validity claims that areraised and aims at different levels of justificator;)'^ consensus.

I argue that ecumenical dialogue is best understood within Habermas'category of ethical-political discourse. This typeof discourse, accordingtoHabermas, aims to establish w hat is good and true for a particular groupin light of their story, tradition and values. It does not aim to establish uni-versal m oral norms that applyto people in general, regardless of theirpar-ticular contexts. Furthermore, the dialogue does not raise truth claimsabout the empirical world. While thereis an empirical dimension to thechurch, it is also an object of faith for a particular group . This cannotbejustified through empirical truth claimsor claims about humanity in gen-eral. Ex:umenical dialogue cannotbe removed from the context of theChristian narrative. The topics of dialogue, the participants in the dia-logue and the goal of the dialogue are all grounded in the belief in theChristian church. It relies on the assumption that Christ laysthe founda-tion for a unified church, that this church continuesto exist despite visi-ble divisions and that there is a not-yet dimension to the church that will

be realized in the future.According to Habermas, ethical-political discoursesdo not necessitate thesame level of consensus for their justification as empirical truth claims.Con sensus servesas a regulatory principle for the process but it is an idealthat does not require achievement for the success of the discourse. In lightof this principle, I would like to stress the success of ecumenical dialoguedespite the persistence of disagreements. The process of dialogue aimedat m utual un derstan ding is unifyingin itself. This realization is particular-ly inspiring in an age of ecumenical uncertainty.

ConclusionWhile the lack of certainty about the goal of the ecumenical movementmay cause anxiety for some ecumenists, it also provides the opportunityfor discovering something new.I have argued that communicative actionis an appropriate model for ecumenical dialogue in this context of uncer-

tainty. It allows us to see the unifying potential in the pursuit of open andhonest communication itself. The lack of a preconceived, empirical goalis


17/18


C oming together in mutual understanding and coordinating our actionsbased on this mutual und erstand ing is unifying initself. T he goal of mutu-

al understanding through communicative action does not replace the goalof unity. R ather, it facilitates th e ongoing process tow ard s full an d visibleunity. Finally, I think that suspending our pre-understandings of visibleunity affirms that the ecumenical movement is, at its core, the work ofGod . W e do not know w hat the church will ultimately look like becauseat its deepest level, it is a mystery. H owever, we can and sho uld acknow l-edge the unity that we presently share as we engage in the communica-tion that will bring communion.


18/18

communicative action, approach to ecumenical

Documents