Remembering the Meissen Conversations

Remembering the Meissen Conversations

 

1. When I was invited to offer some reflections on the Meissen Conversations what came flooding back into my mind were not the hours of theological discussions around the table or the hard grind, as one of the Co- Secretaries, drafting the document. What I remembered most were people, growing friendships, a common motivating vision of the unity of the Church and the unity of human community, and a shared longing for reconciliation in a Europe divided between East and West.

 

2. For me, it all began in 1983 when I accompanied the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Robert Runcie, on his visit to the two Germanys to celebrate the five hundredth anniversary of the birth of Martin Luther. In Leipzig the Archbishop expressed publicly the hope for some step forward in the relationship between the Church of England, the Evangelical Church in Germany and the Federation of Churches in the German Democratic Republic. In Dresden on Remembrance Day the Archbishop recalled the terrible fire storm after the Allied bombing and thought too of Coventry. In the church of the Holy Cross, he spoke of reconciliation between Britain and Germany and reconciliation between East and West in a divided Europe. He felt at home in the beautiful Eucharist, similar to the 1662 Anglican rite. The bishop presiding invited the Archbishop to administer the chalice and many, many young people wearing peace badges received the chalice from his hands. The Archbishop was moved as each member taking the chalice responded with deep piety ‘Amen’ to his ‘Christi Leib’. Many leant forward and whispered, ‘thank you for coming - thank you for being with us’.  As we walked away from the service the Archbishop said to me- ‘In Jesus Christ they were saying, ‘‘the man made barriers of politics, class and ideology can be overcome’’- and he pondered ‘they were right’. The Archbishop had been deeply moved when he thought that these were the same people he had faced in the tanks in 1940.  He said with determination that we must do something to bring our churches closer together.  When Archbishop Robert came to introduce the Meissen Common Statement to the General Synod of the Church of England some years later he recalled that celebration in Dresden and the moment of disclosure that it had been for him.

 

3. Shortly after returning to England Archbishop Robert wrote to the Presiding Bishops of East and West Germany suggesting that formal conversations should be set up to explore the way of reconciliation. His overture was met with enthusiastic response and it was not long before Oberkirchenrat Klaus Kremkau and Oberkirchenratin Christa Grengel came to London to discuss with Canon Martin Reardon and me how we might proceed. So began for me friendships that were to form the basis of our working together over the next years, friendships that have continued long beyond the life time of the conversations.

 

4. In the years that followed, under the able chairmanship of Bishop David Tustin, Bishop Stoll, and Bishop Demke, there was so much to learn about one another. This was no ordinary bilateral but a trilateral conversation, with the particular demands that that made. Ingrained on my memory were our meetings in East Germany: the fear of hearing the gate click behind us as we passed through Check Point Charlie; the disbelief that human beings could build and survive behind such a dividing wall; and always the irrational fear that we were being followed or watched. The stark division of the human community only made the division of the churches seem more obscene.  The inextricable relation between the unity of the Church and the unity of human community could never be forgotten in these conversations.  The Church is called to be a sign of the unity God wills for all humanity, a foretaste of the unity of God’s kingdom here on earth. This is the overarching vision with which the Meissen Common Statement begins. It is not a theoretical statement but formed in the brokenness of Europe. The longing for reconciliation was what drove the conversations. As the Dean of Durham, John Arnold, was to say to the General Synod in 1988 -   ‘the origins of this exercise lie in reconciliation: and that reconciliation is the big theological concept within which the little ones find their perspective…’

 

5. The Church of England delegation had also to learn that these tripartite conversations were not simply with one church but with two churches, each consisting of a federation of provinces or Landeskirchen, within two different states, with two different social systems, but, nevertheless, sharing a common history and culture. We had to learn too that we were not only talking to Lutherans but to Reformed and also to United churches, churches which had come together already in the Leuenberg Concordat of 1974.  In order to understand the geographical, political and ecclesial contexts meant learning to listen to the others describe themselves and to leave behind the false stereotypes of one another we carried into the conversations. The fact that we had ecumenical observers with us was a constant reminder of our other partners in the ecumenical movement and of the need to be consistent in what we were saying to them around other tables. Their prayerful accompaniment of the process and their enthusiastic support were important for the success of our work.

 

6. The fact that behind these conversations lay an already treasured relationship between our three churches made the work easier. Never far from our thoughts was the history of the Second World War when informal efforts were made by leaders in the Church of England, notably the outstanding figure of Bishop George Bell to maintain links with members of the Confessing Church, not least among them Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Bishop Hanns Lilje. After the war members of the Church of England worked hard with members of the German churches in the partnership between Coventry and Dresden, and twinnings between other cities. Representatives from the Church of England had been welcomed at the Synod of the EKD and vice versa and close co-operation had been established between officers of the churches. In addition two important series of theological conversations had taken place since 1964.  There was already a network of friendships which formed the seedbed in which the formal conversations could grow and bear fruit.

 

6. This is not the place to give a detailed analysis of the Meissen Common Statement but, re-reading it again some twenty years later, I am impressed by the simplicity of its basic structure. First, we set out the grand theological vision of God’s purpose in creation and the place and role of the Church within that purpose. The friendships experienced in the past, and now around the table, made it natural for us to understand the church as koinonia, communion, grounded in the fellowship of the life and love of God the Holy Trinity. We understood that the personal and relational is prior to the structural and organisational, but that the latter is there to support and nurture that personal and relational life.  We were in no doubt that we desired the full, visible unity of the Church and that though it was impossible to give a blue print  for that, it was possible to offer at least some outline of the constituent elements. Here we could base our description on recent work of the World Council of Churches, thus linking our understanding of visible unity to that of the most representative ecumenical  forum that exists. After some hard theological discussions we took care not to polarise matters by espousing one particular model of unity. We avoided both the descriptions of ‘reconciled diversity’ and ‘organic union’, preferring instead to offer a portrait of visible unity.

 

7. Secondly, it was within this overall framework that we were able to lay out all that we agreed upon, an exciting exercise as we were constantly struck by just how much we held in common. Here we were able to draw upon the fruits of many international dialogues. These were exciting times as we harvested from Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, the results of the Anglican-Lutheran and Anglican- Reformed conversations, all very recently published. We did not have to re-invent the ecumenical wheel but rather to fit ‘existing wheels to our cart’. We sensed that we were blazing a new trail, by weaving the consensus and convergence of theological dialogues into reformed lives and new relationships. Here was a new phase in the ecumenical movement at the end of the ecumenical century, what has more recently been called ‘receptive ecumenism’.

 

8. But there was also realism in our conversations. We recognised that there were differences which had to be named honestly. Perhaps the most discussed paragraph is number 16 which sets out the major difference in our understanding of the role of bishops and the significance of the sign of apostolic succession in the episcopal office. It is a sharp difference which we could not overcome, though, even here, we knew we agreed much about the need for a ministry of oversight. Anglicans believe that full, visible unity and full inter-changeability of ministries require the historic episcopal succession. The Lutheran, Reformed and United Churches do not.  But this did not mean there could be no advance, no commitment made to one another. ‘Even this remaining difference, when seen in the light of our agreements and convergences, cannot be regarded as a hindrance to closer fellowship between our Churches.’

 

9. In the light of the shared vision, an understanding of the Church as koinonia, and the large degree of agreement in faith, we were able to formulate an agreement for our churches to consider signing. The agreement was built on firm acknowledgements of what we recognised in one another and issued in a series of commitments to live in closer fellowship and shared life and mission. There was an amusing moment when the Commission considered the degree of eucharistic sharing that was possible even when there was no single, interchangeable ministry. Ministers might stand together at the altar but not in place of one another. The members had to learn to dance a new choreography and the room suddenly looked more like a ballet school for the retired than a serious theological conversation. But it did represent an advance in eucharistic sharing. The Church of England members had to explain that this was not a concelebration but it does move beyond hospitality to individuals, implying a degree of recognition of churches. The work completed in Meissen, a meeting at which we celebrated the Feast of St Joseph together, we handed our work to our churches to test each in its own decision-making process. I remember well the sense of a task accomplished as we were driven one cold night back from Meissen to Berlin, bidding farewells to our friends behind the Wall not imagining for one moment that by the time we were to celebrate the Agreement that Wall of division would be torn down.

 

10. So began the serious consideration of our work by our churches. For the Church of England this meant two debates in the General Synod, discussions in the House of Bishops, scrutiny by the Faith and Order Advisory Group, and discussions in diocesan synods. There was a poignancy to the first General Synod debate in November, 1988. It took place on the fiftieth anniversary of Reichskristallnacht when throughout Germany Synagogues were pillaged and desecrated and chandeliers brought crashing to the ground. Dean John Arnold spoke movingly  about the churches taking a lead in calling the people of God to a new experience of God’s faithfulness both to his ancient people the Jews, and to the people of the new covenant. He went on:

 

There will be those… asking, what we will get out of greater unity with the German churches …? I will answer from my personal history: the opportunity of sharing not only in a great historical tradition of faithful ness to the gospel, of scholarship, of hymnography, of diaconal and missionary work but also the spiritual fruits of great biblical experiences in our own day of defeat and exile, the division of the kingdom, national repentance, and a thirst for forgiveness and the hope of peace… both pax and shalom.

 

11. When months later on Sunday, July, 8^th 1990, the Meissen Declaration was brought back to the General Synod by the House of Bishops, it was introduced by Archbishop Robert Runcie. He had, he said, a personal and not merely formal commitment to Meissen. He proceeded to tell the Synod another story of that visit to Leipzig for the Luther celebrations. He remembered again the young people and how he had begun by telling them about his own son who had lost his passport on the way to an airport and how James had exclaimed in anger – ‘Why do we need passports?’ To the Archbishop’s astonishment the young people in Leipzig interrupted him with cheers which went on and on.  Now he said to the Synod we have seen those pent up frustrations bring about a revolution. The fact was that the barrier between East and West was being quickly demolished the churches who had played an essential role in its overthrow must not allow division among Christians to take its place. The Archbishop concluded his speech – ‘At a time when our prayer for the ending of the wall of separation between East and West has been dramatically answered, may our churches not falter in answering Christ’s prayer for Christians to be united.’ Sitting in the hall, supporting us, were our friends Oberkirchenrat Klaus Kremkau and Oberkirchenratin Christa Grengel, whose churches had already said ‘yes’ to the Meissen Agreement.

 

12. My memories of the Meissen process began with that visit to East and West Germany in 1983. I could not have imagined then all that it would mean to be a part  of those conversations that lay ahead, nor imagined the celebrations of 1992. What had begun as tripartite conversations between churches in three countries were celebrated in 1992 between two churches, in two countries.  It was as if we had been taking part for a decade in an overwhelming movement of reconciliation in the Church and the world. As the procession moved its way into Westminster Abbey, the singing stopped at the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior and into the silence of remembrance, focussed on that tomb, came words of a prayer of thanksgiving for all those who had died in two great World Wars. Here, captured in a moment, was a reminder of the Church’s vocation to unity and that integral relationship between the unity of the Church and the unity of God’s world. The new relationship brought about through the Meissen Declaration pointed to the reconciling power of God’s grace and was a sign of hope for the future of a Europe in which the dividing wall between East and West had so recently been torn down.  

 

13. If the celebration of the Meissen Agreement in Westminster Abbey provided a moment more powerful than words can express so too did the celebration four days later in Kaiser Willhelm Gedachtnis Kirche in Berlin. The procession entered the church, the representatives took their seats. Then silently, unplanned for, young people carrying banners entered the church: ‘no money for armaments…no to weapons of war’. The sin of division and of violent oppression struggles again with God’s healing and reconciling power for peace and justice. The Church is called to be a sign of healing and reconciliation in a world torn apart by violence. The Meissen Agreement is not a paper agreement but one that commits English and German Christians to live in deeper communion with one another, to show that another way of peace and justice is possible, the reconciliation of past memories of hatred is possible.

 

14. Being a part of the Meissen process was one of the most important experiences of my ecumenical career. It was a great privilege and a time of making lasting friendships across the divide of nations and churches, I am profoundly grateful for the opportunity to be involved in it.

 

Mary Tanner

8.5.09

 

feedback | contact us | links | site map | copyright & disclaimer | privacy | site help
Supported by Ecclesiastical Insurance Group
Site developed by ILRT