Growth in Dialogue:
An Interview with Susan E. Davies

by R. Keelan Downton

Faith and Order has grown a lot during your time with the Commission. What, in your observation, are some contributing factors to that growth?

Faith and Order has integrated a wider variety of perspectives in our work in two major ways. The first was actively engaging and inviting new dialogue partners - not just waiting for them to come to us. We didn't send out a blanket invitation, but sought people who were secure enough in their tradition that they could engage controversial issues constructively - that would not feel like they were continually in a position of defending their right to be heard. The second important thing we did was to shift the kinds of questions that we asked. We began to engage questions that addressed the theological and ecclesiological concerns of a wider range of traditions.

What kinds of questions were you asking? How were those different?

The first study group I took part in focused on AIDS. The second was on racism. We were taking situations or concerns that were typically on the margins of theological discourse and putting them in the center to observe what church division looked like from that perspective. Neither of these issues were generally regarded as part of the "traditional" Faith and Order agenda. They were considered ethical issues that belonged to Life and Work. In the racism group, we began by reflecting on ourselves as bearers of structural racism and our personal experiences of racism. This shifted the whole discussion so that no one at the table had the right to say, "our view is the true view, theologically." It was a kind of confession, but that was just the first inch. We did a workshop on undoing racism with ourselves as the focus. The were three White participants and the rest were African American. It was an extraordinary learning experience for me. It helped me get at the racist stuff within me and the racial structures in which we live in a much clearer way - but then we did that for six years.

How did that strategy affect the work of the study group?

It required that we listen to each other with different ears. We were listening to each other both as individual people and as people who were struggling with a significant issue (though obviously from vastly different perspectives). We weren't as interested in the particular perspective of our ecclesiastical tradition. What we were looking at was the larger picture of what the church as a historic body has done and was doing in the creation of and the response to racism. We used the resources and perspectives of our traditions collaboratively to address the issue of racism.

How have the questions that Faith and Order has addressed changed since that time?

More recently we've returned to questions that look more like the classic Faith and Order agenda, but shaped in such a way as to require the inclusion of a much wider perspective than the classic perspective - the Justice and Justification study group, for instance. That kind of question would not have arisen ten or fifteen years ago. But the AIDS and racism study groups did not mean ignoring the “traditional” questions. At any given time there were at least three, and sometimes four, study groups. So even when we were engaging these issues, there were other groups doing the classic thing. Those two initial groups that I was in were consciously and intentionally other.

Did the “otherness” of these groups create a noticeable difference in terms of the demographics of participants?

Of course. All of those who didn't fit into the classic ecumenical categories were there. That's why I liked them. But the kind of questions we're asking now have helped create a Commission where each group has people from a wide variety of perspectives.

How did the Commission decide what questions to study?

For the last ten years we have been asking the churches what they would like us to address with our particular skills. During an earlier period, the groups themselves decided what they wanted to talk about. As we came to the end of the AIDS study, participants brainstormed about what we wanted to deal with in the next study period. In the mid-90's, it was the program committee that proposed topics to churches and to the commission. So the Commission's leadership began to take a little more control over the agenda.

Is there a connection between that process and participation?

A decade ago, there were significant tensions between the Commission and the Council and within the Commission itself during a period when broad participation began to fall off but it would be simplistic to link positive relations with the Council to wider participation. There remain a number of churches for whom participating in anything connected with the Council is risky business. Participation in the commission as well as the subjects considered have always reflected, to some extent, the interests, passions, and commitments of the director. I would say the re-engagement of communions who stopped participating for a time and the influx of new participants is more clearly linked to Ann Riggs' commitment to include a wide variety of people and her knowledge of numerous ecclesiological languages. She conceives of the church more broadly than Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran and is willing to treat the issues of other communions as real issues.