Document
We are meeting this time for the 60th meeting of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA) of the World Council of Churches (WCC). This meeting of the CCIA coincides with the centenary of the Universal Christian Conference on Life and Work which was held in 1925 in Stockholm, Sweden. The Stockholm Conference paved the way for the emergence of the Life and Work Movement within the twentieth century ecumenical movement, followed by another conference in 1937 in Oxford, England, where more systematic plans were envisaged for the church’s participation in international affairs. These efforts culminated almost ten years later in the 1946 Cambridge Conference of world church leaders, which led to the development of the CCIA—an outcome of the growing cooperation among churches in the 20th century.
Stockholm -1925; Life and Work Movement
Since the 1925 Stockholm Conference, churches realised that they could not exercise influence on the world stage only within their nations or by the mere fact of their existence as churches in a particular country. It was in this context that the representatives of churches from different nations came forward to organise themselves and bring their own perspectives to bear on the problems of international life. When we look at the issues and themes deliberated at the 1925 Life and Work Conference, it becomes evident how those issues faced by the world were addressed within the framework of the “Church’s Obligation in View of God’s Purpose for the World”. The Stockholm Conference addressed a number of issues identified in the post-First World War context, such as economic and industrial problems, social and moral challenges, the role of the church in international relations, the universal character of the church, the church’s duty to teach brotherhood, problems related to race, the role of the church in furthering peace and removing causes of war, alliances for promoting international friendship, the duty of the Christian to the nation and the State, the substitution of law for war in settling international disputes, the legal order and its extension beyond national boundaries based on Biblical revelation, and Christian Love making for reconciliation (Report of The Universal Christian Conference on Life and Work, held in Stockholm, 1925, Longmans Green and Co: New York, 1926, p.14).
The opening words of Archbishop of Sweden at the 1925 Stockholm Conference reminded the gathering:
“When the spirit of God visits humanity, it is the same flame that is kindled in human hearts, although land and water separate them… The misery of the world, our fellowship around the Cross of Christ, the call of the Master to us to realize through Life and Work the visible unity for which He prayed, after many vicissitudes, hindrances, prayers, counsels, and other preparations, has brought Christian men and women together from almost every part of the globe.”
We recall now this statement of the organiser and chief architect of the 1925 Stockholm Conference, especially in light of the innumerable crises we face in our contemporary context. It has often been noted that “never before had such a representative assembly of church leaders been seen in Europe.” Today, we ask ourselves: what made this conference important one hundred years ago? What makes us still remember what happened in Stockholm, one hundred years later?
In the history of twentieth century Christian ecumenism, the Life and Work movement represents the attempt of Protestant and Orthodox churches to reach consensus on the church universal’s practical role in society. The movement began with a preliminary conference held in 1920 in Geneva, and culminated in two world councils: one in Stockholm in 1925, and another in Oxford, England in 1937. In between, a loosely constructed Continuation Committee, and then a formally constituted Council for Life and Work maintained the ideals of the movement. Its formal end came in 1938 when it was incorporated into the preliminary founding stages of the World Council of Churches.
Oxford-1937
Between the 1925 Stockholm Conference and the Oxford Conference in England in 1937—and later, in 1946, when the Cambridge Conference was organised by the World Council of Churches during its formation and the CCIA was initiated—the messages from the 1925 Stockholm Conference played a significant role in addressing emerging issues in international affairs from the perspective of the Christian faith. In other words, the impact of the 1925 Stockholm Conference transmitted and reflected beyond that period and continues to be reflected in the work of the CCIA, including its ecumenical advocacy at the United Nations (UN).
It is also important, at this stage, to look back at the significance of the Second World Conference held in Oxford in 1937, which was a continuation of the Stockholm Conference. The Oxford Conference focused on the theme “Church, Community and State.” It took place amidst an equally grave political and economic situation unfolding around the world. The hope that social and political reforms in the world would resolve problems had dimmed, and the likelihood of another world war loomed on the eve of the Oxford conference. In such a context, the Oxford Conference stated Christians had no other choice than to make use of “the principle of justice as the relative expression of the commandment of love in any critique of economic, political and social institutions.” Ans J. van der Bent, a former Director of the WCC Library in Geneva, recorded that the Christian response in a world of crisis, that the shadow of totalitarianism and threat of war, was also evident in the World Missionary Conference held in Tambaram, India, in 1938. The Conference recognised the need for universal fellowship of Christians actively committed to international reconciliation, despite ecclesiastical divisions.
The need for more concrete actions became evident in the thinking of global church leaders who were in the forefront of the Life and Work movement. As a result of such discussions and reflections, and within that particular context, steps were taken to set up a Joint Committee of the International Missionary Council and the World Council of Churches, then in the process of formation, to respond to the emerging international issues. Organisations committed to the messages of the Uppsala and Oxford conferences—such as the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America (FCC), founded in 1908, and the British Commission on Christian Social Responsibility—convened an international round table conference at Princeton in 1943. The focus of the Princeton Round Table conference was to work towards consensus on the problems of reconstruction and establishing a new order in the post-war world. Discussions centered on how the hoped-for peace would be structured in the international context, as the League of Nations had not proved effective in the international arena. A series of World Order Study Conferences were organised in the US to initiate discussion on how a new United Nations (based on the anti-fascist military alliance of the Western powers, China, and Russia) might be structured.
Through the initiatives of the US churches, a programme was developed which was known as "Six Pillars for Peace". The six broad areas of focus included: 1. Peace and Human Rights; 2. Peace and Justice; 3. Peace and Equality; 4. Peace and Democracy; 5. Peace and Development; 6. Peace and Dialogue. The "Six Pillars for Peace" framework was a way of understanding the complex and multifaceted nature of peacebuilding. It provided a useful roadmap for peacebuilding strategies and served as an important corrective to the draft charter for the UN which had been produced at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference in Washington, D.C. An appeal was made at that time for the inclusion of human rights provisions in the UN Charter, as well as for a revision of the draft Charter to recognise NGOs, what today would be called "civil society" as a counterbalance to a structure of governmental powers alone. It was also felt that the democratisation of the UN which would recognise the role of the great powers should also giving a say to all nations, irrespective of size – bigger or smaller, within the emerging UN mechanism.
When the US government decided to include a group of consultants in its delegation to the San Francisco Conference, representatives of religious groups also were included. The consultants representing the non-governmental sectors argued their conviction that “the Charter of the United Nations could not be merely a skeleton without flesh and blood;” that it was especially vital to create a commission on human rights to enforce fundamental human freedoms. Twenty-one consultants signed a letter (May 2, 1945) addressed to Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, who was Chairman of the Delegation of the United States to the United Nations Conference on International Organisation, with a memorandum of proposals to the US delegation for Charter Amendments. In the letter of memorandum, they specifically alerted the US delegation to present and argue the need for:
“The ultimate inclusion of the equivalent of an international Bill of Rights in the functioning of the organization is deemed of the essence of what is necessary to preserve the peace of the world.
The dignity and inviolability of the individual must be the cornerstone of civilization. The assurance of every human being of the fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is essential not only to the domestic but also to international peace.”
During discussions on this issue, several NGO representatives spoke. Prof. O. Frederick Nolde of the Federation of Churches of Christ in the USA, the first speaker presenting the proposals on behalf of this group, explained the contents of the joint memorandum. (“Human rights and the UN Charter: NGOs made the difference, Felice Gaer, Universal Rights Group, https://www.universal-rights.org/human-rights-and-the-un-charter-ngos-made-the-difference/). Nolde, who later became the first Director of the CCIA, argued successfully for adjustments, which would follow the lines of the "Pillars for Peace". The collective advocacy efforts of churches, as a follow-up of the Six Pillars of Peace initiative, were found to be relevant and produced good results, which garnered more enthusiasm for consistent work in this specific area as part of Christian faith and witness.
Stockholm 1925 to Cambridge-1946, and formation of CCIA
A post-Second World War ecumenical conference was convened in Cambridge, England in 1946 in which more than sixty church leaders from sixteen countries attended. It was at this historic conference that the decision was made to set up a Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA) under the joint sponsorship of the WCC and the International Missionary Council (IMC); the seeds sown at the 1925 Stockholm Conference had begun to yield fruit. It is against this background that we find the pathways to the CCIA’s formation, as well as the rationale and objectives behind the development of the present CCIA. In the same year, the CCIA was recognised by the UN as one of the first non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with consultative status. Since then, the CCIA has maintained formal consultative relations with the UN on behalf of the WCC. An early consultation developed the aims of the new Commission, which remain largely unaltered in the present by-laws of the CCIA. The thrust of the Life and Work movement—cantered on addressing practical concerns like social justice, economic inequality, global cooperation, and other concerns—heavily influenced the agenda and discussions of the 1946 Cambridge Conference. The Life and Work movement's emphasis on practical action and social responsibility played a key role in shaping the role of churches in addressing international issues.
It should also be seen in the context of how the Life and Work movement contributed to the formation of the WCC, particularly through the merging of different streams in WCC when it was officially launched in 1948 at the Amsterdam Assembly. Unlike the Faith and Order Movement, whose principal concern was theological, Life and Work emphasised the practical cooperation among separated churches in the moral, ethical, and social application of Christian faith in a fragmented world. It stressed the relation of the Christian faith to society, politics, conflicts, war, and the shattered economy in the post-war situation.
The Universal Christian Conference on Life and Work in Stockholm was a beginning, a bare beginning, but it opened up wide vistas of hope. The Stockholm Conference had great significance for Swedish ecumenism. It led to the founding of the Svenska Ekumeniska Nämnden (SEN) in 1933, which was later re-organised to become the Christian Council of Sweden in 1992. During visits to the WCC headquarters, the Christian Council of Sweden often made efforts to interact with the International Affairs staff. In my capacity as the then Director of CCIA, I was assigned to meet with the Christian Council of Sweden delegation twice in the context of the International Ecumenical Peace Convocation (IEPC) organised by WCC in 2011, which was coordinated by the CCIA. It is heartening to note that the Christian Council of Sweden has become a broader ecumenical meeting place now, when compared to what was possible 100 years ago. While the Roman Catholic Church and the Pentecostal movement were not invited to the Stockholm Conference in 1925, they are now full members of the Christian Council of Sweden. The Christian Council is leading the centennial activities this year under the theme “Time for God’s Peace.” The churches in Sweden believe that this theme unites them with those who gathered for the Stockholm conference in 1925. The horrors of the First World War were still a reality in the minds of some among the older generation in Europe, who had heard the stories passed down from their ancestors.
The commemoration of the Stockholm Conference once again provides an opportunity to remind churches across the world to take the initiative as peacemakers. Peace-making is a priority for churches in its ministry. Every time is a time for God’s peace, as the world needs peace today more than ever before, especially when war and other conflicts are ravaging the world. As we gather here for the 60th meeting of the CCIA, it is yet another occasion to reflect on the role of the CCIA in equipping and accompanying churches in their efforts towards peacebuilding. It is also an opportunity for the CCIA to review and set its strategies and priorities to address some of the crucial issues the world is facing today in several regions, including the ongoing threats to peace and security in different parts of the world.
Global Trends: Ecumenical Responses and CCIA Priorities
It is generally assumed that the world is passing through one of the most divided times since the Cold War. Within such a short span of time since the beginning of 2025, the world has witnessed stunning changes and challenges. Deepening divisions, mistrust, and fragmentation are reshaping international relations. Emerging trends have led to a dearth of global cooperation in addressing geopolitical, geo-economic, geostrategic, and humanitarian concerns. What we are witnessing today is fragmentation within a multipolar global order. Such a trend often enforces rules and norms created by middle and great powers for selfish goals. However, the Western-led global order is not expected to decline so soon and will likely continue to hold prominent influence for some more time. Meanwhile, alternative power centres are likely to strengthen, led not only by China but also by key emerging powers including India and the Arabian Gulf states. The intervention of some oil-rich Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, during Trump’s recent visit to the Middle East—resolving certain West Asian crises such as in Syria and Iran—is a clear example of the growing influence and strength of non-Westen powers in international politics.
It has been predicted that these global trends will continue to be fractured across geopolitical, environmental, societal, economic, and technological domains. The world is experiencing a surge in conflicts, accompanied by weakening or diminishing of security, mutual trust, and a collective sense of shared values. Involuntary migration, internal displacement, and denial of human rights and civic freedoms are further eroding social stability. Environmental threats have aggregated in most parts of the world, and extreme weather conditions are foreseen to become an even more serious concern. While technological advancements have greatly benefited companies and individuals through modern tools and platforms such as AI, concerns also have been expressed about the adverse impacts and outcomes of AI technologies.
The changes introduced by President Trump within the first three or four months of his presidency have been quite astonishing. Several European leaders have commented on this, “why Europe must urgently redefine its global role and leadership” in the context of recession risks, climate retreat, and collapsing alliances. They observed recent trends such as the United States voting alongside Russia, Belarus, and North Korea against its traditional allies; threats of annexing other territories and countries; escalating trade wars; proposed mass deportations; a near-total cut in US foreign aid—including to various multilateral organisations; thousands of federal workers being laid off; and a marked shift in climate change priorities. These are just a few of the dramatic changes seen in US politics and its foreign policy shifts in less than three months. Economically, the situation has deteriorated significantly. The US economy is entering a risky situation of recession, which is certain to disturb the global economy.
US foreign policy under President Trump’s second term does not give hope in terms of support for European security. His policy towards Ukraine has shown how much European security still depends on American hard power, thirty-five years after the Cold War ended. However, the United States now feels globally over-extended and needs Europe to take more responsibility for its own defence. As economic and political instability persist and a trade war is emerging, Europe and the UK have taken radical fiscal steps. For example, the European Commission’s proposed ‘ReArm Europe Plan/Readiness 2030’ outlines concrete legal and financial means to support the defence investments of Member States. It is an ambitious defence package envisaged by the EU, providing financial levers at the immediate disposal of EU Member States to quickly and significantly increase defence investment and defence capabilities. In Germany, a historic political deal on defence investment was made recently when a two-thirds majority of Bundestag parliamentarians voted to allow a huge increase in defence and infrastructure spending–a seismic shift for the country that could reshape European defence.
The UK has also decided to deepen its defence and security cooperation with the EU. British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has committed to the “largest sustained increase since the Cold War” in defence spending. According to the Prime Minister, this significant investment in the British defence industry is not just about maintaining the country’s defence capabilities, but also about boosting the country’s economy. These decisions could be hugely significant for Europe, especially as Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine grinds on and considering US President Donald Trump’s signals of an uncertain commitment to NATO and Europe's defence.
While President Trump makes eloquent promises regarding his plans to resolve the Ukraine crisis, his rhetoric gives the impression that he may seek to extract diplomatic and military advantages from alliances. This is what a London based journalist Edward Carr stated: “if America is to continue to back Europe, Mr Trump will want something tangible in return, whether on trade, military contracts, or direct payments. He could even do a deal with Mr Putin, over the heads of European leaders, to carve up Ukraine.” Carr further comments that either way, “as members of an explicitly transactional NATO, European countries will no longer feel they can depend on America’s cast-iron promise to fight alongside them if they are attacked.” Another important geopolitical choice for Trump will be how to deal with China. Though its economy is currently weak, China is now a more aggressive and formidable adversary than when Trump first assumed presidency in 2017.
During his trip to the Middle East, President Trump announced the lifting of sanctions on Syria, along with hundreds of billions of dollars in new arms sales and US-Saudi business agreements. What would be the implications of forging strategic relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia? President Trump visited Saudi Arabia after concluding a cease-fire with the Houthis and amid nuclear negotiations with Iran. Although Saudi Arabia was not directly involved in the negotiations, it has influence in both Tehran and Washington. These developments prompt the question of whether the United States is moving its Middle East policy for closer access to Saudi Arabia. It gives the impression that US foreign policy is tilting towards Saudi Arabia's vision for peace and regional security, more so than that of Israel. As Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute commented, “It’s a strategic linchpin, which is a different and new way to think about it than Americans have thought about the Middle East, which is typically associated with endless wars and terrorism.” Trump hopes that Saudi Arabia will join the Abraham Accords and contribute to stability in Middle East region. Additionally, he hopes for a better deal with Iran and stability for the new Syrian government with all sanctions removed.
Although Trump, who launched the original Abraham Accords, wants to expand the framework, the regional dynamics have changed significantly since 2020, when the original accords were signed. The Abraham Accords—normalization deal signed between Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain in 2020—led to formal relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. However, several factors might affect Trump’s plans: Saudi Arabia has moved closer to Iran; the ongoing war in Gaza; continuation of Israel’s existential battle with Iran; and US influence in the region appears less certain than before.
Surge in Conflicts: Alarming Trends
The world is currently preoccupied with major crises in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. The changing nature of war and conflict in some of the most notable conflict areas is alarming. The conflicts we witness today differ significantly from those discussed by church leaders at the Stockholm Conference in 1925, held in the aftermath of the First World War situation, or at subsequent world ecumenical conferences such as the 1937 Oxford Conference or the post Second World War Cambridge Conference in 1946, where the CCIA was formed. The increasing conflicts and war situations, the arms race and procurement of weapons, increased defence spending, internal displacement, growing numbers of refugees and migrants fleeing their ancestral lands for safety and economic security, increased levels of poverty, hunger, economic deprivations, denial of basic human rights, and the lack of access to education and healthcare in conflict-ridden countries and regions remain urgent issues. These realities call for continued engagement in ecumenical advocacy as part of our faith and witness, especially when the world is facing heightened levels of conflicts.
The Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, though its project on the Rule of Law in Armed Conflict (RULAC), has identified more than 110-armed conflict situations in different regions in the world. Some of these conflicts make headlines daily, others do not. Some of them have been lasting for more than 50 years. Among these, more than 45 armed conflicts are taking place in the Middle East and North Africa region. Israel’s ruthless bombing of Gaza since the breakdown of the ceasefire in March has killed over 2,300 Palestinians. Syria, fractured and divided after 13 years of devastating civil war and decades of authoritarian dynasty rule, continues to suffer. Deadly clashes involving Islamist armed factions, security forces, and fighters from the Druze religious minority near Damascus are yet another sign of the continuing fragility of Syria’s security situation.
Although it was expected, and despite reports of continuing talks in Doha during Trump’s visit, no ceasefire in Gaza was announced. However, Israel appears to be pushing forward with its plan to expand its assault on Gaza, resumed strikes on the same day when President Trump concluded his four-day trip to the region. The Israeli military announced the start of “extensive strikes” and troop mobilization in the Gaza Strip as part of a new military operation named “Gideon’s Chariots.” Now that the leaders of seven European nations (Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Slovenia, and Spain) called on Israel to stop its renewed offensive in the Gaza Strip and to permit renewed access by international aid agencies. They expressed fear that “thousands of Gazans could starve to death “unless immediate action is taken,” and called on Israel to stop its renewed offensive in the Gaza Strip and to permit renewed access by international aid agencies. The entire population of Gaza, about 2.1 million people that remain, are facing levels of food shortages that threaten their existence. It was reported recently that “finding a single meal has become an impossible quest.” The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) platform indicated that 2-1 million people, some 93 percent of Gaza’s population is at risk of levels of food insecurity.
In Europe, four out of seven armed conflicts include those between Russia – Ukraine; in Transdniestria (Moldova); South Ossetia and Abkhazia (Georgia); and between Armenia – Azerbaijan (Nagorno Karabakh). It has been widely assumed that the security of Europe might enter a risky and persistent decline. Russia appears to be gaining an upper hand in Ukraine, relentlessly advancing in the east, while the Ukrainian army is being slashed out. Russian president Putin recognises the West’s reluctance to give Ukraine enough money or weapons to defend itself. He perceives the West’s lethargic attitude as a failure to stop Russia, and he rightly surmises that Europe is irresolute and complacent in confronting the shifting geopolitical realities—particularly in light of President Trump’s current policy stance. A UN official stated last week that more than 12,300 civilians have been killed in the Ukraine war since Russia invaded nearly three years ago.
Africa has entered a new era of war and now ranks second in the number of armed conflicts per region, with more than 35 non-international armed conflicts. A surge in Africa’s conflicts has gone largely unnoticed amid higher-profile wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. An unprecedented explosion of conflicts has left a trail of death and destruction across the breadth of Africa—from Mali near the continent’s western edge all the way to Somalia on the eastern Horn. The ongoing civil war has further intensified fighting in South Sudan’s Upper Nile state. Older wars, such as the Islamist uprisings in northern Nigeria and Somalia, and the militia warfare in eastern Congo, have intensified dramatically. New power contests between militarised elites in Ethiopia and Sudan are shuddering two of Africa’s largest and most populous nations. The countries of the western Sahel are now the heart of global jihadism, where regional offshoots of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State clash with each other and with a group of unstable military governments.
Asia is the theatre of 19 non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) involving more than 20 armed groups, which are happening mainly in Afghanistan, India, Myanmar, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia (West Papua), China and The Philippines. Other international armed conflicts between India and Pakistan, and between India and China, are also ongoing in the region. The deadliest militant attack on civilians in Indian-administered Kashmir at the end of April this year triggered a major crisis between India and Pakistan. The Indian Army’s retaliation two weeks later raised the prospect of armed conflict between the nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours. Although a ceasefire has since been reached between the two nations, critical questions remain: Will the crisis now yield peace in Kashmir, where the hotbed of Indo-Pak war remains? Will there be less militancy and terrorism? In addition to these, other international conflicts involving China and Taiwan, North and South Korea, and competing territorial claims in the South China Sea—particularly over the Spratly Islands, involving six claimants. The risk of war in the Taiwan Strait is rising.
Several Latin American countries are grappling with ongoing conflicts and tensions, many of which are fuelled by organised crime. These include widespread violence in Mexico and other nations, internal conflicts in Colombia and Ecuador, and inter-state tensions—most notably between Venezuela and Guyana. The World Council of Churches (WCC) has invested significant time and energy in supporting the Colombian peace process. However, Colombia now faces renewed challenges as violence escalates due to the ELN's offensives against ex-FARC dissidents and rival armed groups. Meanwhile, the territorial dispute between Venezuela and Guyana continues to intensify, tensions persist between the Dominican Republic and Haiti, and unresolved border issues remain between Nicaragua and Colombia.
The shadow of geopolitics looms large over the Pacific Islands region, bringing with it another level of uncertainty, particularly due to the geostrategic competition between the US and China. A significant factor shaping the region’s future is how a new Trump administration might alter policy and funding commitments. U.S. engagement in the Pacific region gained momentum during President Trump’s first term, notably in 2019 when he hosted the leaders of the Compact of Free Association states—Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands—at the White House, a meeting considered pivotal. Subsequently, the Biden administration committed billions of dollars to strengthening security in the region, in response to China’s growing influence. Now, a major shift is expected as US marines start to transfer in large number from Okinawa to Guam. Decolonisation for several territories in the Pacific remains in focus as Papua New Guinea, the region’s largest country, celebrates its 50th anniversary of decolonisation and independence.
What should be the role of CCIA and more specifically the Commissioners?
As we are experiencing numerous conflict situations and humanitarian crises in our surroundings, should we not answerable to the question what is the role of the global ecumenical community and what would be the role of the CCIA in terms of engaging at least the WCC member churches’ involvement and direct action in advocacy? Should we limit our advocacy through issuing statements whenever there is an executive or central committee meeting?
A credible and just peace has many dimensions: peace between people, peace between nations, peace within the communities, peace between beliefs and religions, peace with creation, and peace with God. It concerns all aspects of peace that the Bible calls shalom, and is personified in the person of Jesus Christ.
The World Council of Churches has consistently prioritised peace building and peace advocacy. The CCIA has been specially mandated to work in this particular area, and over the years has focused its efforts through manifold activities. The Peace to the Cities programme, which lasted for several years, and the Decade to Overcome Violence (DOV), started in 2001, were significant programmatic initiatives by the WCC in peacebuilding. These efforts culminated in a major global event—the International Ecumenical Peace Convocation (IEPC)—which brought together diverse voices for peace. All of these were initiated and implemented by the WCC, and coordinated and facilitated by the CCIA.
It is true that we are engaged in certain online discussions every now and then. But what are the concrete steps we can take collectively to ensure more active ecumenical engagement in global advocacy together with WCC member churches and partners? The trend is that WCC has been succumbing to certain external pressures to form separate ecumenical platforms since the early 2000s, and this trend was further cemented by 2010, which had already weakened CCIA and its functions.
When we meet here for the 60th meeting of the CCIA, we are reminded of the long journey of the Commission and all those who have been part of this Commission and its witness in manifold ways over nearly eight decades. The CCIA was born in 1946, even before WCC was officially founded in 1948. Over the past 79 years, the CCIA has met at least 60 times, including this meeting. No other commission in the history of WCC or its various commissions has had such a unique and splendid opportunity to meet consistently. At one point, there were certain attempts within the Council to abandon the CCIA, to change the name of the CCIA, and even attempts to re-register the CCIA in UN ECOSOC solely under the name World Council of Churches, thus eliminating the CCIA part! Fortunately, those efforts were never realised—whether they stemmed from deliberate intention or a lack of understanding of the Commission’s history and tradition. The unique character and distinct mandate of the CCIA were ultimately recognised and upheld. That is the reason why we are still meeting here under the label of CCIA. In 2026, the CCIA will complete 80 years of its ecumenical journey of prophetic witness. I mentioned about this in our meeting last year. We should now consider the options and possibilities for commemorating the 80th anniversary of the CCIA in an appropriate way and I request the members of the CCIA to come up with ideas and suggestions for the staff to move forward.
In the coming days, we will have several opportunities to discuss emerging global trends in international relations and geopolitical developments, as well as our ecumenical responses to these situations. We currently have five Working Groups as part of the CCIA focusing on Peace and Security, Human Rights, Global Governance, Middle East and Refugees, Migration and Statelessness. We shall be receiving reports from these Working Groups, along with their proposals for follow-up actions in the coming years. This will be an opportunity for us to reflect on what we have achieved since our last meeting. We are now analysing, to a certain extent, some of the global and regional issues that warrant our attention, ongoing monitoring, and ecumenical accompaniment. As part of our efforts, we need to undertake follow-up initiatives to respond to emerging situations and different areas of concern. Let us move forward.
Mathews George Chunakara
Moderator of the WCC Commission of the Churches on International Affairs
