EURODIACONIA AGM 2001 in JÄRVENPÄÄ:
Discussion on the Follow up of the Diaconia platform, common strategy process and Diaconia Charter
Introduction by Keith Jenkins:
The process of the Diaconia Forum was extremely important and will be important in the future. So the discussions in the plenaries and the working groups were helpful despite the great intercultural differences. Especially the plenary speeches were very helpful. As a common project the organizing bodies can be very happy about the conference and have already nominated a group for the follow up process.
Introduction by Michael Chalupka:
There are two main outcomes of the issues. (1) The strategy towards a European Academy for Diaconia is most important. (2) We have to identify in Eurodiaconia what is quality. Maybe the follow group should discuss on that issue.
Further proposals for the future are: The concepts of parish diaconia in Scandinavia should be discussed also in other countries, maybe in bilateral ways, but maybe also internationally.
How can we practice sharing of experiences? Where is the place or the way of doing this?
Results of the Group Discussion:
(1) Response from English language group on follow-up of the Diaconal platform and common strategy process (Summary by Ian Sparks)
Better co-operation:
The platform helped to remove prejudice so that co-operation became more possible. However the group was too diverse (we live in different galaxies rather than just different worlds). It would help to focus discussions in three ways:
Where were the Churches?
The absence of church representation (apart from one Bishop, meant that there was no opportunity to discuss the relationship between the Church and diaconal work. It was clear that the relationship with the Church covered a wide range:
Where there was tension or detachment it was felt that the platform could have been used to get the Churches to take diaconia seriously. There is a danger that either the diaconate will be seen merely as a step to the priesthood or the Church will want diaconal organisations to become separate from the Church like secular organisations.
Analysis
It was useful to share stories and experiences but we need to go on to more analysis e.g. on the issue of the diaconate.
Mutual support
We would like to see how organisations from W. Europe can offer real support to those involved in the transformation from former communist regimes. Some possibilities are exchange visits and sharing of ideas and practice and policy levels.
Diaconal Academy
We welcomed this as a concrete step forward for Eurodiaconia provided that it does not become another institution with large buildings. The example of the Open University in the UK and other forms of distance learning would be worth considering.
(2) Summary of the 2nd Working Group (Kimmo Saares):
Positive outputs of the Forum are:
(1) the Exchange of information, but: There is a need for more structured methods
(2) New contacts, networks, innovations and seminars
Observations: Differences still exist. The themes are the same as on the last decade. The group remarked even deepening gaps.
EURODIACONIA as a source of information should work in:
à
development projectsà
fund risingà
innovationsà
materialsBut: The group expresses its concern for a need for realism!
The forum gave hope, that it's possible to influence on the European level. The Dialogue between Institutional diaconia & Parochial diaconia should be undertaken. A final remark to the theological dimensions: contextuality with sound biblical ground should be elaborated in the future.
(3) Summary of the German speaking group (presented by Michael Chalupka):
Wishes from the diaconal side are: to begin a European process on the diaconat.
The group regrets that there where few contact partners of the Church and CEC leadership. Who are the partners in the discussions on the relationship Church - Diaconia?
For a future meeting the group wishes a better preparation in two fields:
To take asimilar example: the Ecumenical Charta gave a lot of impulses. The Diaconia Charta could be an important strategic instrument. So the group asks: Should the process be continued or is it no theme at all?
The Method of the process:
(3) Follow up Process
A balance of expectations of the members should be respected. The process has to be near to the members' realities.
Plenary Discussion:
The AGM wants transparency of the Process: The members shall be informed about the planning, about financial means and issues/ main areas. The press release of the conference will be sent to the members.
Proposal: Until the next AGM each organisation shall sent half a page of those issues or actions that will have been undertaken in the follow up of the Conference.