| A contribution to the Orthodox reflections on the CUV process, this essay also addresses issues of ecclesiology and the WCC. For Metropolitan Kyrill, the Toronto Statement (with implicit emphasis on Section III, rather than IV) remains normative and binding as a response to these issues. |
Before His death on the Cross our Lord Jesus Christ prayed to His Father for the Unity of the Church: "that they may all be one: even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us" (Jn 17:21). There can be no exception whatsoever to this unity of the disciples of Christ gathered in His Church: every Christian must become a member of the one Body of the Church. It is true that often enough we hear in the debates in Russia mentioned above that this prayer of Christ is to be understood in the framework of the Orthodox Church exclusively and that it is necessary to strive to maintain unity within Orthodoxy. This unity does exist today. But Christ spoke about His inheritance as a whole, about all those who believe in Him.
"Make efforts for unity, there is nothing better than it", wrote St. Ignatius of Antioch to St. Polycarp of Smyrna (Polyc.1). He said further, "Go carefully into the circumstances of the time, wait for the One Who transcends time" (Polyc.3). These are evangelical patristic calls which never lose their topicality. Indeed, we are called to an unceasing search for the ways to Christian unity, and we cannot remain faithful to the Gospel and the tradition of the Holy Fathers if we give up this search. At the same time we must "go carefully into the circumstances of the time" and to ponder the question of what is going on around us. A thorough and painstaking analysis of the present situation in the world, in the Church and in the ecumenical movement is needed. We should respond with full responsibility to the intra-Orthodox disputes about the extent to which our participation in the ecumenical movement conforms to the timeless purposes of the Orthodox witness.
While assessing the experience of the Orthodox participation and witness in the World Council of Churches and in the ecumenical movement in general, one may note a serious contribution of Orthodoxy into the elaboration of the following fundamental documents of the WCC:
The long-standing efforts of the Faith and Order Commission which have been undertaken to restore Christian unity and which prove the indubitable growth of the catholic self-consciousness in the life and teachings of non-Orthodox participants in the ecumenical movement should also be mentioned. We can see this growth both in the multilateral dialogue within the World Council of Churches and in our bilateral dialogues with the non-Orthodox.
There is certain success achieved so far, which must be told to the critics of the World Council of Churches and of the Orthodox participation in its work. Nevertheless, an attentive observer cannot but feel that after fifty years of the WCC’s existence the progress which was undoubtedly the dream of the patriarchs of the ecumenical movement has not been fulfilled. The relative but real failure of the World Council of Churches compels us to bring up a question of whether the methodology of the search for doctrinal unity is correct.
Our methodology during these fifty years has been reduced to the search for consensus. We proceeded from our traditions and teachings and wanted to see ourselves in our partners, to reveal what is common on the basis of which it would have been possible to reach a consensus. These fifty years were necessary even if the past way has not always seemed to be correct and possibly even erroneous. History does not know the subjunctive mood, and the only way to correct mistakes of the past is to avoid them in future. These fifty years are our experience, our history: we do not have any other experience and any other history in the World Council of Churches. But we must learn lessons from the experience of the past and this is, in my opinion, our major and primary task today.
One of the fundamental theological problems in the WCC is the problem of understanding the Holy Tradition. It is a wall which separates the Orthodox and the Protestants. The Faith and Order Commission tried to storm this wall in the past, but I have the impression that the assault has not been completed and the ecumenical army retreated without having overcome this barrier. I think that further difficulties in the ecumenical theological dialogue have been conditioned by our failure to develop a common ecumenical point of view on the Tradition. This is one of the reasons for much of the frustration and perplexity of the Orthodox, because they always correlate all theological concepts being discussed in the theological dialogue with the norm of faith defined by the Holy Tradition. It can be said that the Holy Tradition as expressed in the decisions of the Ecumenical and Local Councils and in the experience of the Undivided Church is the norm of faith for the Orthodox. Whatever is at variance with this norm is unacceptable to the Orthodox because it is heresy.
There is no normative and mandatory perception of the Tradition in Protestant theology, and therefore the notion of heresy is practically lacking. Any theological point of view is permissible. It is accepted or not on the basis of the degree of cogency of the argumentation rather than on the basis of its conformity to or disparity with the norm of faith. The World Council of Churches prefers not to use the word "heresy" and replaces it with a vague notion of "pluralism". As far as I remember, the word "heresy" was used only once in the early 70s in connection with a debate on racism which was called heresy at that time. I do not recall any other occasions.
Much has been said in the WCC recently about unity in diversity. Yet, well-defined boundaries of this diversity have not been set up. The question of an admissible and advisable level of diversity remains open. This situation is a source of permanent tension for the Orthodox. They feel as if they are surrounded on all sides because almost everything being said in the World Council of Churches challenges the doctrinal identity of the Orthodox. Upon the Protestant majority the Orthodox make a strange impression of intractable and difficult partners who impede the ecumenical movement. Practically at every large ecumenical gathering ideas are put forward which are accepted by the majority with enthusiasm but turn out to be unacceptable to the Orthodox. It was intercommunion in Uppsala, female ministry in Nairobi, the inclusive language of the Bible in Vancouver and the relationship of Christianity and non-Christian religions in Canberra. What is in store for us? Every large ecumenical gathering makes the Orthodox to take the defensive. This confrontation is not inoffensive because each time the Orthodox find themselves in a minority position and their voice is scarcely audible. Hence a feeling of frustration and a growing anxiety that the WCC is ceasing to be a home at least for the Orthodox.
I would like to draw the attention on this growing anxiety. If dialogue were developing successfully, the problems would be expected to disappear gradually, the dialogue would be extended and deepened, and our perception of the WCC would become even more open while our feelings within it become more comfortable. But in actual fact, the opposite is the case: the number of problems is growing, bringing more and more challenges to our identity. Therefore anxiety and frustration are growing. This frustration is not a result of psychological pressure exerted upon the Orthodox by the non-Orthodox. Its main reason lies in the growth of contradictions within the ecumenical movement. Add to this the critique of ecumenism within the Orthodox Churches, to which the Orthodox participants in the ecumenical movement have to respond more often than the World Council of Churches, and it will become clear how difficult it is for the Orthodox to participate in the ecumenical movement at present. This is perhaps one of the reasons why it is so hard to convince a young and talented Orthodox theologian to work in the ecumenical movement.
The lack of an agreed approach to the Tradition calls the very principle of doctrinal consensus in question. What does consensus mean if a common norm of the faith is lacking? Under the circumstances another theological innovation could easily eradicate the work which has been done for many years in order to reach consensus. This happened with the ordination of women to the ministry the practical introduction of which in the Protestant Churches has thrown doubts upon an opportunity to reach consensus on the matters of ministry, in spite of the obvious success of the Lima document.
In this regard, theological studies in the WCC on the theme "Ecclesiology and Ethics" seem important. A common criterion must be developed for the appraisal of manifestations of contemporary life on the basis of unity in faith and fundamental moral principles of Christianity. The urgent aspirations of various para-ecumenical, radically extremist youth, feminist and other groups and movements to use the WCC for the expression of their interests, convictions and wishes in the field of sexual family ethics and for the support of the so called sexual minorities, in particular, cause great offence and discomfort for many Orthodox and Catholics as well as with many catholic and traditionally minded believers of other churches. At present, many Christian values are subject to attacks of the secular society, and some Churches are prepared to forgo moral norms for the sake of maintaining their positions in the society. Such tactics are detrimental not only to these Churches but also to the whole ecumenical movement. Simultaneously with the decline of authority of some Churches the walls between the Churches are becoming higher. The voice of the Church will indeed be prophetic and strong if it speaks on behalf of the one Tradition, if it preaches an absolute norm of morality which is clearly expressed in the Good News. The question is raised first and foremost in connection with such matters as the value of family, the sacredness of marriage, the right of the human person to live beginning from the moment of conception, the problem of abortion, of biotechnology, etc.. It is necessary to come out on all these matters as a united front.
As to the dangers for ecumenism today, one ought to mention the aspiration of certain groups in the World Council of Churches to turn the ecumenical movement into a wide movement of rapprochement of Christians with Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and representatives of other non-Christian religions. Here a clear distinction should be made between theological syncretism and the dialogue with representatives of other religions on the matters of peaceful coexistence and cooperation in field of human rights, justice, peace and the integrity of creation. It seems to me that theological syncretism presents a great peril for the ecumenical movement while the dialogue with other religions on the problems of peaceful coexistence is not only necessary but should most probably become a priority for the World Council of Churches at the turn of the 21st century, though it should not banish to the periphery the search for unity within the Christian world. Dialogue with non-Christians presupposes serious theological efforts for the expression of Christian good news in such a way that it can be understood by different cultures. Yet, there should exist clear theological criteria, as was said in the Canberra statement by the Orthodox participants, for a reasonable limitation of dialogue, since there is a real danger of crossing the line which separates us from a babel. It is difficult for the Orthodox to agree with an idea of Dr Mary Tanner that a dialogue with other faiths should be carried out on the basis of accepting equality of different ways to the Lord.
It is well known that after the Assembly in Amsterdam there was a wide polemic in Greece on the question of expediency of the Orthodox participation in the WCC’s work. A lot was said about possible boundaries to and conditions for such participation. For instance, it was proposed to limit the participation in the solution of horizontal problems to the level of laymen only. This polemic can be traced in the Greek press of that time. It would seem that main fears can be summarized as follows: participation in the work of the WCC could entail a digression from the norms of the Orthodox faith and would harm the Orthodox ecclesiology. It is difficult to say whether the Orthodox would have stayed in the ecumenical movement if the Toronto Statement had not been adopted in 1950, which clearly outlines the terms of the Churches’ participation in the WCC and declares what the WCC is not and which goals it does not set for itself. The Toronto Statement has not only helped to preserve the Orthodox participation in the WCC but it allowed to extend it at the Assembly in New Delhi where the Russian Orthodox Church and other Orthodox Churches from Eastern Europe joined the Council. Even today the main provisions of the Toronto Statement stipulate indispensable conditions of the Orthodox participation in the life and work of the World Council of Churches. That is why the Orthodox participants continue to come forward in support of the main principles of this Statement.
The principal importance of the Toronto Statement is that it reflected and still reflects our common understanding and vision of the WCC. Orthodox participants ask whether the nature of the WCC has changed over the last forty-five years. Is the progress so substantial as to change the nature of the Council? In the beginning I said that there was a certain progress in dialogue, yet there are also some alarming factors. But I would like to ask another question: can the nature of the WCC change as long as it remains as it is? The nature of the Council can be changed only through a qualitative change of the relations among the Churches and an actual destruction of the walls which exist between them. But then the Council will cease to be a Council: it will cease to be an instrument of the ecumenical movement since the ecumenical movement will end because its goal will have been attained. I ask myself whether there could be any intermediate stages between the Council as an instrument of unity and the real unity which we seek? Wouldn’t these intermediate stages be an expression of our wishes and dreams rather than a reflection of reality? I am convinced that the level of ecumenical self-consciousness cannot be raised artificially. The WCC is what it is. And it will remain the instrument of unity as long as we seek this unity. We do not really stimulate ecumenical dialogue by reflecting upon the nature of the WCC. Our common growth in the ecumenical dialogue should be natural and then, sooner or later, our relations will acquire a new nature.
Let me say some words about the programme priorities of the WCC as an Orthodox person from Russia sees them. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union and of the communist system we have encountered still another danger for the ecumenical movement, namely, the growth of proselytism and competition in missionary service. These activities are not only carried out by sects, but unfortunately also by some WCC member churches. I would not like to name anyone, but it is no secret that there are such Churches with which we have maintained dialogue in the framework of the WCC for almost thirty years and which are acting now against us on the territory of Russia and of other countries of the former Soviet Union. They send missionaries to us who are telling us that we are unable to carry out missionary activities, that we are unable to address our own people and that they, having arrived from America, would do it better. And they do it by bringing not only a word, but dollars. I think that activity of this kind is a direct challenge to the World Council of Churches. The WCC has taken a very correct position on the problem of proselytism, and it would be appropriate here to express gratitude to the Council for it. But when problems exist, the WCC should not ignore them. I think that we must do everything possible in order that proselytism does not ruin the relations between member churches which have been maintained during the last decades. So, one of the main priorities must be unity in mission and witness.
Another priority should be education and catechization of the people of God. Education today should promote the formation of spiritual and moral principles of life. The development of modern civilization clearly shows that Christian morality as it is given in the Holy Scriptures is the principal condition for the survival of humanity. There are no other conditions for survival than life based on the moral norms of the Gospel. It is a major problem for us today and, I think, not only for us. The notion of sin is disappearing from the human lexicon as modern man is not willing to set up any moral limits which would hamper the enjoyment of life. It is very important for the World Council of Churches, while relying on member churches, not to allow humanity to forget what sin means. At present, in Russia and in other countries of the former Soviet Union people are in captivity to the ideals of consumer life which earlier were called capitalist ideals. People react to their socialist past by the idealization of the free market and by regarding the Western European and American civilization as a kind of paradise, with luxurious houses and cars. The logic here is simple enough: socialism had not led us to paradise, so we must go along the way of Western capitalism.
Unfortunately, little is known in Russia and in other countries of Eastern Europe about the discussions on the ways of the development of civilization which are going on in international organizations. I think that one of the tasks of the World Council of Churches must be to render assistance to the Churches of Eastern Europe in finding pastoral answers to the problems that the present economic and political developments in Eastern European countries pose today.
I would like to dwell on the subject touched upon by Metropolitan John of Pergamon and to develop his remarks about the problem of East and West a little further. Ideological contradictions used to be the major contradictions of the 20th century. They plunged our world into the nightmare of the war, they engendered the "cold war", the arms race, the depletion of resources and pollution of the environment. It is obvious that humanity has largely overcome ideological confrontation towards the end of the 20th century. But it would be too sentimental and unrealistic to regard the coming 21st century as the "new heaven" and the "new earth". It is quite evident that we might expect new contradictions and new conflicts which will be no less awful and dangerous than those of this century. On the threshold of the 20th century many people thought that a century of general well-being was coming, basing this idea on the scientific and technological progress which had been reached by humanity. Yet such a vision turned out to be a bitter mistake and the illusions were not justified.
What kind of conflicts are to be expected in the 21st century? People are beginning to say that clashes between cultures and civilizations are probable. It is clear that a powerful civilization has been formed which we conventionally call Western secular civilization. But it is no less obvious that other "civilizational" areas and centres are being formed - in the first place are connected with Islam and with the great Chinese culture. What kind of place is to be occupied by Orthodoxy in this world, and will the Orthodox oikoumene still exist at all? What is the mission of Orthodoxy, of Christianity and of the ecumenical movement in a world quite different from the one which we have got used to during the 20th century? This should be a priority in our theological reflections and in our historical and philosophical analysis. We must be spiritually prepared and intellectually equipped for the encounter with a new reality in the coming 21st century.
At last, I must touch upon the fact which provokes a feeling of profound gratitude to the World Council of Churches. This is a very important element of the activities of the Council today in my opinion. I am referring to the effective diaconical ministry carried out in order to help those in need. I think that this ministry will remain a significant and inspiring part of our common work for a long time.
The experience of the Orthodox participation in the WCC’s life with all its complications is very important for the Orthodox Churches. It helps them to grow while overcoming these difficulties. It promotes our Orthodox solidarity. It undoubtedly provokes the development of Orthodox theology. It is difficult to imagine what Orthodox theology would be today if the Orthodox did not take part in the ecumenical movement. But the World Council of Churches also needs our participation in the ecumenical movement and our persistent witness to the faith and tradition of the Early Undivided Church, because without this participation the Council would turn into something quite different.
In 1920 an ecumenical conference was held in Geneva (by the way, it was held in the "Russia" hotel). Questions were raised about Orthodox witness and the participation of the Orthodox churches in the ecumenical movement. After the conference a solemn divine service was celebrated in a Russian Orthodox Church in Geneva which was attended by all members of the conference at the invitation of the Russian Church. Bishop Charles Brent, chairman of the conference, spoke at the end of the service and said: "We have to urgently consider reasonable and well-grounded proposals of the Orthodox Churches concerning cooperation and our ecumenical fellowship". The conference of 1920 ended with these words. And I am sure that these words by a pioneer of the ecumenical movement have not lost their significance even today.
Notes: