Time to unfold the Orthodox tradition

Ecumenical Review, The, April, 1996 by Ion Bria

Reordering the Orthodox fellowship

Some of the serious tensions to arise recently between the Orthodox churches and the World Council of Churches are related to a more general theological ambivalence about ecumenism which has been apparent since the formation of the WCC(1) -- and indeed even before. The 1920 encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate calling for a koinonia of churches in spite of the doctrinal differences between them was a great impetus to the development of the ecumenical movement, but from the outset it bore some ambiguities with it. Nor did the formation of the WCC in 1948 eliminate the perception of the ecumenical movement as having an ambiguous agenda. On the one hand, many realized the constructive potential of a global structure seeking restoration of visible unity among divided Christians. On the other hand, there are aspects that are cause for caution and scepticism, for example, the ambiguity around the concepts universality, catholicity and conciliarity.

Consequently, the Orthodox attitude towards the WCC and the ecumenical movement has never followed a continuous, consistent line; and the resulting hesitations, fluctuations and inconsistencies have generated a climate in which both sides have seemed to ignore and exclude each other. At one moment, Orthodox delegates and churches insisted on discussing only Faith and Order issues; at another, they insisted on practical matters, excluding further debates on doctrinal subjects. By abstaining from so-called "horizontal" statements, the Orthodox left the decisions on these to the Protestant churches, and especially to the radical voices. Unsatisfied with the result, they then produced separate statements, furiously denouncing "deviations" in WCC policy.

New tensions have now been provoked by the end of the cold war era, in which the WCC was constituted. The rapid changes in the political and cultural environment of the Orthodox churches in formerly communist countries have deeply affected their ecumenical attitude. All of them face internal crises and readjustments for which they are not prepared. The image they project (mainly in Central and Eastern Europe and Russia) is one of unprecedented crisis: churches without either institutional stability or real, confident membership, theological faculties unconvinced of the need for a new civil society, people with nebulous socio-political aspirations.

The communist regimes smothered numerous tensions and frustrations, which have now surfaced in a convulsive way. At the end of an era of despotism, the image of society is contradictory. It appears to be a society in which all values are relative, including Christian. The clash between Byzantine Orthodoxy and Marxist ideology has resulted in a bizarre, mixed form of culture, without identity and integrity, while a residual Orthodoxy converges towards ultra-dogmatism and a non-historical spirituality. "The churches in the service of nothing but God and his truth," proclaim stubborn confessors suspicious of any social diakonia. Others see the ecumenical movement as the heresy of our century, into which the Orthodox have been forced by external factors.

Everywhere in these countries the ecumenical situation is worsening: tensions with the Roman Catholic Church because of uniatism; conflict with churches of the Reformation on confessional, ethnic and political grounds; animosity towards evangelical churches because of proselytism. The international environment is also explosive and peace is fragile.

Above all, the new realities require the churches to reconsider the quality of membership and attachment of their faithful, because they can no longer count on widespread popular fidelity. Integration into the church cannot be taken for granted, but has to have a very personal spiritual motivation. The churches must re-examine again and again whether they have the confidence of their faithful and conciliar ground for their mission. Hence the need to give them more ecclesial space for participation. Orthodoxy itself suffers from this internal instability and improvisation of church-people relationships. How can the WCC claim to be a special voice challenging the member churches, when those churches are struggling to re-create their own communities?

Regulating ecumenical terminology

It was natural at the end of the cold war era to open a debate about the Common Understanding and Vision of the WCC to explore the possibilities for a new model of ecumenical relationships outside the East-west confrontation. 2 As an integral part of that debate, several orientations and solutions have been advanced. To the extent that the WCC is perceived as claiming an exhaustive analysis of new realities, requiring a "paradigm shift", the Orthodox are irritated: for they see in this claim an insinuation that the Orthodox are remote from historical events and contemporary trends, ignorant about their own situation and marginal to the process of renewal. They feel pressure from the WCC to move to another stage of ecumenical history without understanding how to cope with the new reality and without consulting them directly. For them, the main problem for the oikoumene -- God's world -- is the absence of an authentic paradigm in which neither the unity of the churches nor the universality of the gospel will be compromised.