By
Dimitris Salapatas
(This paper was given during the O.T.R.F. Conference in St. Edmund College, Oxford, on the 13th September 2012)
The
Orthodox Church has been criticised by the other Churches who are in the Ecumenical
Movement for its nationalistic identity, being seen as one negative factor by,
for example the Anglican Communion, which would need to alter if union was to
be realised between the two. For non-Orthodox, Orthodoxy does not seem united
as it wants to believe, it appears
“divided along ethnic-jurisdictional lines even where the ethnic groups are all
found in a common land speaking a common language”[1] (
for example here in the United Kingdom). “The Anglicans perceive Orthodoxy as
an ethnic labyrinth in which no foreigner can long survive...To them, Orthodoxy
is a strange, forbidding mystery, a world which no westerner can hope to
understand” [2]. This
is a very important topic, especially within the context of the current
Ecumenical Movement and the numerous Official Dialogues presently taking place.
However, it is interesting to identify that this is not only an Orthodox issue;
we can also see this in some Churches within the Anglican Communion, which are
in many respects very English and hence ethnic, such as the Church of England.
Nevertheless, Ecumenism preaches the Unity of the Church and not division, so I
am not going to take sides here.
It
is important to understand that ethnic and nationalistic differences which
“have come to be equated or identified closely with religious or confessional
differences; and religious affiliation seems more often to furnish a convenient
and effective rallying point for those who would stir up hatred and violence
than to serve as a motivation for peace making and reconciliation”[3].
When
being part of an Ecumenical Dialogue the Churches should put forward the subjects
that unite them and also discuss the issues that divide them, in order to go
forward and foresee a positive result, without of course altering the true
faith. However, it is easily identified that in our modern, globalised and
secular world “religious identity tends to be swallowed up within ethnic
identity”[4].
Nevertheless, we have various paradigms were “Christianity has been able to
resist and survive the threats of global secular ideologies, precisely because
of its alliance with rooted identities and traditional affiliations”[5],
such was the case with Russia and the Balkan region. Fr. Bulgakov gives a valid
definition of the Orthodox Church, explaining that it is “a system of national,
autocephalous Churches, allied one with another”[6].
This means that despite having jurisdictional and national differences, its
theology and its doctrines are the factors which unify Orthodoxy, since they
are common elements within the whole of Eastern Christianity.
If
we are to truly attain what is stated in the Creed, as a belief that we as
Christians believe ‘In One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ then we need
to find a viable way of achieving it. Despite the fact that the various
traditions within Orthodoxy enrich it, pointing out the diversity of humanity
on a social, cultural, historical and philosophical level, we do understand
that this can create problems when in dialogue with non-Orthodox. Nationalism
does not go well with Ecumenism. Especially in the Diaspora we need a great
cooperation between all the jurisdictions in order to have a common front when
speaking to other Churches. Maybe a change will be evident in the future due to
the increase of the converts, who do not come from the East, but from the West
and hence have a different mentality and understanding in regards to ethnicity.
Practises of the past need to be set aside, where for example “national
ambition was disguised as the will of God”[7];
however, this is not an issue that concerns the Orthodox Church alone, as
stated before with the Church of England paradigm. Hence the goal of the
Ecumenical Movement should be a post-nationalistic church in order to achieve
union. Is this viable? Can this happen in both the East and the West? It is
difficult to know now. But the fact that we are continuing in the Ecumenical
Dialogue, persisting to find a solution, whatever that may be, is a positive
aspect.
Is
this topic an important one? It is if you are a believer in the Ecumenical
Movement. However, if you are not, then this theme can easily be dismissed. On
the other hand, it is significant to point out the fact that most Churches are
part of it; hence they all have a hope in a future union. Whether this would be
realised or not is another story. What we need to take into account is that the
unity of the Church is divinely given, but it is a gift which must never be
taken for granted; this being the “connecting thread in the history of the
Ecumenical Movement – a recognition of that essential unity of all Christ’s
people, which though often obscured is never wholly lost”[8].
In
order to increase the possibilities of a future union, a solution should be
found on the various divisions within the Churches. This cannot easily be applied
in Anglicanism, which has countless differences within its Communion; however,
it could be applied to the Orthodox Church, if the political and nationalistic
factor was set aside. Despite being a difficult goal, which will probably never
be solved, it is one that we need to consider, if Orthodoxy wishes to continue
in the current dialogue and see her goals being achieved. In no way am I
implying that this should be the case when the Orthodox Churches have
inter-Orthodox dialogue and relations. The traditional and cultural differences
exist and prevail due to the diverse historical, political, social and economic
paths that each nation, people and Churches took. However, when in dialogue with non-Orthodox a
common front should be formed, where accepted issues are discussed and pointed
out. As Fr. George Florovsky revealed, when speaking in relation to the
Orthodox participation in the Ecumenical Movement, that there exists “the great
danger of ‘provincialism’ when nationalist sentiments were combined with the
autocephalous freedom of local Churches”[9]. Nevertheless,
this could be the first step in actually dealing with and resolving disputed
matters within the Orthodox World, such as the role of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, or whether his Ecumenicity is accepted by everyone, or the role
of the Moscow Patriarchate. It is inevitable that nationalistic and historical
pride dictates that these issues will most likely never be solved, but in spite
of this we need to obtain and illustrate a mutual projection towards the
non-Orthodox when taking part in the Ecumenical Movement. Possibly this important
matter could be solved in a future Pan-Orthodox Synod, if it ever takes place.
It is imperative to stress that
Orthodoxy does not have differences within its body in doctrine or theology,
accepting all the Ecumenical Councils and the decisions taken by Local Synods.
On the theological field the Orthodox Churches are united, unlike the Anglican
Communion where differences in theology and practice are evident. However,
power politics, dictated by certain Patriarchal or other centres and even by
the nations where the Churches reside, emphasise a predicament in
inter-Orthodox relations. Due to these political differences and interests we
can easily identify numerous dubious policies and relations.
A change is, however, evident, due
to the existence and prevalence of the Church in the Diaspora, where new
equilibrium are formed and even new centres, where Orthodoxy is becoming more
Westernised, leaving behind its strict Eastern form; and by this I mean that
the Liturgical language and even the music is altering, which has been the case
during the last decades, where for example “the Fellowship of St. Alban and St.
Sergius began special English Liturgies”[10]
as explained by Metropolitan Kallistos on the Ancient Faith Radio, leaving thus
behind the preconception of many that we should only celebrate the Divine
Liturgy in the respected languages of the Eastern Orthodox who resided in the
United Kingdom. Orthodoxy is truly becoming more universal, geographically
speaking. Hence this will result in its abstraction from the nationalistic
environment that it had existed up to now. Nevertheless, it could also result
in the formation of new nationalistic identities, where we may have for example
a future British Orthodox Archdiocese. This could be the case, since it is
evident that many British convert to Orthodoxy, hence they do not have the
links that the immigrants do with the East or a certain Eastern nationalism. It
is noteworthy to indicate a thought that has been shared by many in Britain
today, i.e. the actual creation of a British Orthodox Archdiocese, with a
British Archbishop, where all the Bishops of the Orthodox jurisdictions will be
under his authority and each one would head his own people, who of course have
different traditions and liturgical language. When and if this ever happens is
unknown, but it seems to be a logical conclusion to what has been stated here. What
is important is that the future will form new balances and power politics
within and outside the Church, which will shape the outlook of the Ecumenical
Movement.
This
interesting theme of our conference reminded me of a quote, found in the book
‘Why Angels Fall’, written by Victoria Clark whereby she explains, “The short
answer to the question why angels fall, why Eastern Orthodoxy is able to reach
for the angelic heights then plunge to hellish depths, is Phyletism”[11].
The weakness of the human element of Orthodoxy has always been her phyletism,
its exaggerated nationalism; despite the fact that “the principle of
identifying Orthodoxy with an ethnic group was condemned as a heresy in 1872”[12],
in Constantinople, currently we observe a complicated situation of countless
jurisdictions in most countries in the West, where Orthodox from different
origins tend to be claimed by their mother churches according to their
ethnicity. Many Orthodox Churches live in watertight compartments, making it
important for them to come in contact with each other. If this is difficult to
achieve in the respected Orthodox states, then surely this could be realised on
neutral ground in the West, or the Diaspora in general. A start has been
evident here in the United Kingdom with the setting up in 2010 of the
Pan-Orthodox Assembly, where all the Canonical Orthodox Bishops in Britain,
from all the jurisdictions, meet and decide on certain important matters,
concerning not only one Church, but Orthodoxy as a whole. If this Assembly
truly functions and achieves its goals then the positive fruits of this effort
will be immensely important for the future of Orthodoxy in this country.
The
ultimate objective of the Ecumenical Movement is not to point out our differences,
which are promoted more through the various political and social disciplines of
life; but to advance and achieve a future union. That is why we see that the
Anglican and Eastern Churches Association (A.E.C.A.) has the following aim: “To
advance the Christian religion, particularly by teaching the members of the
Anglican and Orthodox Churches about each other, in order to prepare the way
for an ultimate union between them, in accordance with our Lord’s prayer that
‘all may be one’. All its members are urged to work and pray constantly to this
end”[13].
On the other hand, one of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergiu’s aims, stated
at the beginning of its existence in the 1920’s, proclaimed a need and a will
for a future union between the Orthodox Church and the Anglican Communion;
however, this has altered due to the major differences which exist between the
two Christian Families, bringing it thus to the current aim of “mutual
understanding and co-operation between the separated Christians of East and
West”[14]. It
is remarkable to identify that the attitude of the Orthodox Church to all other
Christians, although this is not currently professed in such a manner, due to
diplomatic kindness, is that they belong to her. “The Church does not call them
back to her human side (‘Byzantine’, or ‘Eastern’, or ‘Slav’ or whatever it
is), not to her ‘jurisdiction’, but to the divine tree of life, which is her
Orthodoxy”[15]. Fr Sergius Bulgakov explains how “Orthodoxy
is present at such conferences (i.e. within the Ecumenical Dialogue) to testify
to the truth...Christian love demands that the faith be testified to”[16].
In
conclusion, what can be said with certainty is that nationalism within the
Orthodox Church will prevail and continue its existence, as it does in so many
other churches. “Social and political tradition”[17]
will keep on being present, due to the attachment which each one of us has
towards both our Church and our nation and due to the “psychological make-up of
the members of each Church”[18].
The problem, nevertheless, occurs when power politics intervene between Bishops
or Autocephalous Churches and Patriarchates, destroying thus the true image of
the Church. Abolishing the various traditions and national identities will be
wrong; however, within the Ecumenical Movement a united front should be formed.
Many will argue that this approach is incorrect and dishonest; we should show
the non-Orthodox our true selves, our nationalistic differences and traditions.
We practically do this when asked in which Church we are members. Our reply
emphasises the nationalistic side of our understanding of religion, explaining
that we are Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox and so on.
However, this is not the case. The problem of Orthodoxy within the Ecumenical
Dialogue does not lie in the cultural differences but in the political side of
the relations which are wrongly emphasised, hence we can identify that “such an
exterior reunion presupposes, of course, a corresponding interior movement”[19]
and that is why we need to move towards it, meaning that we should achieve a
true common front when speaking to other denominations.
Whoever
is involved within the Ecumenical Movement can understand what Fr. George
Florovsky claimed, that “the highest and most promising ‘ecumenical virtue’ is
patience”[20].
By exercising patience and praying fervently for divine inspiration we will
hopefully be able to achieve a future union of the Church.
[1]
Grass Tim (ed.), Evangelicalism and the Orthodox Church,
(London, Evangelical Alliance, 2001), p. 87
[2] Billerbeck, Franklin,
“Orthodoxy and Ethnicity”, Anglican/Orthodox Pilgrim Newsletter, Vol.2, No.1,
Winter 1993
[3] Vanelderen, Marlin,
Introduction to the Papers on “Ethnicity and Nationalism: A Challenge to the
Churches”, Ecumenical Review, Vol 47, Issue 2, April 1995, p. 189
[4] Christie, Clive, “Unity and
Diversity, A Critique of Religion and Ethnicity in Europe, Ecumenical Review,
Vol 47, Issue 1, January 1995, p. 16
[5] Ibid, p. 18
[6] Bulgakov, Sergius, The Orthodox Church, (New York, St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988), p. 187
[7] Addleshaw, G.W.O., Administrative Difficulties, Sobornost,
September 1937, No. 11 (New series), p. 30
[8] Rodzianko, Vladimir,
Archpriest, The Orthodox Church, Bevan,
R.J.W. (ed.), The Churches and the
Christian Unity, (London, Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 91
[9] Ford, Joan, The Fellowship At Eastbourne August 4th-2th,
1948,Sobornost, Winter 1948, Series 3, No.4, p. 152
[10] Ancient Faith Radio, http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/illuminedheart/metropolitan_kallistos_ware_on_ethnicity, accessed 04/09/2012, 14.9
[11] Clark, Victoria, Why Angels Fall, A Journey Through Orthodox
Europe from Byzantium to Kosovo, (London, Macmillan, 2000), p. 42
[12] World Council of Churches, Eastern Orthodoxy, http://www.oikoumene.org/en/handbook/church-families/orthodox-churches-eastern/dictionary-of-the-ecumenical-movement-eastern-orthodoxy.html, accessed, 04/09/2012, 16.05
[14] Zernov Nicolas, Militza
Zernov, Fellowship of St. Alban and St.
Sergius – A Historical Memoir, (Oxford, The Fellowship of St. Alban and St.
Sergius, 1979), p. 33
[15] Rodzianko, Vladimir,
Archpriest, The Orthodox Church, Bevan,
R.J.W. (ed.), The Churches and the
Christian Unity, (London, Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 94
[16] Bulgakov, Sergius, The Orthodox Church, (New York, St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988), p. 191
[17] Leeming, Bernard, S.J., General Problems of Ecumenism, R.J.W.
Bevan (ed.), The churches and Christian
Unity, (London, Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 29
[18] Istavridis, V.T., Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, (London,
S.P.C.K., 1966), p. 140
[19] Bulgakov, Sergius, The Orthodox Church, (New York, St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988), p. 188
[20] Ware, Timothy, The Orthodox Church, (London, Penguin
Books, 1997), p. 307
No comments:
Post a Comment