Interview to the Finnish ‘LogosMedia’ Press Agency

1. Already the third separate Orthodox representation office in Brussels. Will this facilitate or complicate cooperation between the Orthodox churches?

This will certainly facilitate and improve cooperation between the Orthodox Churches. I believe that every local Orthodox Church has the right to open its own representation to various international institutions.

The uniqueness of the Orthodox Church consists in its having both universal and local expressions. Whilst universally the Orthodox Church can be considered as ‘made up’ of various local Churches, each local Church has the fullness of ecclesial being and cannot be regarded simply as a ‘part’ of something more inclusive.

This is why each local Orthodox Church develops its own ways of organizing itself and of communicating with the world, while remaining fully in communion and in solidarity with the other local Orthodox Churches. In Brussels, the representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, of the Russian Orthodox Church, and of the Church of Greece must work in close collaboration with each other. Such collaboration between Bishop Emmanuel of Regini, Bishop Athanasios of Akhaia and myself has already been established.

There remain, of course, some unresolved inter-Orthodox problems, but these have to be discussed by appropriate inter-Orthodox bodies, and certainly not by Brussels representations. In Brussels, our main task is to be in dialogue with the European political establishment. In this dialogue we have common position. It is this position which we shall present to the European Institutions.

2. How do you see the task of your office in helping resolve the problem of the orthodox diaspora in Europe?

I do not see it as the task of our office to resolve the problem of the Orthodox diaspora in Europe. Our task is to ensure close cooperation between all Orthodox jurisdictions existing in Europe vis-à-vis the European political institutions.

There are different visions of the future of Orthodoxy in Europe. Some believe this future consists in creating an autocephalous ‘Orthodox Church in Europe’, on the model of the Orthodox Church in America. Others see the strength of ‘diaspora’ Orthodoxy as lying in maintaining strong links with ‘national’ Churches. Moreover, there is no established pattern of granting autocephaly, and there is no agreement among the local Orthodox Churches as to how any autocephaly should be obtained.

Speaking of the Orthodox Churches in Western Europe, one has to take into account various changes in their ‘demographic balance.’ In particular one should not underestimate the recent influx of immigrants from Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union. There are dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church in Europe which some fifteen years ago consisted mostly of Western Europeans but which are now predominantly Russian-speaking. In these dioceses, the idea of a ‘European Orthodox Church’ was much more appealing fifteen years ago than it is now.

Most probably, the process of ‘solving the problem of the Orthodox diaspora’ will not be easy and will take many years. In the meantime, all Orthodox in Europe are faced with the same challenges, the main one of which is, I believe, the ongoing secularization and ‘atheization’ of Western world.

The model of a new Europe developed by most politicians is admittedly secular, and it leaves very little space for the Churches’ social involvement. Some secular politicians would like to see the Churches existing exclusively at a private level, with no opportunity to act at a social level. This contradicts the way the Churches understand themselves, since most of them believe that they have a role to play in society.

Faced with these and other challenges, the Orthodox Churches must act in solidarity and present a common position. There is also a need for inter-Christian and inter-religious cooperation in this field.

3. What kind of financial and administrative cooperation is your office ready to create with other orthodox representation offices in Brussels?

I am not sure whether any financial or administrative cooperation is needed at this stage. It would probably be premature to create an inter-Orthodox body in Brussels with common finances and common administration. No such body exists among the Orthodox Churches themselves, and I do not believe it should exist among their Brussels representations.

There could be, however, various common projects, such as inter-Orthodox conferences on the process of European integration and on other contemporary issues. There will hopefully be regular consultations among the three existing Orthodox representations in Brussels aimed at a common understanding of these issues.

The time has come for the Orthodox to work together for the construction of a common European home, in which the Orthodox tradition must be fully represented. I believe that European integration, in spite of its secular character, gives all of us a unique opportunity to strengthen our presence in Western society. This opportunity should not be missed.