[1]

(Russian Orthodox Church)

The Special Commission on Orthodox participation in the World Council of Churches, which was constituted by the WCC Harare Assembly in 1998 and which worked until May 2002, has made a significant contribution to our understanding of the present difficulties not only of Orthodox involvement in ecumenism, but also of the ecumenical movement in general. In the framework of this Commission the Orthodox, for the first time in the entire history of the World Council, found themselves on an equal footing with the non-Orthodox.  This circumstance created an environment in which they felt less defensive and could speak out more confidently than had been possible in their usual ‘minority’ situation. The non-Orthodox members, confronted by the variety of concerns coming from the Orthodox side, were thereby prompted to approach the issues under discussion in a more creative way than had previously been the case. The exercise was therefore mutually stimulating and challenging. It was an honest discussion, at times harsh, but always serious and responsible. It was also a liberating discussion, since it provided both sides with an opportunity to express overtly many things that had hitherto been sidelined or left out altogether.

Context and pre-history

The years that preceded the creation of the Special Commission were full of frustrating surprises for both the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox members of the Council. There was, in particular, what Dr Konrad Raiser called ‘a sudden feeling of estrangement from one another’, when people on both sides realised how great the distance was between them. For some Protestants, says Dr Raiser referring to the mid-1990s, when this feeling of estrangement became especially acute, ‘it was a great challenge to be confronted with the fact that the official Orthodox point of view was very similar to the one in “Dominus Jesus” – that the churches of the Reformation are not churches in the full sense of the term (at least Orthodox ecclesiology would withhold judgement about the ecclesial status of these churches), that there is no mutual recognition of sacraments (at least from the Orthodox side), and that even mutual recognition of baptism cannot be taken for granted (at least with regard to the Church of Greece). All of this was not known, and so suddenly it was like a bucket of cold water being poured over your head’.[2]

The Orthodox, on the other hand, were frustrated by certain decisions made within some Protestant communities, especially the ordination of women, the virtual acceptance of homosexual practices, and the adoption of inclusive language with reference to God. It was these three issues that came under public scrutiny within the Orthodox milieu in the course of 1990s and which prompted strong criticism of the ecumenical movement on the part of both clergy and laity in various local Orthodox churches. The discussion assumed an inter-Orthodox dimension when in 1996-1997 two Orthodox churches – the Georgian and the Bulgarian – announced their withdrawal from the WCC. Then followed the Thessaloniki meeting of May 1997, convened by the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the initiative of the Russian and Serbian Patriarchates: this meeting, among other things, demanded that the WCC create a special body to discuss the whole range of issues separating the Orthodox from their partners in the ecumenical movement. The WCC Harare Assembly of 1998 responded positively to the Orthodox request, and so the Special Commission was born.

The Commission was therefore as much the product of frustration and disagreement within the ecumenical fellowship as it was the fruit of re-assessment by some Orthodox churches of their ecumenical commitments. In the Russian Orthodox Church this process let to the adoption by the Bishops’ Council of the year 2000 of a historic document, ‘Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church toward the other Christian Confessions’. It was this document in particular that expressed ecclesiological positions similar to the Catholic ‘Dominus Jesus’ (which was published just a little later). In particular, it identified the Orthodox Church with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself (similarly, ‘Dominus Jesus’ spoke of the Roman Catholic Church in these terms), while other Christian communities were regarded as, at best, having ‘certain characteristics’ of a church and thus not churches in the proper sense.

Not that these positions were unknown before, but during the ‘ecumenical spring’ following Vatican II (approximately from the mid-sixties to the mid-eighties) they had not been articulated as sharply either by the Orthodox or by the Catholics. It was indeed a shock for some Protestants when the aforementioned documents appeared. Criticism was so strong (especially in the case of ‘Dominus Jesus’) that the high degree of ecumenical awareness demonstrated by both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches in preparing these documents was somewhat overlooked.

Both statements in fact confirmed – rather than disapproved of – the necessity to continue full and responsible participation of the two Churches in the dialogue with the other Christian confessions. The Russian Orthodox document stressed in particular that the restoration of unity among Christians is ‘a task of the highest priority for the Orthodox Church at every level of her life’ (2.1), and that ‘indifference to this task or its rejection is a sin against God’s commandment of unity’ (2.2). Yet the document specified that ‘genuine unity is possible only in the bosom of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ (2.3) and listed various other models of unity which are unacceptable for the Orthodox, such as those based on the ‘branch theory’ or on the assumption of the ‘equality of denominations’.

One chapter of the ‘Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church toward the other Christian Confessions’ bore a certain relevance to the World Council of Churches, namely that dedicated to the Orthodox participation in inter-Christian organisations. The document stated: ‘The Russian Orthodox Church cannot participate in international, regional or national Christian organisations in which (a) the constitution or rules require the renunciation of the doctrine or traditions of the Orthodox Church; (b) the Orthodox Church has no opportunity to bear witness to herself as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church; (c) the decision-making process does not take into account the ecclesiological consciousness of the Orthodox Church; and (d) the rules and procedures make a “majority opinion” obligatory upon the members’ (5.2). Were the Council found to fall into one or more of these categories, the Russian Orthodox Church may have followed the example of the Georgian and the Bulgarian Churches.

It was precisely the task of the Special Commission to determine how relevant it still remained for the Orthodox to continue their membership in the Council, and according to the results of the Commission’s work the Russian Church would make its own final decision about the issue of membership. The Commission was also asked to recommend appropriate changes in the structure and ethos of the Council itself in order to make it more appropriate for the Orthodox.

Deliberations and conclusions of the Special Commission

In order to be able to address the whole range of issues relating to Orthodox participation in the WCC, the Commission decided, at its inaugural meeting in Morges (Switzerland) in December 1999, to proceed thematically and to divide its work into four major areas of investigation: 1) organization of the WCC; 2) style and ethos of Orthodox-Protestant relations within the WCC; 3) theological convergences and differences between the Orthodox and other traditions in the WCC; 4) existing models and new proposals for a structural framework for the WCC. According to this division, four Sub-committees were created, which met in the course of the year 2000.

Sub-committee I convened at Ma’arat Saydnaya (Damascus, Syria) in March 2000 in order ‘to make recommendations on some immediate and medium-term measures which might address some of the concerns raised by Orthodox member churches regarding their participation in the WCC’. The Sub-committee specifically addressed the issues relating to decision-making and membership. After long and productive discussions it was felt that the consensus method should be recommended for all WCC decision-making bodies. It was also noted that, though membership in the WCC should continue to be held by member churches, they may be regarded as belonging to ‘family (affinity) groups’. The Sub-committee further affirmed the need to change the system of representation in the governing bodies of the WCC in order to ensure fair representation for the Orthodox churches as well as for other member churches. Finally, suggestions were made concerning ‘a mechanism whereby Orthodox churches would have greater opportunity to help set and monitor the agenda of the Executive and Central Committees’.

Meeting in Vilemov (Czech Republic) from 29 July to 3 August 2000, Sub-committee II concentrated on the style and ethos of Orthodox-Protestant relations within the World Council of Churches. It reaffirmed that the goal of the ecumenical dialogue is the restoration of full communion (koinonia) among the Churches, which ‘means in the first place eucharistic communion, since the Eucharist is the recapitulation of the entire economy of salvation in which past, present and future are united’. The Sub-committee addressed, in particular, the ‘difficult’ issues, such as ordination of women, homosexuality and the use of inclusive language with reference to God. It was felt that ‘the WCC can not bring resolution to such issues, nor can the WCC be judgmental about how the member Churches handle difficult issues’.  There was a recommendation, therefore, ‘that all difficult social issues be evaluated on the basis of the appropriateness of the issue for the WCC agenda’, which ‘could be implemented by having a small study group to review the subject items intended to be processed through the WCC procedures’.

Sub-Committee III met in August 22-24, 2000 at the Orthodox Academy of Crete (Greece) in order ‘to outline the theological issues that lie at the heart of Orthodox concerns; to give some account of different approaches to doctrinal, social and ethical issues; to clarify whether there is a common understanding of the basis of the WCC’. On the issue of common prayer, the Orthodox participants declared that certain elements within the worship life of the WCC are ‘incompatible with apostolic tradition’, namely the use of inclusive language in referring to God, the leadership of services by ordained women, and the introduction of syncretistic elements. It was felt that ecumenical worship and prayer should be better situated within a living tradition, be it Orthodox, Anglican or other. The Sub-committee further emphasized the priority of theological issues over social and political ones and the necessity for the WCC ‘to review the current method of identifying theological themes for exploration and consider how far the chosen method responds to the needs of the member churches’.

The suggestion was made that mutual accountability of member churches should be encouraged, and that ‘member churches need to be aware that decisions taken by a particular church which relate to the interpretation of the Bible, the Creeds, theological traditions, or ways of shaping Christian life in the contemporary world, can impair the fellowship of churches’. For example, ‘in matters such as the ordination of women, the Orthodox felt that they were first presented with a fait accompli and then expected to discuss it’.

Proposals for a new structural framework for the WCC were made by Sub-Committee IV, which met at Ma’arat Saydnaya (Syria) from 6 to 8 March 2000. The discussion resulted in a general acknowledgment that the WCC cannot ‘for very much longer continue to maintain a model based solely upon individual member churches each in its own right’. Several new models were explored, including one based on the concept of participation rather than membership: this model would presuppose, in particular, the grouping of various churches into confessional ‘families’.

The findings of the four Sub-committees were analysed and discussed by the three plenary meetings of the Special Commission: in Cairo (Egypt) in October 2000, in Berekfurdo (Hungary) in November 2001, and in Helsinki (Finland) in May 2002. The discussions resulted in the Final report, adopted by the Helsinki meeting and presented to the WCC Central Committee in August 2002.

Three proposals were made in this final report, which, I believe, are of crucial importance for the Orthodox participation in the WCC.

First of all, the report confirmed that the ‘consensus method should determine the whole process of exploration at every level: governing bodies, staff, participants’. It was noted that ‘the use of consensus decision-making, with an increase in mutual trust, will make it easier for all to participate fully in the discussion of any burning ethical and social issue’. For the Orthodox members in the Council this provides new opportunities, since the consensus model will protect them from being outvoted by the majority whenever important decisions are taken. The consensus model will also help other ‘minority’ groups, which will no longer fear being marginalized by the majority opinion.

Secondly, the report envisaged that, upon the completion of the work of the Special Commission, a Standing Committee on Orthodox Participation in the WCC should be formed. This Committee should consist of 14 members of whom half are to be Orthodox; of the overall membership at least half will be members of the WCC Executive Committee. The Standing Committee will be responsible for ‘continuing the authority, mandate, concerns and dynamic of the Special Commission’, ‘giving advice in order to reach consensus on items proposed for the agenda of the WCC’, ‘giving attention to matters of ecclesiology’. The institution of this Committee is important because it will provide ample space for parity discussion between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox participants. As I said earlier, one of the most positive features of the Special Commission was that, unlike in the Council itself, the Orthodox here were on an equal footing with their partners: this experience will be continued within the framework of the newly created Standing Committee.

Thirdly, it was proposed that there should be two categories of church participation in the WCC: a) member churches belonging to the fellowship of the WCC, and b) churches in association with the WCC. It was clarified that, while member churches are those ‘that agree with the Basis of the WCC, confirm their commitment to the purposes and functions of the Council, and conform to the theological and organizational criteria,’ the churches in association can limit themselves to agreeing with the Basis of the Council without any further commitments. This provision gives new opportunities to all those churches, both Orthodox and non-Orthodox, which are not prepared to commit themselves fully to the ideals and aspirations of the Council and yet are interested in taking part in its work. These new opportunities may bring back those churches, such as the Bulgarian and the Georgian, which left the Council because they disagreed with certain liberal tendencies in some WCC member churches – tendencies that affected the agenda of the Council. Moreover, it may facilitate acceptance of new partners from, for example, the Roman Catholic or the Pentecostal traditions, which are not members of the Council at present but may opt for associating themselves with it in the future.

The report of the Special Commission was approved by the WCC Central Committee in August-September 2002. It was also applauded by some member churches, including those that had sharply criticized the Council several years before. Notably, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church issued a statement approving of the results of the work of the Special Commission and expressing satisfaction with its major decisions.

It should be added that the progress made by the Special Commission in discussing crucial issues relating to the Orthodox participation in the WCC was to a significant degree conditioned by the active support that the Commission received from the Council itself. I would like to stress specifically the role of the Council’s General Secretary, the Rev. Dr Konrad Raiser, who has made a significant personal contribution to the deliberations of the Commission and whose continuous support has facilitated its work. For this, I believe, the General Secretary should be sincerely thanked.

Prospects for Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement

The Special Commission completed its work and solved a number of problems which, for the Orthodox churches, constituted obstacles to membership in the WCC. Does this mean that all of the difficulties are now behind us? Moreover, what will be the implications of the Commission’s findings for Orthodox participation in the wider ecumenical movement? In an attempt to answer these questions, I would like to make a number of observations.

Before anything else, I wish to emphasize that the Commission deliberately confined itself to a discussion of those issues which are of direct relevance to the Orthodox-Protestant relations within the World Council of Churches. Its mandate did not include wider discussion of the range of issues relating to the present crisis of the Council and of the ecumenical movement in general. In resolving certain issues, it opened up at the same time a ‘Pandora’s box’ of fundamental disagreements that exist between the Orthodox Churches and their ecumenical partners. The Commission also demonstrated that, in spite of many decades of bilateral dialogue, the gap between Orthodox and non-Orthodox is becoming wider and wider. This is a more general problem that cannot be solved merely by administrative decisions. Indeed, its resolution is far beyond the scope and possibilities of the World Council of Churches.

The main problem, as I see it, lies in a deep-seated discrepancy between those Christian communities that try to preserve the Holy Tradition deriving from the Ancient Undivided Church and those that have revised and continue to revise Tradition in conformity with secular standards. There is always a certain danger in such generalizations, but I do not think it would be totally mistaken to say that the borderline lies at present not so much between Orthodox and Protestants as between ‘traditionalists’ and ‘liberals’. This divergence is as evident at the level of church teaching, including doctrine and ecclesiology, as at the level of church practice, including worship and morality.

The ‘dividing’ issues which are constantly mentioned in connection with the present Orthodox-Protestant dispute are, as noted above, the use of inclusive language with reference to God, the ordination of women and the acceptance of homosexuality. The first has to do with Christian doctrine, the second with ecclesiology, and the third with morality. In my opinion, it is not by mere chance that in some Protestant communities all three were introduced almost at the same time: doctrinal liberalism almost inevitably leads to revisionism of ecclesiological teaching and of moral standards, while laissez-faire lifestyles almost inevitably demand changes in theology and liturgy. It is not surprising that in those communities that introduced female clergy, a special ‘feminist’ theology and spirituality was developed to justify this major innovation. It is equally understandable that, wherever moral standards are being changed to accommodate modern secular practices, theological backing is sought: hence various versions of ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ theology with their most peculiar interpretations of Scripture and Tradition. As a corollary, various feminist or gay worship services have been composed in order to give liturgical expression to the new theology and the new morality.

In my opinion, recent liberalization of teaching and practice in many Protestant churches has alienated them from the Orthodox much more than all prior Protestant history. When the Reformation began in the seventeenth century, its aim was not to destroy Holy Tradition, but rather to return to that Tradition which was believed to have been corrupted by the Roman Catholic Church. The Reformists created a tradition of their own which they believed to be in greater conformity with the original Tradition of the Ancient Undivided Church. This they followed rigidly for several centuries. Only during the second half of the twentieth century did progressive liberalization, prompted by modern social movements, occur in Protestantism. This, I contend, dealt a very severe blow to the entire ecumenical movement, and certainly to the Orthodox-Protestant dialogue.

Liberal tendencies also affected the Anglican Church, which until recently had had a fruitful theological dialogue with Orthodoxy. As early as the nineteenth century the Russian Orthodox Church had engaged in important discussions with the Anglican Church that aimed at the achievement of full eucharistic communion. In the 1930s some Orthodox theologians, such as Fr Sergy Bulgakov, called for full communion even before the finalization of the theological agreements, since they believed the faith and practice of the Anglican Church were essentially identical to those of the Orthodox Church. However, once Anglicans began to ordain women and take other decisions at variance with Orthodox thinking, the gains in the Anglican-Orthodox dialogue were virtually invalidated.  It is clear that we are now much farther from one another than we were half a century ago, and that the gap is only widening. Some Orthodox even ask: what is the sense in continuing the dialogue, if, while discussing ecclesiological issues with the Orthodox Church, the Anglicans at the same time knowingly take ‘unorthodox’ decisions?

Perhaps it would be appropriate at this point to recall that for the Orthodox Church the only ecumenical dialogue which is meaningful is that which leads its partners to a better appreciation and understanding of the Orthodox tradition. One hundred years ago, in 1903, the Russian Orthodox Church in its ‘Response to the Letter of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’ formulated its method of theological dialogue with the Anglicans and the Old Catholics in the following way:

There must be fraternal readiness to help them by explanations, normal consideration for their best wishes, all possible forbearance towards their natural perplexities, given the age-old division, but at the same time the firm confession of the truth of our Universal Church… Our task with regard to them should be… without putting before them unnecessary obstacle for union by being inappropriately intolerant and suspicious… to interpret for them our faith and unchangeable conviction that it is only our Eastern Orthodox Church, which has preserved intact the entire pledge of Christ, that is at present the Universal Church, and thus to show them in fact what they should consider and decide upon if they really believe that salvation is bound up with life in the Church and sincerely wish to be united with her…

This statement, which was included in the ‘Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Other Christian Confessions’ (2000), points very clearly to the motivation behind our ecumenical involvement. We, the Orthodox, do not aim at imposing our culture, ethos, rite and other peculiarities of ‘Byzantine’ Orthodoxy onto other Christians. At the same time we firmly believe that all major features of the original Christian Tradition have been preserved intact by the Orthodox Church. We believe therefore that the restoration of full communion among the various denominations is possible only within this Tradition, which has to be rediscovered by those Christians who for various reasons have lost or modified it in their doctrine and practice.

The prospect of restoring full communion among all Christians now seems to be more remote than ever before. However, there is no other way forward than for all of us to continue in dialogue with our ecumenical partners. But, as the ‘Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church to the other Christian Confessions’ (4.5–4.6) states,

Witness cannot be a monologue, since it assumes the existence of listeners and therefore of communication. Dialogue implies two sides, a mutual openness to communication, a willingness to understand, not only an ‘open mouth’, but also a ‘heart enlarged’ (cf. 2 Cor. 6:11)… It is gratifying and inspiring that non-Orthodox theological thought, as expressed by its best representatives, has shown a sincere and profound interest in studying the patristic heritage and the faith and order of the Early Church. At the same time, it must be admitted that between Orthodox and non-Orthodox theology there are still many unsolved problems and differences of opinion.

It is upon these differences that discussions between the Orthodox and their ecumenical partners should be concentrated. The experience of the Special Commission shows that there is indeed room for honest and open dialogue. This gives us new inspiration in our common search for Christian unity – the unity that remains the ultimate goal of our ecumenical endeavour.

---

The Commission was therefore as much the product of frustration and disagreement within the ecumenical fellowship as it was the fruit of re-assessment by some Orthodox churches of their ecumenical commitments. In the Russian Orthodox Church this process let to the adoption by the Bishops’ Council of the year 2000 of a historic document, ‘Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church toward the other Christian Confessions’. It was this document in particular that expressed ecclesiological positions similar to the Catholic ‘Dominus Jesus’ (which was published just a little later). In particular, it identified the Orthodox Church with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself (similarly, ‘Dominus Jesus’ spoke of the Roman Catholic Church in these terms), while other Christian communities were regarded as, at best, having ‘certain characteristics’ of a church and thus not churches in the proper sense.

Not that these positions were unknown before, but during the ‘ecumenical spring’ following Vatican II (approximately from the mid-sixties to the mid-eighties) they had not been articulated as sharply either by the Orthodox or by the Catholics. It was indeed a shock for some Protestants when the aforementioned documents appeared. Criticism was so strong (especially in the case of ‘Dominus Jesus’) that the high degree of ecumenical awareness demonstrated by both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches in preparing these documents was somewhat overlooked.

Both statements in fact confirmed – rather than disapproved of – the necessity to continue full and responsible participation of the two Churches in the dialogue with the other Christian confessions. The Russian Orthodox document stressed in particular that the restoration of unity among Christians is ‘a task of the highest priority for the Orthodox Church at every level of her life’ (2.1), and that ‘indifference to this task or its rejection is a sin against God’s commandment of unity’ (2.2). Yet the document specified that ‘genuine unity is possible only in the bosom of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ (2.3) and listed various other models of unity which are unacceptable for the Orthodox, such as those based on the ‘branch theory’ or on the assumption of the ‘equality of denominations’.

One chapter of the ‘Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church toward the other Christian Confessions’ bore a certain relevance to the World Council of Churches, namely that dedicated to the Orthodox participation in inter-Christian organisations. The document stated: ‘The Russian Orthodox Church cannot participate in international, regional or national Christian organisations in which (a) the constitution or rules require the renunciation of the doctrine or traditions of the Orthodox Church; (b) the Orthodox Church has no opportunity to bear witness to herself as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church; (c) the decision-making process does not take into account the ecclesiological consciousness of the Orthodox Church; and (d) the rules and procedures make a “majority opinion” obligatory upon the members’ (5.2). Were the Council found to fall into one or more of these categories, the Russian Orthodox Church may have followed the example of the Georgian and the Bulgarian Churches.

It was precisely the task of the Special Commission to determine how relevant it still remained for the Orthodox to continue their membership in the Council, and according to the results of the Commission’s work the Russian Church would make its own final decision about the issue of membership. The Commission was also asked to recommend appropriate changes in the structure and ethos of the Council itself in order to make it more appropriate for the Orthodox.

Deliberations and conclusions of the Special Commission

In order to be able to address the whole range of issues relating to Orthodox participation in the WCC, the Commission decided, at its inaugural meeting in Morges (Switzerland) in December 1999, to proceed thematically and to divide its work into four major areas of investigation: 1) organization of the WCC; 2) style and ethos of Orthodox-Protestant relations within the WCC; 3) theological convergences and differences between the Orthodox and other traditions in the WCC; 4) existing models and new proposals for a structural framework for the WCC. According to this division, four Sub-committees were created, which met in the course of the year 2000.

Sub-committee I convened at Ma’arat Saydnaya (Damascus, Syria) in March 2000 in order ‘to make recommendations on some immediate and medium-term measures which might address some of the concerns raised by Orthodox member churches regarding their participation in the WCC’. The Sub-committee specifically addressed the issues relating to decision-making and membership. After long and productive discussions it was felt that the consensus method should be recommended for all WCC decision-making bodies. It was also noted that, though membership in the WCC should continue to be held by member churches, they may be regarded as belonging to ‘family (affinity) groups’. The Sub-committee further affirmed the need to change the system of representation in the governing bodies of the WCC in order to ensure fair representation for the Orthodox churches as well as for other member churches. Finally, suggestions were made concerning ‘a mechanism whereby Orthodox churches would have greater opportunity to help set and monitor the agenda of the Executive and Central Committees’.

Meeting in Vilemov (Czech Republic) from 29 July to 3 August 2000, Sub-committee II concentrated on the style and ethos of Orthodox-Protestant relations within the World Council of Churches. It reaffirmed that the goal of the ecumenical dialogue is the restoration of full communion (koinonia) among the Churches, which ‘means in the first place eucharistic communion, since the Eucharist is the recapitulation of the entire economy of salvation in which past, present and future are united’. The Sub-committee addressed, in particular, the ‘difficult’ issues, such as ordination of women, homosexuality and the use of inclusive language with reference to God. It was felt that ‘the WCC can not bring resolution to such issues, nor can the WCC be judgmental about how the member Churches handle difficult issues’.  There was a recommendation, therefore, ‘that all difficult social issues be evaluated on the basis of the appropriateness of the issue for the WCC agenda’, which ‘could be implemented by having a small study group to review the subject items intended to be processed through the WCC procedures’.

Sub-Committee III met in August 22-24, 2000 at the Orthodox Academy of Crete (Greece) in order ‘to outline the theological issues that lie at the heart of Orthodox concerns; to give some account of different approaches to doctrinal, social and ethical issues; to clarify whether there is a common understanding of the basis of the WCC’. On the issue of common prayer, the Orthodox participants declared that certain elements within the worship life of the WCC are ‘incompatible with apostolic tradition’, namely the use of inclusive language in referring to God, the leadership of services by ordained women, and the introduction of syncretistic elements. It was felt that ecumenical worship and prayer should be better situated within a living tradition, be it Orthodox, Anglican or other. The Sub-committee further emphasized the priority of theological issues over social and political ones and the necessity for the WCC ‘to review the current method of identifying theological themes for exploration and consider how far the chosen method responds to the needs of the member churches’.

The suggestion was made that mutual accountability of member churches should be encouraged, and that ‘member churches need to be aware that decisions taken by a particular church which relate to the interpretation of the Bible, the Creeds, theological traditions, or ways of shaping Christian life in the contemporary world, can impair the fellowship of churches’. For example, ‘in matters such as the ordination of women, the Orthodox felt that they were first presented with a fait accompli and then expected to discuss it’.

Proposals for a new structural framework for the WCC were made by Sub-Committee IV, which met at Ma’arat Saydnaya (Syria) from 6 to 8 March 2000. The discussion resulted in a general acknowledgment that the WCC cannot ‘for very much longer continue to maintain a model based solely upon individual member churches each in its own right’. Several new models were explored, including one based on the concept of participation rather than membership: this model would presuppose, in particular, the grouping of various churches into confessional ‘families’.

The findings of the four Sub-committees were analysed and discussed by the three plenary meetings of the Special Commission: in Cairo (Egypt) in October 2000, in Berekfurdo (Hungary) in November 2001, and in Helsinki (Finland) in May 2002. The discussions resulted in the Final report, adopted by the Helsinki meeting and presented to the WCC Central Committee in August 2002.

Three proposals were made in this final report, which, I believe, are of crucial importance for the Orthodox participation in the WCC.

First of all, the report confirmed that the ‘consensus method should determine the whole process of exploration at every level: governing bodies, staff, participants’. It was noted that ‘the use of consensus decision-making, with an increase in mutual trust, will make it easier for all to participate fully in the discussion of any burning ethical and social issue’. For the Orthodox members in the Council this provides new opportunities, since the consensus model will protect them from being outvoted by the majority whenever important decisions are taken. The consensus model will also help other ‘minority’ groups, which will no longer fear being marginalized by the majority opinion.

Secondly, the report envisaged that, upon the completion of the work of the Special Commission, a Standing Committee on Orthodox Participation in the WCC should be formed. This Committee should consist of 14 members of whom half are to be Orthodox; of the overall membership at least half will be members of the WCC Executive Committee. The Standing Committee will be responsible for ‘continuing the authority, mandate, concerns and dynamic of the Special Commission’, ‘giving advice in order to reach consensus on items proposed for the agenda of the WCC’, ‘giving attention to matters of ecclesiology’. The institution of this Committee is important because it will provide ample space for parity discussion between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox participants. As I said earlier, one of the most positive features of the Special Commission was that, unlike in the Council itself, the Orthodox here were on an equal footing with their partners: this experience will be continued within the framework of the newly created Standing Committee.

Thirdly, it was proposed that there should be two categories of church participation in the WCC: a) member churches belonging to the fellowship of the WCC, and b) churches in association with the WCC. It was clarified that, while member churches are those ‘that agree with the Basis of the WCC, confirm their commitment to the purposes and functions of the Council, and conform to the theological and organizational criteria,’ the churches in association can limit themselves to agreeing with the Basis of the Council without any further commitments. This provision gives new opportunities to all those churches, both Orthodox and non-Orthodox, which are not prepared to commit themselves fully to the ideals and aspirations of the Council and yet are interested in taking part in its work. These new opportunities may bring back those churches, such as the Bulgarian and the Georgian, which left the Council because they disagreed with certain liberal tendencies in some WCC member churches – tendencies that affected the agenda of the Council. Moreover, it may facilitate acceptance of new partners from, for example, the Roman Catholic or the Pentecostal traditions, which are not members of the Council at present but may opt for associating themselves with it in the future.

The report of the Special Commission was approved by the WCC Central Committee in August-September 2002. It was also applauded by some member churches, including those that had sharply criticized the Council several years before. Notably, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church issued a statement approving of the results of the work of the Special Commission and expressing satisfaction with its major decisions.

It should be added that the progress made by the Special Commission in discussing crucial issues relating to the Orthodox participation in the WCC was to a significant degree conditioned by the active support that the Commission received from the Council itself. I would like to stress specifically the role of the Council’s General Secretary, the Rev. Dr Konrad Raiser, who has made a significant personal contribution to the deliberations of the Commission and whose continuous support has facilitated its work. For this, I believe, the General Secretary should be sincerely thanked.

Prospects for Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement

The Special Commission completed its work and solved a number of problems which, for the Orthodox churches, constituted obstacles to membership in the WCC. Does this mean that all of the difficulties are now behind us? Moreover, what will be the implications of the Commission’s findings for Orthodox participation in the wider ecumenical movement? In an attempt to answer these questions, I would like to make a number of observations.

Before anything else, I wish to emphasize that the Commission deliberately confined itself to a discussion of those issues which are of direct relevance to the Orthodox-Protestant relations within the World Council of Churches. Its mandate did not include wider discussion of the range of issues relating to the present crisis of the Council and of the ecumenical movement in general. In resolving certain issues, it opened up at the same time a ‘Pandora’s box’ of fundamental disagreements that exist between the Orthodox Churches and their ecumenical partners. The Commission also demonstrated that, in spite of many decades of bilateral dialogue, the gap between Orthodox and non-Orthodox is becoming wider and wider. This is a more general problem that cannot be solved merely by administrative decisions. Indeed, its resolution is far beyond the scope and possibilities of the World Council of Churches.

The main problem, as I see it, lies in a deep-seated discrepancy between those Christian communities that try to preserve the Holy Tradition deriving from the Ancient Undivided Church and those that have revised and continue to revise Tradition in conformity with secular standards. There is always a certain danger in such generalizations, but I do not think it would be totally mistaken to say that the borderline lies at present not so much between Orthodox and Protestants as between ‘traditionalists’ and ‘liberals’. This divergence is as evident at the level of church teaching, including doctrine and ecclesiology, as at the level of church practice, including worship and morality.

The ‘dividing’ issues which are constantly mentioned in connection with the present Orthodox-Protestant dispute are, as noted above, the use of inclusive language with reference to God, the ordination of women and the acceptance of homosexuality. The first has to do with Christian doctrine, the second with ecclesiology, and the third with morality. In my opinion, it is not by mere chance that in some Protestant communities all three were introduced almost at the same time: doctrinal liberalism almost inevitably leads to revisionism of ecclesiological teaching and of moral standards, while laissez-faire lifestyles almost inevitably demand changes in theology and liturgy. It is not surprising that in those communities that introduced female clergy, a special ‘feminist’ theology and spirituality was developed to justify this major innovation. It is equally understandable that, wherever moral standards are being changed to accommodate modern secular practices, theological backing is sought: hence various versions of ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ theology with their most peculiar interpretations of Scripture and Tradition. As a corollary, various feminist or gay worship services have been composed in order to give liturgical expression to the new theology and the new morality.

In my opinion, recent liberalization of teaching and practice in many Protestant churches has alienated them from the Orthodox much more than all prior Protestant history. When the Reformation began in the seventeenth century, its aim was not to destroy Holy Tradition, but rather to return to that Tradition which was believed to have been corrupted by the Roman Catholic Church. The Reformists created a tradition of their own which they believed to be in greater conformity with the original Tradition of the Ancient Undivided Church. This they followed rigidly for several centuries. Only during the second half of the twentieth century did progressive liberalization, prompted by modern social movements, occur in Protestantism. This, I contend, dealt a very severe blow to the entire ecumenical movement, and certainly to the Orthodox-Protestant dialogue.

Liberal tendencies also affected the Anglican Church, which until recently had had a fruitful theological dialogue with Orthodoxy. As early as the nineteenth century the Russian Orthodox Church had engaged in important discussions with the Anglican Church that aimed at the achievement of full eucharistic communion. In the 1930s some Orthodox theologians, such as Fr Sergy Bulgakov, called for full communion even before the finalization of the theological agreements, since they believed the faith and practice of the Anglican Church were essentially identical to those of the Orthodox Church. However, once Anglicans began to ordain women and take other decisions at variance with Orthodox thinking, the gains in the Anglican-Orthodox dialogue were virtually invalidated.  It is clear that we are now much farther from one another than we were half a century ago, and that the gap is only widening. Some Orthodox even ask: what is the sense in continuing the dialogue, if, while discussing ecclesiological issues with the Orthodox Church, the Anglicans at the same time knowingly take ‘unorthodox’ decisions?

Perhaps it would be appropriate at this point to recall that for the Orthodox Church the only ecumenical dialogue which is meaningful is that which leads its partners to a better appreciation and understanding of the Orthodox tradition. One hundred years ago, in 1903, the Russian Orthodox Church in its ‘Response to the Letter of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’ formulated its method of theological dialogue with the Anglicans and the Old Catholics in the following way:

There must be fraternal readiness to help them by explanations, normal consideration for their best wishes, all possible forbearance towards their natural perplexities, given the age-old division, but at the same time the firm confession of the truth of our Universal Church… Our task with regard to them should be… without putting before them unnecessary obstacle for union by being inappropriately intolerant and suspicious… to interpret for them our faith and unchangeable conviction that it is only our Eastern Orthodox Church, which has preserved intact the entire pledge of Christ, that is at present the Universal Church, and thus to show them in fact what they should consider and decide upon if they really believe that salvation is bound up with life in the Church and sincerely wish to be united with her…

This statement, which was included in the ‘Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Other Christian Confessions’ (2000), points very clearly to the motivation behind our ecumenical involvement. We, the Orthodox, do not aim at imposing our culture, ethos, rite and other peculiarities of ‘Byzantine’ Orthodoxy onto other Christians. At the same time we firmly believe that all major features of the original Christian Tradition have been preserved intact by the Orthodox Church. We believe therefore that the restoration of full communion among the various denominations is possible only within this Tradition, which has to be rediscovered by those Christians who for various reasons have lost or modified it in their doctrine and practice.

The prospect of restoring full communion among all Christians now seems to be more remote than ever before. However, there is no other way forward than for all of us to continue in dialogue with our ecumenical partners. But, as the ‘Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church to the other Christian Confessions’ (4.5–4.6) states,

Witness cannot be a monologue, since it assumes the existence of listeners and therefore of communication. Dialogue implies two sides, a mutual openness to communication, a willingness to understand, not only an ‘open mouth’, but also a ‘heart enlarged’ (cf. 2 Cor. 6:11)… It is gratifying and inspiring that non-Orthodox theological thought, as expressed by its best representatives, has shown a sincere and profound interest in studying the patristic heritage and the faith and order of the Early Church. At the same time, it must be admitted that between Orthodox and non-Orthodox theology there are still many unsolved problems and differences of opinion.

It is upon these differences that discussions between the Orthodox and their ecumenical partners should be concentrated. The experience of the Special Commission shows that there is indeed room for honest and open dialogue. This gives us new inspiration in our common search for Christian unity – the unity that remains the ultimate goal of our ecumenical endeavour.

---