.png "English"){kind=small}
by Edith M. Humphrey, V. Rev. Maxym Lysack, Bradley Nassif, Rev. Anthony Roeber, and V. Rev. Theodore Stylianopoulos
Ecumenical Patriarchate Press Office
As recognized in the Chambésy
pre-conciliar document, relations between the Orthodox Church and other
Christians are challenging and complex.
They are challenging because of
the variegated groups which we engage, and because Orthodox variously
assess ecumenical endeavors, some fearing that dialogue relativizes
Orthodox claims. They are complex, because they involve several
actions: witness to the historic Church, bilateral discussion for
mutual understanding, and involvement in common causes.
The Orthodox Church’s ecumenical mission
flows from her responsibility to preserve unity (as expressed in the
Scriptures, Ecumenical Councils, Liturgy and Fathers), and is based on
the apostolic faith and the Church’s sacramental communion. While it is
important to invite non-Christians to embrace the truth, there are also
patterns for approaching those who already know something of God’s
work.
Because of the Church’s self-awareness
as the body of Christ growing mysteriously in the world, we are
concerned not only with atheists and those of non-Christian faiths, but
seek to reconcile to communion Christians beyond the canonical
boundaries of the Church. Orthodox ecumenical witness is thus an
invitation to apostolic evangelical life in Christ and the Spirit. Some
ecumenicists from other traditions may view this motive with a jaundiced
eye, saying that we are using the pretext of ecumenical relations for
“proselytism.” Instead, we honor our Christian conversation partners by
frankly presenting our ecclesial understanding, and praying that they
join God’s historic, holy and transformed people. We also must also be
alert to challenges of self-criticism, and repent for any Orthodox
failure to strive for reconciliation. We reaffirm the Nicene Creed as a
song of faith, as well as an abiding interpretation of the biblical
witness—one that expresses the core truth of the universal Christian
faith and is indispensable in our conversations with other Christians.
In this sense, ecumenical relations are a sub-branch of mission, both in
formal dialogue, and as we meet other Christians in various
circumstances.
Those who respond may enter the Church
on the basis of the apostolic tradition and canonical criteria informed,
where applicable, by such decisions as Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical
Council, Canon 95 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council, and other
relevant sources of the Church. (These sources, of course, did not
anticipate Roman Catholic or Protestant realities.) In receiving
converts, the Orthodox Church has practiced oikonomia in a
variety of ways, depending on historical context and theological
perspectives of Christians outside its canonical boundaries. We
understand oikonomia to be the exercise of discretion by bishops motivated in their governing actions by philanthropia for
the salvation of others. Such discretion involves a thorough awareness
of each catechumen, especially in light of the differences between
various Christian bodies, the mode of that person’s baptism, and their
prior commitment to non-Orthodox views.
We turn from concern for the individual
to relations with Christian communities. Although, with regard to
ecclesiology greater unity exists between the Orthodox and the Oriental
Orthodox, and with regard to the teachings of the Seven Ecumenical
Councils between Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, the theological and
ecclesiological complexities of the Protestant Reformation and their
modern descendants present graver challenges. We must discern the
difference between Protestants who have been deeply affected by
contemporary thinking that dismisses the historic Christian faith, and
those who struggle to remain faithful, according to their capacity, to
teaching embodied in the Holy Scriptures. Following the canonical
example of the Ecumenical Councils, it is the Church’s duty to exercise
pastoral discernment in identifying which Protestant communities and
movements offer the greatest hope for full reconciliation with the
Church, recognizing that some groups are closer, while others may still
exhibit piety and fidelity to the Scriptures in word and in deed.
To these ends, we urge the Holy and
Great Council to place the highest priority on the following ecumenical
dialogues. Very high priority ought to be given to the conversations
between the Orthodox and Oriental Churches. In this matter, we support
all efforts to interpret the Christological definitions of Chalcedon
through the lens of the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils.
Similarly, high priority should also be given to the bilateral dialogues
between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics. We acknowledge the
presence of Eastern Catholics in lands that are historically Orthodox,
as well as in other places such as North America, and pray for healing
of our relationship, either through the return of Eastern Catholics to
their Mother Church or, where this is not possible, through mutual
forgiveness and reconciliation. Next, we urge that continuing efforts be
made towards the Anglican Churches, especially in those communities
where the creeds and traditional ethics are upheld (evangelical
Anglicans), and where ecclesial and sacramental mysteries are honored
(Anglo-Catholics). We acknowledge that the Anglican dialogue will not
easily result in union; it is, however, important for Orthodox to
continue their decades of dialogue as an act of love witnessing to the
truth of the Gospel, especially considering those who are resistant to
or suffering under a revisionist hierarchy. Finally, given their vast
global influence and theological commitment to Holy Scripture,
especially where their adherence to Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy is
clear, conversation should be deepened or opened with evangelical
theologians and church leaders both in North America (where evangelicals
are showing a renewed interest in tradition) and among those already
active in traditional Orthodox lands.
Even in situations where reconciliation
of such communities with the Church seems unlikely for the present,
there are instances where we may cooperate for the common good. Indeed
it behooves the Orthodox Church to lead in such matters, rather than
reacting to endeavors that have been catalyzed by Roman Catholic or
evangelical voices. This is particularly important in milieus where
Orthodox are a minority, but holds true every place the pressures of
contemporary society are muting or repressing Christian witness.
Together with others who name Him, we can proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord,
God and Savior; uphold the sanctity of life from conception to natural
death; honor marriage between one man and one woman as the will of the
creating God and affirmed by the incarnate Lord; act as good stewards of
creation in promoting strategies and habits that are not destructive;
and advocate for religious freedom, since God does not compel belief.
Edith M. Humphrey, PhD, is the William F. Orr Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.
V. Rev. Maxym Lysack, PhD candidate,
is pastor of Christ the Saviour Orthodox Church, Orthodox chaplain at
the University of Ottawa, a sessional lecturer at Saint Paul University
in Ottawa, and Dean of the Canadian Deanery of the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Bradley Nassif, PhD, is Professor of
Biblical and Theological Studies at North Park University (Chicago) and
Hierarchical Consultant for the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of
North America.
Rev. Anthony G. Roeber, PhD, is
attached Clergy at St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church, Johnstown, PA,
Professor of Early Modern History & Religious Studies, and
Co-Director of Max Kade German-American Research Institute at The
Pennsylvania State University.
V. Rev. Theodore G. Stylianopoulos,
ThD, is Emeritus Professor of New Testament at Holy Cross Seminary and
Protopresbyter of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
