John L. Allen Jr., June 7, 2016
The Rev. John Chryssavgis speaks at Marian University in Indianapolis, Indiana, in December 2014.
"Unity is an objective, not a given," says the Rev. John Chryssavgis, an archdeacon and theological adviser to Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. "It may be there spiritually and liturgically and sacramentally, but to make it visible is hard, painful, slow work, and it takes time."
In
a sense, the “Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church”, conceived
as a gathering of all the heads of the 14 independent Orthodox churches
around the world in Crete June 16-27, has been at least a millennium in
the making. More proximately, planning has been underway since 1961,
meaning more than a half-century.
As a result, it’s perhaps no surprise there have been a few hiccups along the way.
Recently, two of the fourteen Orthodox churches have floated
boycotting - the Bulgarians, because they’re upset over some of the
documents up for discussion and also the seating arrangements, and the
Patriarchate of Antioch, over a jurisdictional dispute involving Qatar.
On Monday, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople,
traditionally the “first among equals” in the Orthodox world, issued a
call to all Orthodox leaders to show up and to uphold rules for the
meeting agreed upon in January 2016.
According to the Rev. John Chryssavgis, the archdeacon and
theological adviser to Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, who will
serve on a drafting committee for the council’s final message, the
summit is going ahead no matter what.
“The council is still on,” Chryssavgis told Crux in a June 6
interview, just ahead of his departure for Crete. “If one or more
churches don’t attend, all the decisions made will still hold and be
binding for all Orthodox churches.”
While conceding there are probably “more differences than
similarities” between the Great Council and the Second Vatican Council,
Chryssavgis said he hopes the council in Crete may have an impact on
Orthodoxy similar to that of Vatican II on Catholicism - especially, he
said, in the press for unity, within Orthodoxy and also with other
churches and the wider world.
“Unity is an objective, not a given. It’s something we aspire to,”
Chryssavgis said. “It may be there spiritually and liturgically and
sacramentally, but to make it visible is hard, painful, and slow work,
all of which takes time.”
On other fronts, Chryssavgis said:
- Relations with the Catholic Church remain a contentious issue within some Orthodox churches, with some worrying that a leader who meets a pope is “bargaining away or betraying” the faith.
- Orthodox observers have been as struck by the bonhomie among Bartholomew and Francis as Catholics – they too, he said, sometimes joke the two men seem like “BFF’s” – and added he doesn’t believe it’s an accident these two leaders are heading their churches at the same time.
- Echoing Pope Francis when he recently met the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Chryssavgis agreed that when it comes to the pan-Orthodox council, “the meeting is the message.”
Crux spoke to Chryssavgis, a prolific theologian and essayist
born in Australia and now a clergyman of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
of America, by phone on June 6. The following are excerpts from that
conversation.
Crux: Is the council still on?
Chryssavgis: The council is still on. I don’t know that there was ever a question it wouldn’t be.
In 1992, the Ecumenical Patriarch established a meeting of all
the primates of the 14 Orthodox churches, the latest of which was in
January 2016, where the rules and documents for the council were adopted
by all. This morning, the Ecumenical Patriarchate met in an
extraordinary session of the synod and decided that all the various
concerns and complaints, including Bulgaria’s withdrawal, are not based
on procedural errors or oversights, and therefore the decisions taken in
January 2016 need to be maintained.
If one or more churches doesn’t participate, does that change the theological or ecclesiological status of the council?
The simple answer is no … If one or more churches doesn’t attend, or
withdraws during the council, or is not present and doesn’t vote, all
the decisions made will still hold and be binding for all Orthodox
churches. A Great Council is above and beyond any individual church
council or synod … and it remains such even without the participation of
one or more church.
Certainly if somebody’s missing, it’s a vacuum we will feel, and
we’ll be very, very sorry. I think it will have an impact not just on
the council, but also on the church that chooses not to come … If a
church chooses to withdraw and not attend, I think it would be a sad
reflection of the self-marginalization of that church.
What do you expect to be the big issues?
Keep in mind the purpose of a council, its goal, which is unity.
Unity is an objective, not a given. It’s something we aspire to. It may
be there spiritually and liturgically and sacramentally, but to make it
visible is hard, painful and slow work, all of which take time. Unity
comes at the end of the council, not before. It is a consequence, not a
condition.
For instance, ecumenical relations with other Christians are taken
for granted in the Ecumenical Patriarchate [of Constantinople], but not
always in other Orthodox churches. Over the last 50 years we’ve become
close with the Catholic Church, and we’ve had tremendous collegial
relations with Pope Francis. Those gestures and movements are natural
for us, but they’re not necessarily reflective of where the whole
Orthodox Church lies.
This council can be crucial in bringing some sort of a unified
response, some guidelines in this response, like the Second Vatican
Council did for Catholicism. There are probably more differences than
similarities between this council and Vatican II, but it could have
something like the same impact.
Other issues include, what happens when an Orthodox marries a
non-Orthodox Christian, such as a Catholic or Protestant partner? What
does it mean for Orthodoxy to be in conversation, both culturally and in
terms of the faith, with Judaism and Islam?
Also, what does it mean for the Orthodox Church to function as a
united church, as one church, in the diaspora, for instance in the
United States, Western Europe, and elsewhere? In the States, we have all
14 autocephalous churches represented . . . and then some. Do we
minister just to our own national group, or to the Orthodox faithful
altogether?
Is there a prophetic word we can offer together about our
relationship with the rest of the world, including the challenges of the
contemporary world, whether these are social, economic, military, or
environmental?
Another question is the autonomy of Orthodox churches, and who
recognizes someone’s autonomy? In general, the idea is to move towards a
more transparent and less political way of putting issues on the table.
How do you do that when there are obvious internal tensions?
Unity doesn’t just mean the Orthodox churches among themselves, but
also taking a step towards greater unity even within the individual
Orthodox churches.
There are differences, for instance, within the Church of Greece,
where some elements are more and others less ecumenical. In the Church
of Russia, Patriarch Kirill and Metropolitan Hilarion are very open to
other churches, they’re always at the Vatican or the World Council of
Churches, but their own church has conservative voices very critical of
Kirill’s meeting with Pope Francis.
These are issues the council can help smooth out, resolving the fears
and suspicions that when the Ecumenical Patriarch, for instance, meets
the pope, he’s bargaining away or betraying the Orthodox faith. These
issues aren’t just inter-Orthodox, but also intra-Orthodox.
We’re meeting precisely because we have differences. If there were no differences, what would be the point?
Where do you think the last-minute jitters come from?
I think what we’re seeing is the typical response of a family that
hasn’t gotten together in a long time. When family members come together
after a long period of separation and isolation, people are naturally
going to wonder, “What will I say to so-and-so? Where will I be sitting?
Do people care about my concerns?” Some are going to be afraid their
interests will be overlooked.
We have differences that have built up over 1200 years. We’ve been
through hundreds of years of persecution under the Ottomans, a hundred
years of Soviet oppression, we’re still experiencing persecution and
oppression today, as well a refugee crisis, in regions where the
Orthodox Church is at home and has been for hundreds of years living
side by side with our Muslim brothers and sisters.
All that, and more, creates tensions we have to talk about.
The Orthodox Church preaches that the council is its gut, its heart,
its very identity; conciliarity is in our DNA. But we need to prove it,
we need to come together and sit around the same table. I hope this is
the beginning of many more councils. In the end, the main achievement
will be the meeting itself.
You agree then with Pope Francis, who recently had a
get-together with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar and said, “The meeting is
the message?”
I undoubtedly agree with that in this case, and it’s certainly been
the conviction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which has worked to
realize this dream for 100 years. The idea is to move together in the
church. The Greek work for a council is “synodos,” meaning being on the
same journey; and the first step to be on the same journey is to take a
step together.
The entire structure of the Orthodox Church is founded on the
principle of conciliarity. Without it, something may look like an
Orthodox church and may hold to certain Orthodox doctrines and
practices, but it’s not Orthodox. It’s only in council that the Orthodox
Church is true to its identity, faithful to what it’s supposed to be.
It’s also important to remember that the time after the council will
be just as crucial as the event itself, because it’s the period of
reception. No rule or structure in the Orthodox Church comes from the
top down. It’s the conscience of the faithful, the Church itself at
large, which is the ultimate protector and guarantor of Orthodox truth
and doctrine.
You’re involved in ecumenical dialogue with the Catholic Church. Does Pope Francis bring something special to it?
I think what Pope Francis brings to the table, which parallels the
theological interests of our Patriarch, is a more human face. He
understands our two churches can bring much more to the world together
in terms of offering hope to the suffering people. By offering a joint
voice to a world that’s divided and in pain, we can be much more
effective and positive.
When Francis and Bartholomew recently met on [the Greek island of]
Lesbos, it was hugely significant and symbolical. There are so many
refugees there who literally risk their lives trying to get to
civilization and freedom, and their presence there together threw a huge
spotlight on the crisis, offering an ethical reminder of how we should
be responding.
When they placed a wreath together in the sea, it was a very meaningful expression of unity.
Did you know that in Rome, we jokingly say that Bartholomew is Francis’s “BFF”?
Yes, that’s made the rounds in Orthodox circles as well!
Remember that Patriarch Bartholomew was present at the pope’s
inaugural Mass, which was the first time that ever happened in history.
There have, in fact, been times in the past when a pope was present in
Constantinople for the change of a patriarch, but still never attended.
When asked why he went, Patriarch Bartholomew said he felt there’s
something different about this man, and he had to be there.
I don’t think it’s by chance that these two people are the leaders of
their respective churches at this moment in time. I don’t believe
that’s a coincidence.